Confirmed: HQL Needed to Take Possession of Handgun After September 30

fightinbluhen51 · Aug 8, 2013

Robert said:
You think this news is bad, wait until it takes 6 month to get our "HQL".

Can you say TRO? I can. What will be the difference between dealers releasing per the law on Sep 30 vs needing a HQL on Oct 2.

Courts are going to have to square with a very vast deprivation of rights with folks who have been screwed by dealers, MSP, and the bad bill.

govwontletmebuycoolguns · Aug 8, 2013

Waffenbesitzkarte. Nothing more.

Mr H · Aug 8, 2013

Threeband said:
I think a lot of people are going to be delayed well into 2014.

I see potential for a BIG lawsuit.

I see a lot of pissed off, re-energized voters going into the 2014 elections.

I think hubris and stupidity have led "those people" to make huge, blundersome miscalculatifications. Hope so, anyway.

I will be sending out some selected emails tomorrow to several Dels and Sens, looking for some real answers.

I continue to recommend that people stay in contact with their (and key) reps throughout the year.

2014

fightinbluhen51 · Aug 8, 2013

Publius said:
If this HQL requirement stands pretty much all handguns sold after 5/20/13, and that are stashed in stores waiting for an ND, will now have to wait also for an HQL. This will make the pathetic delays untenable, therefore easier to defeat in court. A judge needs to make Maryland FFL's the POC for handguns purchases TODAY. Can't someone, based on this letter alone, already go to court?

I don't see how that isn't an ex post facto law. It's the fault of the state and dealer for not releasing per the law...there will be thousands with standing for suit on 10/2...the NRA can take its pick! Almost makes me want to buy a lower from a dealer that will deprive me of my rights just to be part to a suit.

fightinbluhen51 · Aug 8, 2013

zoostation said:
I hate to say "I told you so" but...........

If there is any good to be seen in this, at least it's possible that this additional outrageous denial of accessibility to a constitutional right might be enough to tip the balance in favor of an injunction.

Robert said:
I think if an injunction was granted it would be so short lived to be almost meaningless.

zoostation said:
I don't think so. I actually think we have a very good chance for an injunction lasting several months. I don't think we have much hope of getting the law overturned in the courts in the long run, but an injunction for three to six months should be do-able. But that's just my opinion.

We want a temporary restraining order on the HQL garbage until the case can be heard. Like I said above...what will be the difference between folks receiving their arms from dealers who release it to them on sep 30 and ones who don't get to them until oct 2? Absolutely nothing other than "legislative intent."

MD is acting very boldly. I just hope the court can't square with severability.

dblas · Aug 8, 2013

miles71 said:
But not everyone needs an HQL right? Aren't there exceptions like already owning a gun, being LEO, being a firearms instructor, etc?

TD

HQL Exemptions:

LEOs
Career Retired Military
Active Duty Military
Firearms Manufacturers

HQL Training Exemptions:

DNR Hunter Safety Course
Qualified Handgun Instructor
Honorably Discharged from Active Duty Military or National Guard
Armored car company employee with a work related CCW
Lawfully owns a regulated firearm

fightinbluhen51 · Aug 8, 2013

dblas said:
HQL Exemptions:

LEOs
Career Retired Military
Active Duty Military
Firearms Manufacturers

HQL Training Exemptions:

DNR Hunter Safety Course
Qualified Handgun Instructor
Honorably Discharged from Active Duty Military or National Guard
Armored car company employee with a work related CCW
Lawfully owns a regulated firearm

Titles of nobility...the Constitution expressly prohibits this.

Brooklyn · Aug 8, 2013

Robert said:
You think this news is bad, wait until it takes 6 month to get our "HQL".

Its good

For our case.

and to piss off people in time for 2014.

Strange times require out of the box thinking ..

we need everybody as pissed off as we have been for over a year.....

28Shooter · Aug 8, 2013

Outrageous! Our founding fathers might call this an egregious usurpation of the rights of the citizenry but our current leaders would call it "common sense" gun legislation. Remember Those People Next Election Day!

