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

Mark75H said:

It did not work in CA ... 2,500 guns were confiscated

Click to expand...

This really isn't the same situation. In the California case, the AG permitted the continued registration of banned firearms for years after the deadline for registration. Since it appeared to several anti-gun groups the this practice was going to go on indefinitely, they sued to stop the AG. The AG's mistake was letting the registration go way beyond a reasonable accommodation for people just a little late. The confiscation was the result of the anti-gun folks arguing successfully that the guns registered after the deadline should have been disqualified from registration and therefore illegal.

In this case, there are well defined conditions and a finite set of applications that are included in this "waiver" action. I really doubt California set any type of precedence for the situation we have here. Also, since it's been two days since the MSP news release and the AG has NOT issued any contrary statements, he has effectively condoned/approved the message. Unless it can be shown that the press release was some type of fraud, I think anyone acting in good faith with respect to the Advisory and press release cannot be shown to have had specific intent to break the law.

I'm not a lawyer, but sometimes wish I were.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free

ShallNotInfringe said:

(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.

(C) A PERSON MAY PURCHASE, RENT, OR RECEIVE A HANDGUN ONLY IF THE PERSON:
(1) (I) POSSESSES A VALID HANDGUN QUALIFICATION LICENSE ISSUED TO THE PERSON BY THE SECRETARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SECTION

Is there an exception for purchases prior to 10/1?

Click to expand...

Shall... the law is not computer code.it is not circuit model . it needs to be read against every other law and court decision that has ever happened in history ... nothing is ever clear in the law...

but caution is warranted... but we need to let the players duke it out in court...

Brooklyn said:

Shall... the law is not computer code.it is not circuit model . it needs to be read against every other law and court decision that has ever happened in history ... nothing is ever clear in the law...

but caution is warranted... but we need to let the players duke it out in court...

Click to expand...

Lol. Wonder if can argue that against my score.

Take your chances. We have ground this hunk a beef.

ShallNotInfringe said:

See my edit. Yep. Game over.

Click to expand...

If that should happen do you think noone would challenge a misdemeanor resulting in the permanent loss of a fundamental right post heller ?

You know that felons can get rights restored right?


DO NOT DO THIS... IT IS NOT WORTH IT. BUT LETS BE CLEAR IF IT HAPPENS TO ONE OF US WE MUST ALL BE WILLING TO CHALLENGE IT UNDER 2A IF NOT THEN YOU ARE NOT ONE OF US.


It is an unjust law and must be fought. I will bring this up a GRPC as well.

its been on my list for a while.


BUT DO NOT MAKE YOURSELF A TEST CASE. let the 2a groups work the issue....

ShallNotInfringe said:

Lol. Wonder if can argue that against my score.

Take your chances. We have ground this hunk a beef.

Click to expand...

Once again --- no chances to take . You wait for the court to rule before you pick up the firearm.. see no risk...

Declaratory Judgement. If need be I would take it to court myself before I did anything that could get me charged.

Patrick said:

Someone please refresh for us the prongs that must be satisfied to pierce qualified immunity under the civil rights act, and then apply that knowledge to the current topic at hand...

Click to expand...

In short, this looks to be about monetary liability for violating someones constitutional rights under state law; qualified immunity comes into play with regards to who can and cannot be held liable and under what circumstances. Specifically - can Police, Bureaucrats, etc, be held liable. It looks that high level executives can be held liable if they are deemed to have violated a "clearly established right".
More reading to do for me...will say that the more cards I see in your hand, the more I smile and look forward to them being played

Gbh said:

As I posted on another thread,

MY concern is simple. If down the road, we we end up with Attorney Genital Frosh, I believe he would go back and prosecute buyers that are on record as to breaking the law.

I was going to buy one or two more this weekend but create a paper trail of a violation of the law? I don't think so, Gbh don't play that.

Click to expand...

Have to agree. Am thinking they (collectively) can decide to make a u-turn on the stated position, or be forced by courts to do so.

The AAG's letter to Smigiel predates the MSP's press release, and, arguably, the MSP Advisory and press release creates the exception referred to in the letter.

(BTW, did anyone notice that the AG's office is still using Word Perfect? I wonder it they are aware that Windows XP is obsolete.)

This talk of misdemeanor and loss of gun rights, does this only apply if you are convicted of the charge you loss your rights or does simply mean being charged with it makes you loos your gun rights?

JettaRed said:

The AAG's letter to Smigiel predates the MSP's press release, and, arguably, the MSP Advisory and press release creates the exception referred to in the letter.

(BTW, did anyone notice that the AG's office is still using Word Perfect? I wonder it they are aware that Windows XP is obsolete.)

Click to expand...

MS-DOS 5.0

I just purchased a new revolver yesterday from Continental Arms. Told them I'd see them in four months. I will be paying attention to the laws and enforcement during that 4 month period to see if it's prudent to get the fingerprint crap and pay the $50 tax, or not to bother, and just pick up my gun when my app comes back from MSP. So basically I'm in a wait and see what happens mode now. I'm NOT going to NOT buy a new gun because of them. I will do what seems prudent as the time of my gun pickup comes closer.

Scarab

CA's assault weapons registration extension was invalid because the CA AG didn't have the authority to rewrite the law to extend any deadlines. The length of the extension didn't matter.

The MSP is in the same boat here. MSP accepting a 77R after 10/1/13 without evidence the handgun owner has a HQL is the same as CA accepting an "assault weapon" registration after 3/30/92. By SB281, No one is supposed to "receive" a handgun after 10/1/13 unless they have a HQL. We are talking easily over 1500 guns at issue.

Life is about risk; people will have to make up their own minds about how to handle this situation. Only the MDAGV/Brady crowd knows what they plan to do about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

Vassago said:

This talk of misdemeanor and loss of gun rights, does this only apply if you are convicted of the charge you loss your rights or does simply mean being charged with it makes you loos your gun rights?

Click to expand...

Is the loss of firearms ownership over a two year misdemeanor a MD thing or a Federal thing?

Arcamm said:

Is the loss of firearms ownership over a two year misdemeanor a MD thing or a Federal thing?

Click to expand...

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/how-to/identify-prohibited-persons.html

The Gun Control Act (GCA) makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms. 18 USC 922(g). Transfers of firearms to any such prohibited persons are also unlawful. 18 USC 922(d).

These categories include any person:

Under indictment or information in any court for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

....

K-Romulus said:

CA's assault weapons registration extension was invalid because the CA AG didn't have the authority to rewrite the law to extend any deadlines. The length of the extension didn't matter.

The MSP is in the same boat here. MSP accepting a 77R after 10/1/13 without evidence the handgun owner has a HQL is the same as CA accepting an "assault weapon" registration after 3/30/92. By SB281, No one is supposed to "receive" a handgun after 10/1/13 unless they have a HQL. We are talking easily over 1500 guns at issue.

Life is about risk; people will have to make up their own minds about how to handle this situation. Only the MDAGV/Brady crowd knows what they plan to do about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

Click to expand...

However, this is a case of MSP receiving the 77R BEFORE 10/1.

daggo66 said:

However, this is a case of MSP receiving the 77R BEFORE 10/1.

Click to expand...

You are correct; I should have been clearer. The pressure point will be MSP accepting the post-transfer copy of the 77R after the transferee picks up their gun and signs it on the day of pickup.

The post-pickup 77R with two buyer signatures is sent to MSP (right?) I was trying to talk about that part of the process. I could swear two different FFLs told me they have to send the two signatures 77R to MSP after a customer picks up their gun. If MSP doesn't do anything more after sending the Not Disapproved, then that changes things. A court can't compel a govt agency to do an act that is discretionary. Prosecuting = discretionary. Accepting an improperly completed form after a statutory deadline = not discretionary.

ETA : looks like the FFLs must send in some sort of paperwork after pickup. The pressure point exists. Here is a snippet from the recent COMAR change:

.12 Reports of Sales.
A. Sales, Rentals, and Transfers.
(1) A sale, rental, or transfer of a regulated firearm shall be reported to the Firearms Registration Section within 7 days after the completed sale.
(2) A dealer or person who sells, rents, or transfers a regulated firearm shall submit notification of the completed transaction to the Firearms Registration Section in the manner prescribed by the Secretary.
(3) The notification shall contain an identifying description of the regulated firearm, including its caliber, make, model, manufacturer’s serial number, and any other special or peculiar characteristic or marking by which the firearm may be identified.
B. A dealer shall submit to the Firearms Registration Section, with the proper notification, applications held by the dealer that have been disapproved by the Secretary.
C. A dealer shall submit to the Firearms Registration Section, with the proper notification, applications held by the dealer that have expired pursuant to the 90-day limit of Regulation .19 of this chapter.
D. The Secretary shall maintain a permanent record of notifications received of completed sales, rentals, and transfers of regulated firearms in the State.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

Vassago said:

This talk of misdemeanor and loss of gun rights, does this only apply if you are convicted of the charge you loss your rights or does simply mean being charged with it makes you loos your gun rights?

Click to expand...

If you are in the process of the 77R it can be charged, if you are charged with or under indictment for is exclusionary for not disapproved (note, loss of Rights does happen unless convicted). Otherwise it is convicted.

I don't understand anything you guys are saying. I bought the gun on 9/26, which obviously is prior to 10/1. It will now take 16 weeks or longer for the MSP to get my app back to my FFL. Depending on the prevailing winds I will pick up my gun either with or without a HQL. Just buying a gun in the past week doesn't mean a thing and isn't a crime.

Scarab