MSP: FIREARM PURCHASE APPLICANTS WITH APPLICATIONS PENDING ON OCT 1 WON'T NEED HQL

swinokur · Sep 25, 2013

MSP and the state are in a state of total disarray. I bet the advisory changes before the end of tomorrow. They admitted they can't issue them before Oct 1, so this is their attempt to try to show the court thet weren't infringing anyone's rights. Still isn't gonna work after Oct 1 because no one will be able to buy for a minimum of 30 days.

They're in deep shite and they know it.

Mike OTDP · Sep 25, 2013

I fully expect that the State will not oppose a temporary restraining order on the HQL.

ShallNotInfringe · Sep 25, 2013

occbrian said:
Also doesn't stop them from enforcing LATER. Everyone has heard about their quasi forced registration of non regulated rifles lately.

Read the release carefully. They say they aren't enforcing the law. They aren't disagreeing with the AG opinion, just they they will not enforce it.

Yep. The police agree its illegal to transfer/receive, and do not have the authority to decide which laws they will enforce.

Executive branch's role is to faithfully execute the laws. Not issue edicts about which ones they will enforce.

swinokur said:
MSP and the state are in a state of total disarray. I bet the advisory changes before the end of tomorrow. They admitted they can't issue them before Oct 1, so this is their attempt to try to show the court thet weren't infringing anyone's rights. Still isn't gonna work after Oct 1 because no one will be able to buy for a minimum of 30 days.

They're in deep shite and they know it.

Step back and think about this. Why would they do this?

They have now created a huge mess in the eleventh hour.

FFL's stocked using a previous AG opinion and the law.

People still can't make purchases from Oct 1 through whenever the MSP can push out HQL's.

A first time buyer after 10/1 has a long road to stand at the FFL counter and put in a 77R, with training being unavailable due to the regulation disaster on definition and addition of live fire 7 days prior to law going into effect.

This was NOT to avoid the lawsuit. If anything, it adds to it with the confusion being added and admitted lawlessness of the State Police.

ShallNotInfringe · Sep 25, 2013

Parrot said:
But we all cheered and clapped at the rallies when the local law enforcement said they wouldn't enforce.

Quite different, local law enforcement is accountable to the county executive and local laws. MSP is accountable to the Governor and state laws.

No one is arguing this is a constitutional law, but we lost the legislative battle. Until the court agrees, it is the state law.

Robert1955 · Sep 25, 2013

So the State passes a law with a set date for implementation (10/1) and they have 5 months or so to set in place the process to be followed, then 1 week before the law is to take effect they go OH CRAP (Thanks to Patrick and others in the face to face on 9/23) we can't issue any HQL's so we will not follow the law we passed!!!!!! By all rights they SHOULD have had the HQL process in place by 9/1 so you could have your HQL in-hand on 10/1. Putting on my :tinfoil2:

I just wonder if they can really get away with IGNORING the law like this. As much as we all hate this POS it explicitly covers Transferring a purchased pistol as of 10/1 no matter if you PURCHASED it on 7/1. This not a matter that is grey in the least, it is spelled out clearly in the new law unlike the current 30 days between a purchase that they, mistakenly IMHO, are interpreting as 30 days from your last pickup Can they be charged with a crime for issuing the "Advisory" saying they will be ignoring a law?

Robert · Sep 25, 2013

ShallNotInfringe said:
Yep. The police agree its illegal to transfer/receive, and do not have the authority to decide which laws they will enforce.

Executive branch's role is to faithfully execute the laws. Not issue edicts about which ones they will enforce.

Step back and think about this. Why would they do this?

They have now created a huge mess in the eleventh hour.

FFL's stocked using a previous AG opinion and the law.

People still can't make purchases from Oct 1 through whenever the MSP can push out HQL's.

A first time buyer after 10/1 has a long road to stand at the FFL counter and put in a 77R, with training being unavailable due to the regulation disaster on definition and addition of live fire 7 days prior to law going into effect.

This was NOT to avoid the lawsuit. If anything, it adds to it with the confusion being added and admitted lawlessness of the State Police.

I disagree, I think it's an attempt to lesson the ramifications of a lawsuit. I'm not disagreeing that they made a bigger mess of it..

Parrot · Sep 25, 2013

ShallNotInfringe said:
Quite different, local law enforcement is accountable to the county executive and local laws. MSP is accountable to the Governor and state laws.

No one is arguing this is a constitutional law, but we lost the legislative battle. Until the court agrees, it is the state law.

Not at all, local law enforcement enforces the same laws. Get pulled over and tell me what happens.

Blacksmith101 · Sep 25, 2013

swinokur said:
MSP and the state are in a state of total disarray. I bet the advisory changes before the end of tomorrow. They admitted they can't issue them before Oct 1, so this is their attempt to try to show the court thet weren't infringing anyone's rights. Still isn't gonna work after Oct 1 because no one will be able to buy for a minimum of 30 days.

They're in deep shite and they know it.

I don't think they will come out with yet another change. There is the principle that when you find your self in the bottom of a hole the first thing to do is stop digging. Of course they could be so stupid as to think they will just dig themselves out.
:omg:

ShallNotInfringe · Sep 25, 2013

Robert said:
I disagree, I think it's an attempt to lesson the ramifications of a lawsuit. I'm not disagreeing that they made a bigger mess of it..

Who knows why they did this? All I know is this move doesn't prevent a court case. There is plenty of fodder for a case. A few span purchasers (in the grand scheme of things, since most people planned accordingly based on the prior guidance) aren't going to make a huge difference.

There is more to this move.

Mr Bear · Sep 25, 2013

pilotguy299 said:
If you were to look at this from a non-subjective point of view, without any knowledge of the "discussions" and went solely by the text of the law, would anyone come to the conclusion that it was legal to receive a handgun post Oct 1 without having a HQL or one of the exceptions listed in the written law?

