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

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • fabsroman

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 14, 2009
    35,852
    Winfield/Taylorsville in Carroll
    The only people who are effected by the STATE "HQL" are the people who purchase a regulated weapon within 8 days of the new law. By law, anyone who purchases a Regulated Firearm 10 days before the new law can take their property home.

    I agree completely. The new law only affects purchases from September 21, 2013 forward. With all the other purchases prior to that date, it is the dealers/FFLs that are the problem, not the state.
     

    ECPDefense

    Active Member
    Jun 30, 2010
    161
    Cecil-Tucky
    No problem, what form(s) (in triplicate) do I need to fill out and where do I go for fingerprinting?







    Oh, yeah. Never mind.

    Exactly the point! So for each day they don't have an application/process available to be filled out, 30 days in advance, they should push back the date that a HQL is required.
     

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    I agree completely. The new law only affects purchases from September 21, 2013 forward. With all the other purchases prior to that date, it is the dealers/FFLs that are the problem, not the state.

    To simplistic --- they are refusing to help guard the public safety, a chief objective of the law, and presumptive duty of the MSP, by not allowing FFLs to do a NICS check. There may be a federal challenge to this.

    The market will deal with the dealers -- who will rain in the state ?
     

    Mr H

    Banana'd
    So will MSP still insist on 17 database checks even after you have a HQL? More delays?If so, what's the point of the HQL?

    You know as well as I, that these are positions MSP, AV, and the Admin are taking to delay the acquisition of firearms, period.

    They are working within the framework that resulted from SB281, and taking every advantage they can.

    Some of it is obviously illegal, some more may well be... but when they are their own legal team, they're not out anything to drag this out through the courts.

    Thing is, it may have become a game of "Chicken", with the collision due on 10/1. This is why I've been so adamant that people need to show they are ready to stand behind their rights, instead of hide behind them.
     

    fabsroman

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 14, 2009
    35,852
    Winfield/Taylorsville in Carroll
    To simplistic --- they are refusing to help guard the public safety, a chief objective of the law, and presumptive duty of the MSP, by not allowing FFLs to do a NICS check. There may be a federal challenge to this.

    The market will deal with the dealers -- who will rain in the state ?

    They are already doing two NICS checks. That I have seen. Exactly when they do the first and last, I am not completely sure, but would assume the first NICS is when the application actually comes in and the second is after the other 15 databases are checked and the ND is about to go out. I could be wrong about it being early in the process, but I bet that is why they also requested the 8th day release cover sheet for those being released on the 8th day. Do we really want to waste time and effort trying to make the point that MSP is not providing for the public's safety?

    Me, I want to know what the 30 people were prohibited for that the MSP visited and confiscated the guns from. Were they prohibited because they were convicted felons that did not pass the NICS or because they had outstanding parking tickets.

    This entire thing is a headache, but I will have all the guns I want before October 1, 2013. So, not as much of a headache as it is to others that cannot buy everything before October 1, 2013.
     

    bogus130

    Active Member
    Jan 23, 2013
    130
    http://www.mdsp.org/Organization/Su...ingDivision/UnderConstruction/Automation.aspx

    Project #2 – Handgun Purchase Qualification License


    This is an in-house development project by the MSP Information Technology Division. The scope of the project is to develop and configure the existing MSP software MyLicense, currently used to issue LEOSA and register K-9 and Intercept Devices. This existing software will allow applicants to apply online for the Handgun Qualification License until such time as a permanent IT solution (as described above) is awarded and implemented. The expected date of implementation for this project is October 1, 2013.


    Are they saying they will not have this system up and running until Oct. 1st?
     

    fabsroman

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 14, 2009
    35,852
    Winfield/Taylorsville in Carroll
    Surprised I haven't seen this link posted, seems Maryland doesn't even yet know how to apply for an HQL.

    http://www.mdsp.org/Organization/Su...ion/Firearms/HandgunQualificationLicense.aspx

    In the meantime, seems if you take the online course (takes about thirty minutes trying to stay awake) you will be exempt from the training portion of the requirement after doomsday

    http://www.mdgunsafety.com/

    No, you have to legally obtain a regulated firearm on or before October 1, 2013 to be exempt from the training requirement for the HQL. Merely taking the 30 minute safety course does not exempt you.

    Here is the quote from the top of the first link you provided, which is pathetic and from the MSP website:

    Handgun Qualification License
    If you own a regulated firearm prior to October 1, 2013, you must apply for the Handgun Qualification License. However, you are exempt from the training component.

    I really do hope they are kidding that those that own regulated firearms prior to October 1, 2013 must apply for the handgun qualification license.

    It should be: If you want to buy a handgun after October 1, 2013, you must apply for and obtain the Handgun Qualification License in order to take possession of your new handgun. However, if you legally took possession of a regulated firearm on or before October 1, 2013, you are exempt from the training requirement of the handgun qualification license.
     

    fabsroman

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 14, 2009
    35,852
    Winfield/Taylorsville in Carroll
    http://www.mdsp.org/Organization/Su...ingDivision/UnderConstruction/Automation.aspx

    Project #2 – Handgun Purchase Qualification License


    This is an in-house development project by the MSP Information Technology Division. The scope of the project is to develop and configure the existing MSP software MyLicense, currently used to issue LEOSA and register K-9 and Intercept Devices. This existing software will allow applicants to apply online for the Handgun Qualification License until such time as a permanent IT solution (as described above) is awarded and implemented. The expected date of implementation for this project is October 1, 2013.


    Are they saying they will not have this system up and running until Oct. 1st?

    No, they are saying the expected date is October 1, 2013. Translating that from the language of government to that of English means it will be ready around October 1, 2014.
     

    Mr H

    Banana'd
    Surprised I haven't seen this link posted, seems Maryland doesn't even yet know how to apply for an HQL.

    http://www.mdsp.org/Organization/Su...ion/Firearms/HandgunQualificationLicense.aspx

    In the meantime, seems if you take the online course (takes about thirty minutes trying to stay awake) you will be exempt from the training portion of the requirement after doomsday

    http://www.mdgunsafety.com/

    Welcome to the forum...

    Yes, this is something folks have been checking into for some time. Every indication is that, come 10/1, there will be no mechanism in place for anyone to be able to comply with the new law in receiving a handgun.

    This AG opinion (in combination with the complete lack of regulations governing the application for--and issuance of--a Handgun Qualification License) proves the state's lack of willingness to allow the transfer of handguns to the law-abiding.

    The training requirement part of your question was answered already.
     

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    They are already doing two NICS checks. That I have seen. Exactly when they do the first and last, I am not completely sure, but would assume the first NICS is when the application actually comes in and the second is after the other 15 databases are checked and the ND is about to go out. I could be wrong about it being early in the process, but I bet that is why they also requested the 8th day release cover sheet for those being released on the 8th day. Do we really want to waste time and effort trying to make the point that MSP is not providing for the public's safety?

    Me, I want to know what the 30 people were prohibited for that the MSP visited and confiscated the guns from. Were they prohibited because they were convicted felons that did not pass the NICS or because they had outstanding parking tickets.

    This entire thing is a headache, but I will have all the guns I want before October 1, 2013. So, not as much of a headache as it is to others that cannot buy everything before October 1, 2013.

    I am referring to the dealers. The failure to allow dealer checks, while unable to supply the NICS number timely, and being unable to prevent release creats a risk to public safety that they have a general duty to mitigate that risk. Moreover they have a simple and cost effective method of doing so.. I think they have a general duty to act, and have failed to offer any reason let alone a compelling reason why they should not allow dealers to do nics
    checks.

    It seem obvious to me that re-framing the debate from ' reckless dealers' to 'state malfeasance ' is a good idea politically.. Now it may not be leaglly possible, but I think a court should decide that. The publicity of dealers demanding to be more safe is a good image to project. Likewise word can get out about the precautions dealers are taking DC letter,CCW ffL 03 etc.