Mr H · Aug 8, 2013

fightinbluhen51 said:
I don't see how that isn't an ex post facto law. It's the fault of the state and dealer for not releasing per the law...there will be thousands with standing for suit on 10/2...the NRA can take its pick! Almost makes me want to buy a lower from a dealer that will deprive me of my rights just to be part to a suit.

this was my wife's question as well...

waiting for the lawyers to chime in, as I know there are very specific conditions but danged if I can remember it all right now

fightinbluhen51 · Aug 8, 2013

mr h said:
this was my wife's question as well...

waiting for the lawyers to chime in, as I know there are very specific conditions but danged if I can remember it all right now

The question I suppose is what constitutes the act of purchase? Is it possession? Is it the purchase order? What does the law say?

The legislature can't be absent upon its intent with regards to these issues (of course they never foresaw the law of unintended consequences) and the AG opine your half subject under one part of the law and half under the old law.

"MD...we just make shit up as we go along."

Brooklyn · Aug 8, 2013

gprimr1 said:
The HQL will be hard to defeat; but if the HQL is used as a way to impose a total ban on handgun ownership, it should be easy to at least stay.

An HQL is not hard to beat, if we get IS or better standard of review. Proof that it can lead to a total ban will help encourage the court to set standards that will prevent a back door ban.

Fingerprints will also be an issue --- let let this one take its course and not get all flustered, our chances are better than ever now that It looks like a total ban may occur --- some pain now , but much gain later.

"We fear a defacto ban" is now become " the government has engineered, knowingly, at total ban in open defiance of this court " ---

have a BIT of faith --- we can always worry later...

dblas · Aug 8, 2013

Robert said:
The NRA (or any organization for that matter) isn't going to be able to do squat about these laws for a looong loooong loooooong time; if ever.

Oct 2, 2013 isn't that far away, and neither is a court challenge.

Brooklyn · Aug 8, 2013

gprimr1 said:
It will be the NRA leading the lawsuit. MSI and AGC don't have the funds and resources to take the lawsuit to the Supreme Court.

Originally, we needed to wait until the law took effect; with this new information, an injunction may now be an option.

Previously there had been no practical option for an injunction, this may be a game changer.

+1
Perhaps, but I am sure it did not surprise the legal team ---Those in the know must keep silent, but, folks,I have meet some of these guys,as have many here, and they know what they are doing .... really. Have faith ...

They will fight . We will fight ... Just save some coin we may need it.

fabsroman · Aug 8, 2013

mr h said:
this was my wife's question as well...

waiting for the lawyers to chime in, as I know there are very specific conditions but danged if I can remember it all right now

The state really is NOT the one causing the problem here. The state has already given dealers the green light to release. The problem is entirely between the dealer and the buyer at this point. If the dealer refuses to release until the ND comes back post October, I think there is some pretty good grounds for a lawsuit against the dealer for the costs to obtain the HQL. Thing is, there must be ambiguity between the dealer and the buyer as to when the gun would be released. If the buyer knew going into it that the gun would NOT be released until an ND came along, then that is the buyer's fault. Lots of people knew about this back in May. I knew about this back then and was talking to my FFL about it before the lawsuit was even close to being settled. Some dealers were releasing prior to the ND back then. My stipulation to him when I picked up my first gun from him was that the rest of the handguns be transferred to me before October 1, 2013. He could take all the time he wanted in getting them to me as long as they came before October 1, 2013. Needless to say, I have all of them and he has been great to deal with. I have referred my brother in-law, sister, and brother to him and will probably send a couple more his way before October 1, 2013.

Really tough to blame the state when the dealers can release but refuse to do so of their own accord. Now, come October 1, 2013 when a HQL is needed, there might be an issue if people cannot obtain the HQL on or extremely close to October 1, 2013. At that point, it becomes entirely the state's fault and no longer the dealers.

So, those of you at a dealer not releasing until a ND comes back, look at your contract and see if there is a way to get out of it and/or if it stipulates that the firearm will NOT be released prior to a ND coming back. I have been harping about this for a month now, but everybody thinks I am trying to beat up on the dealers. Can only imagine the backlash the Bass Pro Shop is going to receive from this with 1,000+ handguns in the backroom and them still selling without telling people they will most likely need a HQL to pick up the handgun by the time the ND comes back. That one could very well be a class action lawsuit.

fabsroman · Aug 8, 2013

Verbotene said:
Awesome. This well-and-truly f*cks several people I know.

So... It's our fault all of you (our supreme leaders) are incompetent jackoffs. Great.

lol - I don't proclaim to be a supreme leader, but I have been preaching that you MUST get these things in your hands before October 1, 2013. Think I have been saying that since mid May. If you think that the Supreme Leaders can just change the law willy nilly, then you have no idea how it works. If it wasn't for the Supreme Leaders, SB281 would have been a lot worse and you would have a lot fewer dealers releasing prior to a ND.

How about you apply for Supreme Leader status and see what you can do about all this.

Lastly, did you and your friends vote in the last election?

fabsroman · Aug 8, 2013

chillman said:
"It is my VIEW that they MAY not" sure doesnt sound like an official statement to me.

That is lawyer speak. We never say anything with 100% certainty because the Court might decide otherwise. Essentially, that is the position the AG's office is taking on this matter, whether it be correct or not.

Brooklyn · Aug 8, 2013

fabsroman said:
lol - I don't proclaim to be a supreme leader, but I have been preaching that you MUST get these things in your hands before October 1, 2013. Think I have been saying that since mid May. If you think that the Supreme Leaders can just change the law willy nilly, then you have no idea how it works. If it wasn't for the Supreme Leaders, SB281 would have been a lot worse and you would have a lot fewer dealers releasing prior to a ND.

How about you apply for Supreme Leader status and see what you can do about all this.

Lastly, did you and your friends vote in the last election?

hey I am not sure who he was referring to with that supreme leader stuff I may have been a swipe at the politicians--- as in they can write a law clearly and the transfer are taking forever....

but i could be wrong

EHS1976 · Aug 8, 2013

fabsroman said:
The state really is NOT the one causing the problem here. The state has already given dealers the green light to release. The problem is entirely between the dealer and the buyer at this point. If the dealer refuses to release until the ND comes back post October, I think there is some pretty good grounds for a lawsuit against the dealer for the costs to obtain the HQL. Thing is, there must be ambiguity between the dealer and the buyer as to when the gun would be released. If the buyer knew going into it that the gun would NOT be released until an ND came along, then that is the buyer's fault. Lots of people knew about this back in May. I knew about this back then and was talking to my FFL about it before the lawsuit was even close to being settled. Some dealers were releasing prior to the ND back then. My stipulation to him when I picked up my first gun from him was that the rest of the handguns be transferred to me before October 1, 2013. He could take all the time he wanted in getting them to me as long as they came before October 1, 2013. Needless to say, I have all of them and he has been great to deal with. I have referred my brother in-law, sister, and brother to him and will probably send a couple more his way before October 1, 2013.

Really tough to blame the state when the dealers can release but refuse to do so of their own accord. Now, come October 1, 2013 when a HQL is needed, there might be an issue if people cannot obtain the HQL on or extremely close to October 1, 2013. At that point, it becomes entirely the state's fault and no longer the dealers.

So, those of you at a dealer not releasing until a ND comes back, look at your contract and see if there is a way to get out of it and/or if it stipulates that the firearm will NOT be released prior to a ND coming back. I have been harping about this for a month now, but everybody thinks I am trying to beat up on the dealers. Can only imagine the backlash the Bass Pro Shop is going to receive from this with 1,000+ handguns in the backroom and them still selling without telling people they will most likely need a HQL to pick up the handgun by the time the ND comes back. That one could very well be a class action lawsuit.

Per other MDS threads, BassPro has started to release without an ND. BassPro starting to release without an ND coupled with the official HQL confirmation probably creates incentive for a few more dealers to release timely.

fabsroman · Aug 8, 2013

47petey said:
First ever post...from Baltimore...but this got me especially p'd off.

What if people in the squeeze went to their FFL's (those not releasing on time) and said: I'll take possession of the gun then give it right back to you so your gunsmith, etc. can have a look at it. That way, you've taken possession, but they have no fear of letting some bad guy out on the street with a weapon. You still might have some FFL's who say NO, but some might say yes. Then, you've got legal possession (and avoid HQL) but they aren't risking an armed (should be declined) idiot walking out the door.

Just need to sign off on the Form 77r stating that you took possession of the firearm on or before October 1, 2013. Of course, dealers could get themselves in a bind here too because they technically have to release the firearm to you and somebody could demand that the firearm be returned to them right afterward. This one could be tricky.

Confirmed: HQL Needed to Take Possession of Handgun After September 30

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Banana'd

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

Past President, MSI

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

I stand with John Locke.

Ultimate Member

Banana'd

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

I stand with John Locke.

Past President, MSI

I stand with John Locke.

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

I stand with John Locke.

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics