New MSP form? "MSP 77R-3" -Merged threads

Speaking of....anyone have contact info for a 2A Lawyer in Md just to have in case?

K-Romulus said:

I don't know that many private MD lawyers (if any), but will try to dig up the names that the "Newsletter Publisher Who Shall Not Be Named" once gave me.

I think one was Walter Booth. I will see what I can find.

Click to expand...

Thanks K-Rom....even if the Dark Lord gave the list to you, I'm sure we can make some use of it

I just sent off an email to the NRA, not sure if they will do anything but it is worth a shot.

Here is a letter sent out from the state police in response to an inquiry by Delegate Claggett on behalf of a constituent regarding the new form:

Dear Delegate Clagett:
In response to your constituent's issues regarding the
purchase of a firearm, he is correct that the process is changing.
On June 21, 2007, a letter was mailed to all firearms dealers in Maryland
explaining that a new attachment, 77R-3, has been added to the Application
and Affidavit to Purchase a Regulated Firearm.

The new attachment is called Authorization for Release of Information to
Purchase a Regulated Firearm and will be required to be submitted with the
regular application to purchase of firearm. The formcan be found on the MSP website, www.mdsp.org, under downloads. The form is a release of
information relating to the applicant's mental health.

A change in law or comar is not required for the additional form because
existing law provides that an applicant shall submit an application on the
form the Secretary provides. As more information becomes available I will
pass it along. If you need further information please let me know.

Tom

Captain Thomas Williams
Maryland State Police
Government Affairs Unit
1201 Reisterstown Rd
Pikesville, MD 21208
Office 410-260-6101

Click to expand...

So, because the law doesn't >prohibit< them from gleaning through your medical records it menas that they can do it.

Time to start writing letters to out legislators to curtail this BS.

For me, Delegates George, Clagett, and Busch and Senator Astle will be getting an ear full from me in the next couple of days.

Norton said:

A change in law or comar is not required for the additional form because existing law provides that an applicant shall submit an application on the form the Secretary provides. :

Click to expand...

Hmmm. I'll bet this could be successfully challenged on the grounds that it violates Patient Confidenciality.

Benlineberry said:

Hmmm. I'll bet this could be successfully challenged on the grounds that it violates Patient Confidenciality.

Click to expand...

Isn't that the whole reason abortion is legal? Because a woman has a right to privacy in her medical records? If 90%+ of gun purchasers are male would this policy be sexist?

As a guy who deals with admin law, I could agree with MSP. Since the Regulated Firearm law lists the mental health prohibitions, the MSP arguably have the right to ask for the form as part of the background check procedure. The MSP has the authority to write regs implementing the law they are supposed to enforce. They only get in trouble if the regs' subject are outside their authority, or if unreasonable.

In other news, Walter Booth is the only pro-gunowner lawyer I could ID..

Something else to chew on.

http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/statelaws/26thedition/maryland.pdf)

§ 5-118. Firearm application.

(a) In general. A firearm applicant shall:

(1) submit to a licensee or designated law enforcement agency a firearm
application on the form that the Secretary provides; and
(2) pay to the licensee or designated law enforcement agency an
application fee of $10.​

(b) Required information. A firearm application shall contain:

(1) the firearm applicant's name, address,Social Security number, place
and date of birth, height, weight, race, eye and hair color, signature, driver's or photographic identification soundex number, occupation, and regulated firearm information for each regulated firearm to be purchased, rented, or transferred;
(2) the date and time that the firearm applicant delivered the completed
firearm application to the prospective seller or transferor; and
(3) a statement by the firearm applicant under the penalty of perjury that
the firearm applicant:

(i) is at least 21 years old;
(ii) has never been convicted of a disqualifying crime;
(iii) has never been convicted of a violation classified as a common law
crime and received a term of imprisonment of more than 2 years;
(iv) is not a fugitive from justice;
(v) is not a habitual drunkard;
(vi) is not addicted to a controlled dangerous substance or is not a
habitual user;
(vii) has never spent more than 30 consecutive days in a medical institution for treatment of a mental disorder, unless a physician's
certificate issued within 30 days before the date of application is attached
to the application, certifying that the firearm applicant is capable of
possessing a regulated firearm without undue danger to the firearm applicant or to another;
(viii) is not a respondent against whom a current non ex parte civil
protective order has been entered under § 4-506 of the Family Law Article;
(ix) if under the age of 30 years at the time of application, has not
been adjudicated delinquent by a juvenile court for an act that would be a
disqualifying crime if committed by an adult; and
(x) subject to § 5-119 of this subtitle, has completed a certified
firearms safety training course that the Police Training Commission conducts without charge or that meets the standards that the Police Training Commission establishes under § 3-207 of this article.​

(c) Required warning. Each firearm application shall contain the following
statement: "Any false information supplied or statement made in this
application is a crime which may be punished by imprisonment for a period of not more than 3 years, or a fine of not more than $5,000, or both.".
(d) Firearm application of corporation. If the firearm applicant is a corporation, a corporate officer who is a resident of the State shall
complete and execute the firearm application.

Click to expand...

K-Romulus said:

I don't know that many private MD lawyers (if any), but will try to dig up the names that the "Newsletter Publisher Who Shall Not Be Named" once gave me.

I think one was Walter Booth. I will see what I can find.

Click to expand...

That's the guy....google his name and his website will come up.



This really pisses me off, I'd buy another gun if I hadn't just picked one up this week.

I signed for my AR stripped lower last Saturday just in case. I was diagnosed with depression and ADD when I was a young teenager... I'm ok now (haven't been treated because I don't experience symptoms) and have been for about 6-7 years.

If that disqualifies me in the future, I'll have my AR for now!

smores said:

I signed for my AR stripped lower last Saturday just in case. I was diagnosed with depression and ADD when I was a young teenager... I'm ok now (haven't been treated because I don't experience symptoms) and have been for about 6-7 years.

If that disqualifies me in the future, I'll have my AR for now!

Click to expand...

The way the law is written, it won't, for now, probably. In order to be disqualified from owning a regulated firearm in MD on mental health grounds you either have to A. have been confined to a mental health insitution for over 30 days or B. have any diagnosed mental illness AND have a history of violence against yourself or others.

Now here's the part where the state (and I'm not blaming the MSP licensing guys because they're just the messenger) can abuse its authority. The MD law does not define anywhere what exactly constitutes "a history of violence against self or others." Taking it to the absurd extreme, which is after all where anti-gunners want to go with it, does being in a playground fight in fifth grade constitute such a history of violence? It could if someone in authority wanted to interpret that way.

More realistically, what if the MSP talks to a former mental health counselor, almost all of whom are Uber-Lefties (and I know plenty because my wife has worked in mental health for 20+ years), of an applicant, and the counselor, who probably thinks anyone who even wants to own a gun is obviously disturbed, tells them sure he's violent. Nothing to back it up with, but it's just his "opinion." Think the applicant will be SOL? I do.

My point is that ambiguity can be abused. And what is Joe Citizen denied applicant going to do about it? Spend $50-100K on a lawyer and spend three or four years in Maryland's socialist court system? Where he might not win in the end anyway.

But the real worry, as with most gun control steps, is what comes next. Sure this year it's just the two conditions listed above, maybe next year a little more. Add a few more conditions, a few more invasions of privacy, do a little bit more every year, until you finally have so many people excluded you can go for the grand prize of confiscation from all.

Simple and reliable rule for gun control is oppose it, oppose it, oppose it. In every form it's presented. The goal IS confiscation by baby steps. The reason the antis are all jumping on the mental health bandwagon now is they saw how quickly the NRA was willing to run, not walk, to McCarthy to finalize the NICS Improvement Act. Even though they supported it before they made it clear how quick they would cave on the issue. It was still presented as a very public and encouraging step for the gun control movement.

Simple and reliable rule for gun control is oppose it, oppose it, oppose it. In every form it's presented. The goal IS confiscation by baby steps.

Click to expand...

Amen. We must make it so politically expensive that they leave us alone. It needs to be a third rail subject for legislators.

Through three different, independent sources in the last 24 hours I've heard that what it is going to take is someone to be denied for refusing to fill out the form and filing a lawsuit.

Anyone?

I wonder if the FFL would even submit the application without you filling out the form? What if you filled it out, but wrote "refused" in every block except your name?

RobMoore said:

I wonder if the FFL would even submit the application without you filling out the form? What if you filled it out, but wrote "refused" in every block except your name?

Click to expand...

It's a good question. You'd have to find an FFL willing to be somewhat party to the act of civil disobedience. It really is none of the FFL's affair, I suppose since the MSP is ultimately the one responsible for denial/approval.

It's uncharted territory for MD. We've usually just grabbed our ankles and taken it. It seems as if people are starting to wise up.

Norton said:

It's a good question. You'd have to find an FFL willing to be somewhat party to the act of civil disobedience.

Click to expand...

RobMoore said:

I wonder if the FFL would even submit the application without you filling out the form? What if you filled it out, but wrote "refused" in every block except your name?

Click to expand...

I know an FFL that would be willing to submit it and allow you to be the Test.

PM Me

I just received this from MSI. It looks like people are going to take action.

1) Everyone is rightly upset by the new MSP form that will be required to buy a regulated firearm come August 1st.
Here's a good overview of it:
http://www.myguns.net/Articles/mental.htm

From what we are hearing, it is being handled. The Maryland firearms dealers are willing to do a lawsuit over the regs. I spoke today with Delegate Mike Smigiel, who has taken a personal interest in this. He thinks they may be able to dissuade the MSP from even implementing this new form. He also tells me that the NRA is picking up the ball and is preparing to do a lawsuit against the MSP if they do implement it. There is a danger in thinking that something is already taken care of ... it may or may not be. Stay tuned ... and don't hesitate to call your delegates and senators about this problem.

I spoke today with Delegate Mike Smigiel, who has taken a personal interest in this

Click to expand...

Sounds like we have a candidate for the August legislator of the month.