    Really this war is for public opinion ... continuing an intramural dispute with dealers helps no one, and it has us play right into mom's hands by making it all about the dealers ... its not and never was.
     

    abean4187

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 16, 2013
    1,327
    Makes me happy that I purchased a handgun first and lowers after. Luckily I won’t have to worry about this but I am going to be writing to my reps about this and will also be getting the HQL to help bog down the application time and help any lawsuits.
     

    fabsroman

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 14, 2009
    35,852
    Winfield/Taylorsville in Carroll
    I am referring to the dealers. The failure to allow dealer checks, while unable to supply the NICS number timely, and being unable to prevent release creats a risk to public safety that they have a general duty to mitigate that risk. Moreover they have a simple and cost effective method of doing so.. I think they have a general duty to act, and have failed to offer any reason let alone a compelling reason why they should not allow dealers to do nics
    checks.

    It seem obvious to me that re-framing the debate from ' reckless dealers' to 'state malfeasance ' is a good idea politically.. Now it may not be leaglly possible, but I think a court should decide that. The publicity of dealers demanding to be more safe is a good image to project. Likewise word can get out about the precautions dealers are taking DC letter,CCW ffL 03 etc.

    Really this war is for public opinion ... continuing an intramural dispute with dealers helps no one, and it has us play right into mom's hands by making it all about the dealers ... its not and never was.

    Tell that to the individual people that have handguns in the log jam that their dealers will not release until the ND comes back. Telling those people that it is ALL the state's fault is not true, and nobody hates anything more than being lied to. Well, maybe other than being punched or shot, but you get my point. Honesty is the best bet.

    How does that saying go? You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all of the time.
     

    ShallNotInfringe

    Lil Firecracker
    Feb 17, 2013
    8,554
    Many of us were sounding the clarion call months ago on this.

    And being told we were a bunch of naysayers....

    For example, here's a sample post from May 18th...

    Look here, note this applies to handguns only...

    5–117.1.
    B) A DEALER OR ANY OTHER PERSON MAY NOT SELL, RENT, OR TRANSFER A HANDGUN TO A PURCHASER, LESSEE, OR TRANSFEREE UNLESS THE PURCHASER, LESSEE, OR TRANSFEREE PRESENTS TO THE DEALER OR OTHER PERSON A VALID HANDGUN QUALIFICATION LICENSE ISSUED TO THE PURCHASER, LESSEE, OR TRANSFEREE BY THE SECRETARY UNDER THIS SECTION.

    So.... It appears that in order to conduct a handgun transfer after Oct 1 (irrespective of when the purchase occurred), the HQL is required. :(

    The bill is here: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/bills/sb/sb0281e.pdf
     

    MedInfantry

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Jun 24, 2010
    299
    Columbia, MD
    We all understand this issue to be FUBAR and hope that the law will be successfully challenged, argued and overturned as violating the US Billl of Rights under the Constitution.

    My personally feeling on this is that even if argued by the NRA-ILA, that the law may be upheld. State's Rights seem to trump Federal Law to a certain degree. Look at Mary-J in CA and WA. AG's office isn't prosecuting even though it violates Federal Law, because State's rights are held in higher regard.

    Just my two cents worth. Although I agree with many on here - if the FFL doesn't want to release on 8th day - they aren't your buddy; save time and shop for one that will under the current law and not one that has yet to take effect.
     

    ShallNotInfringe

    Lil Firecracker
    Feb 17, 2013
    8,554
    No, you have to legally obtain a regulated firearm on or before October 1, 2013 to be exempt from the training requirement for the HQL. Merely taking the 30 minute safety course does not exempt you.

    Here is the quote from the top of the first link you provided, which is pathetic and from the MSP website:

    Handgun Qualification License
    If you own a regulated firearm prior to October 1, 2013, you must apply for the Handgun Qualification License. However, you are exempt from the training component.

    I really do hope they are kidding that those that own regulated firearms prior to October 1, 2013 must apply for the handgun qualification license.

    It should be: If you want to buy a handgun after October 1, 2013, you must apply for and obtain the Handgun Qualification License in order to take possession of your new handgun. However, if you legally took possession of a regulated firearm on or before October 1, 2013, you are exempt from the training requirement of the handgun qualification license.

    Yep.

    But hey, if it means more revenue for the State, they can mislead people to get more funds for their programs...
     

    spclopr8tr

    Whatchalookinat?
    Apr 20, 2013
    1,793
    TN
    No, you have to legally obtain a regulated firearm on or before October 1, 2013 to be exempt from the training requirement for the HQL. Merely taking the 30 minute safety course does not exempt you.