This is an example of where "assumed intent" is not in line with what was written and turned in to law.

Another case in point would be Dumais' comments regarding the new live fire requirement for the HQL. What may have been intended was not what ended up in print in SB 281.

ShallNotInfringe · Sep 25, 2013

Parrot said:
Not at all, local law enforcement enforces the same laws. Get pulled over and tell me what happens.

Yeah. Sorry. It's different, they could come out against it without (obvious) repercussion. Harder to do against your boss.

Sheriffs are another story and should stand strong against unconstitutional laws.

XCheckR · Sep 25, 2013

What about precedence...if they allow things to go on after Oct 1, does it make it harder for them to enforce later?

Mr Bear · Sep 25, 2013

'key factor: MOM has been VERY quiet in all of this since the entire 77r fiasco.'

Just like other political & public figures are quiet when situations go against their "public" messages, they will not step up to the plate to accept responsibility when they're wrong.

It's nothing new. The sad part is they believe their silence keeps them out of the limelight when it actually does the opposite. The public are not total idiots.

Inigoes · Sep 25, 2013

XCheckR said:
What about precedence...if they allow things to go on after Oct 1, does it make it harder for them to enforce later?

That is the thing, the Maryland State Police are picking and choosing which laws they will enforce.

Who gave them that power to decide over what is best for us? It is not their job!

ShallNotInfringe · Sep 25, 2013

Mr Bear said:
'key factor: MOM has been VERY quiet in all of this since the entire 77r fiasco.'

Just like other political & public figures are quiet when situations go against their "public" messages, they will not step up to the plate to accept responsibility when they're wrong.

It's nothing new. The sad part is they believe their silence keeps them out of the limelight when it actually does the opposite. The public are not total idiots.

Should we start calling his office to request a statement? He signed the law. He has not called a special session. His law enforcement arm is defying the law.

MigraineMan · Sep 25, 2013

But we all cheered and clapped at the rallies when the local law enforcement said they wouldn't enforce.

There's a huge difference between the local Sherrifs saying "we swore to uphold the Constitution of the US, and we won't enforce this unconstitutional law" and the MSP saying "we won't enforce this law because we're under-staffed, don't have a consistent interpretation, and want to avoid future lawsuits."

Beyond that, I really don't think MSP's promise that they won't enforce the HQL reuirement is worth the paper it's not printed on. The police can lie, or mis-speak, or claim that So-and So wasn't in a position to issue that statement, and claim said statement is non-binding on MSP. The MSP can get their weenie whacked by the courts, and be told "enforce the law as written," at which point I would expect them to go retrieve the firearms transferred without HQLs and hold them until the recipient does have a HQL. They might even prosecute the recipients, as the recipients would have been inviolation of the law - transfer of a regulated firearm without a HQL. Note that the MSP's promise of non-enforcement doesn't change *your* status with respect to violating the law.

Me? I wouldn't receive a regulated firearm after 10/1 without a HQL, regardless of how inconvenient that may be.

mvee · Sep 25, 2013

I wonder what the ATF would say about release against the law as written.

Ranchero50 · Sep 25, 2013

ShallNotInfringe said:
Quite different, local law enforcement is accountable to the county executive and local laws. MSP is accountable to the Governor and state laws.

No one is arguing this is a constitutional law, but we lost the legislative battle. Until the court agrees, it is the state law.

Actually I think we won the legislative battle. :innocent0

By them ignoring how bad the bill was and not fixing the details so it would actually work like it was intended to, they are going to lose the court cases. Their arrogance is going to bite them pretty hard.

I too suspect a legal 'stay' for the HQL will get support from MSP if not the Gov's office. I think yesterdays announcement is a stopgap until 10/1 when the lawsuits can be filed and the stay applied for.

kalister1 · Sep 25, 2013

Parrot said:
Read what I wrote, maybe slower this time. Never said anything about repercussions, only that law enforcement can pick and choose what they will/won't enforce.

So MSP can just decide that MURDER is OK in MD? They do not answer to anybody?
A Trooper deciding who gets a ticket is not the same as the MSP making a blanket statement that there are no speed limits in MD.

Parrot · Sep 25, 2013

MigraineMan said:
There's a huge difference between the local Sherrifs saying "we swore to uphold the Constitution of the US, and we won't enforce this unconstitutional law" and the MSP saying "we won't enforce this law because we're under-staffed, don't have a consistent interpretation, and want to avoid future lawsuits."

Beyond that, I really don't think MSP's promise that they won't enforce the HQL reuirement is worth the paper it's not printed on. The police can lie, or mis-speak, or claim that So-and So wasn't in a position to issue that statement, and claim said statement is non-binding on MSP. The MSP can get their weenie whacked by the courts, and be told "enforce the law as written," at which point I would expect them to go retrieve the firearms transferred without HQLs and hold them until the recipient does have a HQL. They might even prosecute the recipients, as the recipients would have been inviolation of the law - transfer of a regulated firearm without a HQL. Note that the MSP's promise of non-enforcement doesn't change *your* status with respect to violating the law.

Me? I wouldn't receive a regulated firearm after 10/1 without a HQL, regardless of how inconvenient that may be.

Be on the look out for "HQL" checkpoints!

MSP: FIREARM PURCHASE APPLICANTS WITH APPLICATIONS PENDING ON OCT 1 WON'T NEED HQL

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

Lil Firecracker

Lil Firecracker

Ultimate Member

Having Fun Yet?

Member

Grumpy Old Man

Lil Firecracker

Ultimate Member

Lil Firecracker

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

Lil Firecracker

Defenestration Specialist

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

R.I.P.

Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics