Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Firearms Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sen. Love defends bill banning 'machine‑gun convertible' pistols; senators seek amendments
Summary
Senate floor debate on SB334 focused on a provision to ban 'machine‑gun convertible' pistols by design starting Jan. 1, 2027. Sponsor Sen. Love called it a "common‑sense design regulation," while the minority whip raised concerns the language could sweep in commonly owned handguns; the bill was laid over for amendment.
Senator Love, sponsor of Senate Bill 334, told the Maryland Senate that the bill would prohibit "manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, purchasing, receiving, or transferring a machine gun convertible pistol beginning 01/01/2027," while preserving specified exemptions and directing the Department of State Police to adopt implementing regulations.
"This is really a common‑sense design regulation," Senator Love said, arguing the measure targets a narrowly defined cruciform trigger‑bar design that is "readily convertible by common household tools" into an automatic‑fire device.
The Minority Whip questioned whether the bill's definitions risked criminalizing widely owned semiautomatic handguns. "I don't think we want people having automatic weapons have a restriction, long standing restriction. Can you explain to me though how everything we're making more illegal in this is not already illegal and why we need this bill?" the Minority Whip asked, voicing concern that the language could sweep in otherwise lawful firearms.
Senator Love responded that the bill is aimed at a specific component — a cruciform trigger bar — and at pistols "that are easily convertible into a machine gun using common household tools," asserting the committee heard testimony from law enforcement about the devices.
Members also reviewed three committee amendments that adjust definitions and exceptions. After extended questioning and requests for time to consider possible changes, senators agreed to lay the bill over under the rule so sponsors and critics can refine amendments and return the measure for further floor consideration.
The bill was not voted on for final passage; the motion on the floor was to lay the bill over for further work.