    Here is the quote from the top of the first link you provided, which is pathetic and from the MSP website:

    Handgun Qualification License
    If you own a regulated firearm prior to October 1, 2013, you must apply for the Handgun Qualification License. However, you are exempt from the training component.

    I really do hope they are kidding that those that own regulated firearms prior to October 1, 2013 must apply for the handgun qualification license.

    It should be: If you want to buy a handgun after October 1, 2013, you must apply for and obtain the Handgun Qualification License in order to take possession of your new handgun. However, if you legally took possession of a regulated firearm on or before October 1, 2013, you are exempt from the training requirement of the handgun qualification license.

    The posted web site if just full of misinformation. I sent an email to the MSP licensing division pointing out their site is misrepresenting SB281. (For instance, active duty and retired military and national guard are exempted from the HQL requirement.) Will post any response I may receive back from MSP explaining why they are posting information contrary to the law.
     

    Verbotene

    Lurker Supreme
    Feb 27, 2012
    432
    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?

    I'll try to be civil here, but you've made it incredibly hard to be.

    1.) You did not proclaim to be a 'supreme leader.' Nor did I proclaim you one, vilify you as one, or denounce you as one.

    2.) I would like to congratulate you on saying stuff. On the Internet.

    3.) When did I ever insinuate that the Governor, or anyone else for that matter, can simply change the law on a whim?

    Legislation was passed in which there was no effective way for implementation in the time span it was destined to be implemented in. It was passed without clarification on numerous topics that have led to statewide confusion. The MSP can't process paperwork properly, whether through under-staffing, complete and total ineptitude, or by design.

    To say nothing of the onerous burdens soon to be placed upon gun owners, or the sheer stupidity of the actual law.

    So I would say it is fair to be a little upset with my "representatives" who completely and utterly don't give a shit about me, nor had the common ****ing sense to see what was plainly and obviously going to be a cluster****.


    I apologize if my deriding of certain elected officials as "supreme leaders" was confusing. Or poorly worded.


    Certainly I appreciate everyone who fought tooth and nail to prevent or mitigate this catastrophe. We fought the good fight, and hopefully, will be back next year for round two with even more pissed off people at our side.

    People I know are still waiting for NDs. People I tried desperately to convince to purchase earlier, but didn't for a variety of reasons. They're ****ed because they finally got around to following my advice. Even if they ignored the bit about the timeframe or 'early' release policies.

    So yes. I'm a little upset about this.

    4.) And to answer your question. Yes, I vote. I can't imagine someone not voting. So has everyone referenced. But feel free to pass judgment on people you've never met.

    I'll be the first to admit that in previous years I had not been anywhere near as active in the goings-on of our State government as I should have been. Fortunately, this year has been completely different. And I don't see me going back to sleep any time soon.



    So if you misunderstood my previous post, or misconstrued my anger as directed towards you or towards people on our side, I apologize.
     

    fabsroman

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 14, 2009
    35,852
    Winfield/Taylorsville in Carroll
    We all understand this issue to be FUBAR and hope that the law will be successfully challenged, argued and overturned as violating the US Billl of Rights under the Constitution.

    My personally feeling on this is that even if argued by the NRA-ILA, that the law may be upheld. State's Rights seem to trump Federal Law to a certain degree. Look at Mary-J in CA and WA. AG's office isn't prosecuting even though it violates Federal Law, because State's rights are held in higher regard.

    Just my two cents worth. Although I agree with many on here - if the FFL doesn't want to release on 8th day - they aren't your buddy; save time and shop for one that will under the current law and not one that has yet to take effect.

    Some of this law will most likely stand even after SCOTUS.

    As far as marijuana and the AG not prosecuting on it, you must have missed the fact that a bunch of medical marijuana growers in Washington State were raided by the Feds just a little while ago.

    DEA raids medical marijuana dispensaries in Washington State

    http://politix.topix.com/homepage/7198-feds-raid-marijuana-dispensaries-in-wa-where-the-pot-is-legal
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,923
    Messages
    7,259,167
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom