If you own a gun or are thinking about purchasing a gun in Maryland then you should apply to be a Designated Firearms Collector even if you don't consider yourself a collector. Personally, I received my designated collector's letter before I bought my first firearm. So, don't think you need a collection first before applying for it. There are several reasons why you should get it:
1. Firearm Purchases
In Maryland it is illegal to purchase more than one regulated firearm in a 30-day period, unless you are a designated collector. By becoming a Designated Collector (DC) it removes the one gun every 30-days limitation. Even if you don't think that you have the need to purchase a gun more frequently than that it's nice to have the option. Personally, I never thought I'd run into this problem, until I did. I had a friend that was selling a pair of handguns and had I not already had my DC then I wouldn't have been able to get a really good deal on the pair of them and missed out on the sale entirely.
Transport a firearm to and from a licensed FFL for purchase or repair
Transport a firearm to and from a legal activity like hunting, or shooting at a gun range
Transport a firearm between residences, i.e. moving
Transport a firearm to and from a business that you are the substantial owner of
Legally speaking you are not allowed to have a gun in your car for any other purpose. One of the biggest benefits of the DC designation is that it legally allows you to transport a firearm for an additional reason, private exhibitions.
The moving by a bona fide gun collector of part or all of the collector’s gun collection from place to place for public or private exhibition if each handgun is unloaded and carried in an enclosed case or an enclosed holster.
What's nice about this is that you can legally claim that you are transporting a gun for a 'private exhibition' simply because you are transporting it to a friends house to show it to them. This gives you a lot more latitude with when you can keep a gun in your car and a legal reason for doing so. 3. It's Free
It's free and never expires. The only cost involved in the process is the cost of the stamp to mail it to the MSP. Everything about owning guns is expensive, it's nice that there is one thing that really is free and relatively easy to get (since this is not the case with pretty much everything else). Fill out one sheet of paper and mail it to the Maryland State Police Licensing Division and several months later you should get your designated collectors letter in the mail. A sample copy of the letter is at the top of this post. Don't think you can use this one though because the MSP keeps on file who has a DC. You don't even need to bring it with you when you fill out purchase paperwork, its just a question you answer yes to on the purchase application.
Once you receive this letter it's good for life, there is no application fee and no renewal process, so why not just get it! Plus, who doesn't like being a bona fide gun collector as the law puts it. It's also nice to get a letter that says APPROVED instead of Not Disapproved. More on that in another post.
Nature of Collecting Activities Question
On the application there is question that people have questioned about what the 'right' answer is. You are asked to "describe nature of collecting activities". When it comes to these types of forms giving a simple answer like "all lawful purposes" is entirely appropriate. You never want to pigeon hole yourself into only one type of collecting activity, especially if the law changes down the road and limitations may be imposed based on your answer.
For real, it's felony to hold handgun with two hands. At least it is if you use the ATF's new legal definition of the word redesign. What's interesting about this new legal term is that it did not require any legislator or act of congress to write a federal law even though the result can be enforced federally. The ATF simply wrote a letter, and boom, they created a new legal definition that has some major impacts. The letter the ATF wrote was in response to a lot of controversy surrounding the Sig Sauer Arm Stabilizing Brace which the ATF previously determined that by attaching it to a pistol did not change the classification of a firearm from a pistol to a rifle. In this post I'll go into the details of this legal language and how it could be applied in other firearm laws.
If you want to know more about the specifics of the ATF's letter and how it is legal to do what they have done in the American legislative system check out the following video. I'll make a separate post just on the Sig Sauer Arm Brace and legality around this topic alone. For the purpose of this post however, I want to look at the impact of this legal term and how it relates to other firearm laws.
Let's take a look at the legal definition that the ATF created. In the ATF letter they quote the original language in the NFA that has been used to make this legal determination.
The NFA, 26 USCS § 5845, defines “firearm,” in relevant part, as “a shotgun having a barrel or
barrels of less than 18 inches in length” and “a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16
inches in length.” That section defines both “rifle” and “shotgun” as “a weapon designed or
redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder….”
ATF Letter on Stabilizing Braces
Redesign
The key term here is the word redesign. In the original law this term was not legally defined, and that's an important distinction because this allowed the ATF to apply their own legal definition to the word. I would like to explicitly state that this is what the common understanding of the word redesign in context is: to physically alter the original design of a firearm so that it alters the intent of how the firearm is to be used. I think that most people would agree with this understanding and that a redesign constitutes a physical change.
The ATF on the other hand pulled their definition of redesign out of a modern day dictionary. This, in itself, is inappropriate because the law was written in 1934. They should have used a period correct dictionary if they wanted to go down this road since the meaning of language can be interpreted differently over time. I've looked at some dictionaries from this era and was unable to locate a single definition for the word redesign in dictionaries from that time period, which may be a good reason why the ATF did not do this. Period terms that are defined are words like design and the re prefix, but redesign itself is not defined. In my opinion the ATF really twists this definitions in a way that is indefensible.
The GCA does not define the term “redesign” and therefore ATF applies the common meaning.
“Redesign” is defined as “to alter the appearance or function of.” See e.g. Webster’s II New
College Dictionary, Third Ed. (2005).
The GCA that the ATF refers to is the Gun Control Act of 1968 which modified the original NFA and is the amended version of the 1934 law. See my other post about the history of the NFA and GCA. Later in the letter the ATF makes the following statement.
The pistol stabilizing brace was neither “designed” nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock,
and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor
has changed the very function of the item. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary
to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked.
The ATF's use of this definition means that by using a firearm in a manner other than the way it was originally intended constitutes a redesign. They claim that you are changing the function of the firearm by misusing it in a way than it was originally intended. That's a bit of a stretch if you ask me, but keep in mind its a law now. Check out this blog post from a lawyer on the fundamental flaws in the ATF determination. This opens up a whole slew of ways that this could be applied to other firearms laws however and lets take a look at a few. Firing a Handgun with Two Hands
First, let's look at my original comment here about it being a felony to fire a handgun with two hands. Here is the definition of a Handgun according to the GCA.
“Handgun” is defined under Federal law to mean, in part, a firearm which has a short stock and
is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand…. Gun Control Act of 1968, 18
U.S.C. § 921(a)(29)
The key part of this definition is that handguns (and pistols) are designed to be fired with one hand. The ATF has long held that attaching a vertical fore-grip to a handgun redesigns a weapon to be fired as from two hands and then classifies it as Any Other Weapon or an AOW under the NFA. You can read the ATF letter on vertical fore-grips being attached to handguns. This means that owning a handgun that is designed to be fired with two hands requires NFA registration, which under normal circumstances would not be required. This is where the ATF stands on this topic.
ATF has long held that by installing a vertical fore grip on a handgun, the handgun is no longer
designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand. Therefore, if individuals install a
vertical fore grip on a handgun, they are “making” a firearm requiring registration with ATF’s
NFA Branch. Making an unregistered “AOW” is punishable by a fine and 10 years’
imprisonment. Additionally, possession of an unregistered “AOW” is also punishable by fine and
10 years’ imprisonment.
If you apply the ATF's newly crafted word redesign to this then simply by holding a handgun with two hands you have redesigned it because you have changed the function of the firearm and are using in a way that was not intended, since handguns are designed to be fired with only one hand you are now in violation of the NFA and have reclassified the handgun as an AOW and are committing a felony with a 10-year prison sentence attached to it.
ATF Letter on Vertical Fore Grips
Vertical Fore-Grips on Handguns
Now this same logic could be used the other direction too. Suppose you constructed a handgun and attached a vertical fore-grip to it, but never used the vertical fore-grip as a second hand grip. It was merely used as a 'cosmetic feature'. Since you redesigned the function of the vertical grip to be a cosmetic feature does it no longer fall into the classification of an AOW?
Machineguns and Art
To a further extreme, if you built a functional machinegun which is an outright banned firearm but framed it and hung on your wall and called it 'art'. As long as you never actually went out and shot the firearm, you just used it as an art piece you could argue that you have redesigned it from being a machinegun to being 'art' and have changed the function of the firearm. You can see where this legal term could get into some really interesting defense arguments.
That being said, I'm not suggesting that you do any of the above because you're risking some serious jail time if you do. But, it makes you think doesn't it? In the end I think the ATF has made a major mistake by making this definition and have weakened other firearm laws because of it. I've got a strong feeling that this letter is going to come back and bite them, and hard. I also have a feeling that if they actually took someone to court over shoulder firing a pistol with an arm stabilizing brace that a judge would rule that the ATF's definition is wrong and the case would be thrown out. But, until it's challenged in court it remains law.
If you are a law maker and you make a statement about banning full-auto (or automatic) guns or use terms like military-style weapons, then you are an unqualified idiot. You don't get to make laws about firearms anymore, you need to go home and cry. You can come back and make laws about firearms after you go and buy one of these guns that you are trying to ban, because maybe then you'll actually learn something. Don't talk to me about assault weapons, because you don't know what they are. Leave gun laws to people who know something about them. Just stop, because you embarrass yourself and everyone around you.
If you are not a lawmaker, but you are calling for a ban on full-auto guns, then I can list everything you know about guns: nothing. You are an idiot. You need to go talk to someone who owns a gun and ask them questions about what it's like to be a gun owner, and they will nicely explain to you why you're an idiot.
Now that I got that out of my system, let's talk about full-auto guns. Politicians are purposefully slippery on this particular topic and the language that they use. They use words like automatic, fully-automatic, or fully-semi-automatic to try and confuse people about what guns they are talking about. If you think you can go out and walk into any gun store and buy a gun that fires more than one bullet each time you pull the trigger, you're wrong. Anyone referring to a gun with a 'high rate of fire' means they are referring to a full-auto firearm. Guns with any rate of fire are full-auto. The first thing you should know is that when politicians talk about things like assault weapons bans they are NOT talking about full-auto guns, and here is why.
National Firearms Act
Legally speaking, a full-auto firearm is classified as a machinegun. Machineguns were regulated at the highest level in 1934 under the National Firearms Act, or NFA for short. Under the NFA any firearm classified as a machinegun had a separate application process that had to be approved by the federal government. This law was designed to make it incredibly difficult to purchase certain firearms and other devices like suppressors (silencers). This law is still in effect today. The application process requires you to submit finger prints, a passport photo, an application signed by a chief law enforcement officer (local Sheriff or Police Chief), a background check, a $200 tax stamp, and an FBI Investigation. Waiting periods for this process to take place take up to a year. The $200 tax stamp was above and beyond any sales tax you'd pay for the gun and was prohibitively expensive, it's equivalent to about a $3,000 tax in today's currency. Today, there are only 12 ATF reviewers that process these applications in the entire country. Make no mistake, this law is there to prevent people from buying certain guns and it is very effective at that.
Gun Control Act of 1968
In 1968 the National Firearms Act was expanded under The Gun Control Act of 1968, or GCA. The 1968 amendment to the law added additional categories to the NFA called Destructive Devices. The Act also expanded the definition of a Machinegun to the modern day definition which is this:
Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger The frame or receiver of any such weapon Any part designed and intended solely and exclusively or combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, or
Any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.
Firearm Owners' Protection Act
In 1986 another law was passed called the Firearm Owners' Protection Act that altered the GCA and added additional provisions about silencers by making parts of the silencer equally restricted. A New Jersey lawmaker named William J. Hughes amended this with the following language, this is known as the Hughes Amendment and has been in effect since May 19th, 1986:
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun. This subsection does not apply with respect to— (A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.
This law effectively banned any new machineguns from ever being purchased again by a civilian. So, the reason why anyone calling for a full-auto ban is an idiot is because full-auto guns are already banned and have been since 1986.
In case you're still confused. This is what a real machinegun looks like:
You can read more about the history of the NFA on the ATF's website.
In the Pixar animated film Finding Nemo a clownfish named Marlin and his newly found friend Dory encounter a shark named Bruce. The terrified fish get scooped up by Bruce and taken to an AA-style meeting with a group of sharks who are dedicated to changing the image of sharks start the meeting with the slogan 'Fish are Friends, Not Food'. Even humans have been able to identify the bad rap that sharks get which is why the Discovery Channel dedicates a week of programming to them called Shark Week.
I feel the same about firearms. There are a large majority of people who do not understand firearms at all and just think they are bad, much like sharks. It's like saying that all sharks have freakin' laser beams attached to their heads and they are monstrous killing machines. The story of these sharks is where the name of this blog is derived. It takes some education for people to understand the reality of what its like to own a firearm, and it's no cake walk I assure you. It takes a lot of effort to educate others on firearm laws because the general populace don't actually know what laws currently exist.
Why I Know About Firearm Laws
I wouldn't know about all of the legality surrounding firearms if I didn't have to. It actually saddens me that I know what I do about gun laws, this knowledge comes out of necessity not desire. Most firearm laws are written by morons who don't understand guns at all. What this means is that when you get into the specifics of the laws they can be very difficult for a person who is trying to follow them legally to do so. In many cases law enforcement agencies end up interpreting what they want out of legislation which is what is actually enforced and may not be explicitly stated in the law.
The problem with this is that, as a gun owner, if you want to go look up if it's okay to purchase something and you go and read the actual law you can walk away confused and still unsure, and that is not a good thing. Furthermore, the interpretation of the law by enforcement agencies is often not published so you have to rely on anecdotal evidence by other owners to get a sense of what is actually enforced and legal. This is the main reason why I've learned a lot about certain laws over the years. Being a legal gun owner is not an easy task. I plan on individually addressing some of the nuances surrounding firearm laws so that others can understand what laws are actually in place and help debunk some of the many myths surrounding guns.
I'm Not a Lawyer
This is a disclaimer that I am going to outlay at the very beginning here. I am going to address some legal topics and address what I feel are the correct interpretation of certain laws. Because of the way some laws are worded they can be interpreted in different ways, so be careful. If you ever find yourself having to defend these positions in court using the defense of, 'some guy on the internet said it was okay' is not going to get you very far. So know, I am not a lawyer and don't come crying to me if you find a judge disagrees with me.
Stereotypical Gun Owners
Let's start with one of the first myths about guns and that is the type of people who own them. Liberal media wants you to believe that all gun owners are uneducated murdering rednecks. When I see memes like the one above on Facebook it shows an outright racist view of gun owners. Not only that, but the perception of semi-automatic guns is also false in the above statement, I'll make a separate post about 'automatic firearms' soon enough.
I represent a lot of other owners out there that do not fit into this stereotype. I am primarily a hobbyist shooter who enjoys going to the range infrequently, usually only a few times each year. I strongly believe that it is my personal right to be able to defend myself, my family, and my home. I am an engineer for an electronics manufacturer and take an engineering-style approach and understanding about guns. I have built guns from bare parts. I hand load my own ammunition. I promote gun safety, training, and education. I know a lot of other firearm owners that are just like me. So please, don't relegate the general gun-owning population to this completely inaccurate stereotype.
I'll also say that the people who have conceal and carry permits and carry guns are exactly the people who you want to have this privilege. Every conceal and carry holder I have ever met takes this as a huge responsibility and are well-trained, well-educated individuals who follow all laws like no other. Firearms Are Our Friends
In the end, there is nothing particularly dangerous about any one style of gun. Guns are tools just like a hammer or chainsaw. They have their purpose, and different guns have different purposes. Tools can be weapons too and can be used for nefarious purposes just like firearms, but that doesn't mean that just because you own one that you will misuse it and use it to harm someone.
The more people who actually understand and get educated on guns means that good legislation about them can be passed that protect the population from criminal activity while at the same time protect legal ownership. This is possible, but it requires and increased understanding by the general population to make this happen. It requires that we stop viewing guns as inherently evil and start treating them like the tools they are. Our country is founded on the idea that individual citizens have the right to protect themselves, especially when the enemy that they need protection from is their own government. This is considered a basic human right in this country only second to the right of free speech. I'm proud that I live in a country where I have that right, and I proudly exercise it legally.
