77R lawsuit successful

[bogus130]

sad we need a lawsuit against our own state police to make an official stance on the actual law

 

[lx1x]

What part is the rumor?

leo going in to take all his/her firearm..

unless the said person was charge with a crime that was not included in your post. OR has been served with papers to turn his firearm due to court order. (either restraining order was filed against the person).

per your post.. the person did not purchase multiple regulated gun within the "30 day". or did you post it wrong?

 

[JBinDC]

They'll release the new status in 60-80 days....



This is great news.

that's what I was thinkin... That or when my 90 day wait was up on an XD...

 

[Abacab]

I wouldn't get too excited either. Some dealers will continue to refuse release because they believe they must have a NICS number to do so. Until the ATF/FBI say otherwise, I don't see a whole lot of movement.

 

[AntiGun]

Now this could be a game changer.

I imagine there are a bunch of people who stopped buying because they thought they would not receive thier purchase before October and have to get the HQL. They may have just been given the go ahead.

 

[tomh]

The statement in bold is new. They even acknowledged that they had never issued such a statement before. And they acknowledged that unofficial statements had been issued to the contrary. Pretty clear progress, IMHO.

I guess I'm still in the wait and see mode. The statement is nothing more than what was *already* present in MD Law, and they chose to ignore it for how long? And when dealers tried to follow the law, they were "threatened" not to do so.

Just because they posted something, doesn't mean they will follow it. And certainly dealers aren't stupid enough to believe them, especially given that they've said so many different things before.

When or if the Supreme Court stops all this foolishness and actually FORCES Maryland to stop infringing on the 2nd amendment, it will possibly actually mean something. Until then, we live in a police state.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Case Search still has the case status as "Open/Active"

http://casesearch.courts.state.md.u...il.jis?caseId=03C13005388&loc=55&detailLoc=CC

Generally updates overnight.

This is good news.

 

[ED O]

so when is this going to filter out to the dealers, so I know when to start calling MSAR?

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

I guess I'm still in the wait and see mode. The statement is nothing more than what was *already* present in MD Law, and they chose to ignore it for how long? And when dealers tried to follow the law, they were "threatened" not to do so.

Just because they posted something, doesn't mean they will follow it. And certainly dealers aren't stupid enough to believe them, especially given that they've said so many different things before.

When or if the Supreme Court stops all this foolishness and actually FORCES Maryland to stop infringing on the 2nd amendment, it will possibly actually mean something. Until then, we live in a police state.

They didn't just post it, they entered it into a Court document...

Agreed it is ridiculous that it took Court action to get them to state the law.

Take it easy on the FFL's. Buyers to the left of me, lawman to the right, stuck in the middle again....

 

[Todd S]

I've been told by a couple of FFLs, that even if the MSP allows release after 7 days, that they still need the NICS to comply with BATFE. Is this resolved in the suit? Basically, has MSP been removed as the POC for regulated purchases?

 

[fightinbluhen51]

The concern I have is, was there any change in the NICS POC on handguns from this filing?

If MSP is still dragging their feet on background checks, there is still an issue that we as a community shouldn't stand for. This is a fault of the MDGA, MSP, and The executive branch and should be corrected by them with impunity to lawful purchasers.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

I've been told by a couple of FFLs, that even if the MSP allows release after 7 days, that they still need the NICS to comply with BATFE. Is this resolved in the suit? Basically, has MSP been removed as the POC for regulated purchases?

Again...as has been discussed ad nauseum, FFLs MUST follow fed or state law, which ever is more stringent, but provided there is NO "disapproved" within the 3 day fed or 8 day MD the FFL is lawfully allowed to transfer w/o NICS or NTN.

IANAL but this has been discussed plenty in many or these threads.

Contracts for liability aside, there is no recourse with insurance companies.

 

[Mr H]

The concern I have is, was there any change in the NICS POC on handguns from this filing?

If MSP is still dragging their feet on background checks, there is still an issue that we as a community shouldn't stand for. This is a fault of the MDGA, MSP, and The executive branch and should be corrected by them with impunity to lawful purchasers.

PERSONAL OPINION ALERT:

I am of the belief that MSP (the leadership--you know, those answerable to the Administration) doesn't give a rat's rump about anything but restricting people getting their guns. Period.

Letting FFLs release after 7 days is a 2-edged sword for them. They know they can't stop it, but they're going to do what they can to slow it.

IMO, they may even be willing to deal with a prohibited person creating "an issue", in order to point to that one-tenth-of-one-percent situation, say "I told you so", and the next GA session will be all about shutting it ALL off.

I think we'll have a battle like that next session, regardless... but watch out if anything happens (or is CAUSED to happen??!?!?!) that even smacks of a gun being released to someone who "shouldn't" have it.

 

[Ranchero50]

I've been told by a couple of FFLs, that even if the MSP allows release after 7 days, that they still need the NICS to comply with BATFE. Is this resolved in the suit? Basically, has MSP been removed as the POC for regulated purchases?

Read the Brady laws FAQ. All the link are on the live update thread on this subforum. It's written on the 4473 and in the FAQ's. The only missing official statement is how the dealer is to mark the 4473 Section 21.

 

[dlmcbm]

NOW GET READY....... this law will be changed come January.

 

[Abacab]

There are some really stubborn dealers out there who think they absolutely must have one to release. Good luck convincing them.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

PERSONAL OPINION ALERT:

I am of the belief that MSP (the leadership--you know, those answerable to the Administration) doesn't give a rat's rump about anything but restricting people getting their guns. Period.

Letting FFLs release after 7 days is a 2-edged sword for them. They know they can't stop it, but they're going to do what they can to slow it.

IMO, they may even be willing to deal with a prohibited person creating "an issue", in order to point to that one-tenth-of-one-percent situation, say "I told you so", and the next GA session will be all about shutting it ALL off.

I think we'll have a battle like that next session, regardless... but watch out if anything happens (or is CAUSED to happen??!?!?!) that even smacks of a gun being released to someone who "shouldn't" have it.

Why else would they shut down the NICS inquiries by the dealers???

Ya, they're looking for a case to point to all next session.....

 

[BuRNMIA]

Nice

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Why else would they shut down the NICS inquiries by the dealers???

Ya, they're looking for a case to point to all next session.....

I fully concur.

 

[Mr H]

This is where Pro-2A folks need to ramp up "safety" and education efforts.