Gratuitous loan question

It might be legal but it might be a long time and a lot of hassle before you get your gun back.

teratos said:

Can I loan an non-HBAR AR to a friend?

Click to expand...

Four pages, and no one noticed the obvious trick question?

As my Exasperatingly Obnoxious brother would have said icily, "You can, but you may not."




Meanwhile, why didn't you lend him an M1 Carbine or an SKS?

Threeband said:

Four pages, and no one noticed the obvious trick question?

Click to expand...

I noticed it right away with the OP, hence my first post to the subject.

Threeband said:

Four pages, and no one noticed the obvious trick question?

As my Exasperatingly Obnoxious brother would have said icily, "You can, but you may not."
View attachment 149696



Meanwhile, why didn't you lend him an M1 Carbine or an SKS?

Click to expand...

^thank you^

Or, you could but, you mightn't?

teratos said:

Retired, career army.

Click to expand...

This is a risk. As amended by SB 281, Section 4-303 of the MD Criminal Code states that a person may not "possess, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, or receive an assault weapon." These provisions are disjunctive! There is an exemption if you owned it prior to Oct. 1, 2013, but the recipient of your AR post-October 1, 2013, might still be deemed to have "received" it or "possessed" it within the meaning of this statutory provision, particularly if he takes it home and is thus outside your immediate presence (a loan)

I know, of course, about the Chow case which held that temporary loan was not a "transfer" within the meaning of now 5-144 of the Public Safety Article, because a transfer means a transfer of ownership. Chow is attached if anyone wants to play lawyer and read it. Even assuming arguendo that "transfer" in 4-303 means the same thing as "transfer" as used in now-5-144 (not necessarily a safe assumption, especially where 4-303 is in the Criminal Article and 5-144 is in the Public Safety Article), a prosecutor can make the argument that that "receive" and "possess" in 4-303 are broader than "transfers" of ownership and thus distinguish Chow, especially given the underlying restrictive purposes of 4-303 in its general ban on evil black rifles. Such an argument would hardly be obviously wrong if only because "possession" is, on its face, a broader term than "transfer." Neither "possession" nor "receive" were at issue in Chow.

So , for me, this inquiry would basically turn on whether I want to bet on whether the States Attorney would want to prosecute and make that argument. I live in Montgomery County. Question asked and answered. More generally, I generally don't leave my fate in the hands of the prosecutor's discretion. Their job is to seek convictions, not judge the fairness or rationality of the statute they are enforcing. Often they are not nice people. Even if you ultimately win, you still lose (all that money for lawyers and the trauma of a trial). Remember, Chow *lost* in the trial court and in the MD intermediate court of appeals before cert was granted by the MD highest court where he finally won. Your fate may vary. Cert in the MD Court of Appeals (our highest court) is discretionary. My rule is not to loan regulated firearms. Period. Of course, I never tell people what to do here or give legal advice on these fora....

fabsroman said:

The person you loan the non-HBAR rifle to is breaking the law. No doubt about that. If said person did not possess the rifle before October 1, 2013, then they are violating the law because they were not grandfathered.

I'm going to loan mine to some people I don't like and then call the police.

Of course, if they are smart and they know they are going down, they might as well take me with them and say that I sold them the firearm. Then I need to hire an attorney. Makes for a bad week, month, and year. Sheez.

Click to expand...

And the likelihood is high that *IF* the recipient is violating 4-303 for receiving or possessing the AR, then the donor (or loaner) will be charged with aiding and abetting that violation.