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

[ShallNotInfringe]

See, this is what I am saying. There are two different requirements. One is to purchase and one to own. If the HQL was already in effect 100 days ago, I would not have been able to purchase my handgun, which I did already. I am basically only waiting to see if I can keep it with a ND. I still think AG's opinion is flawed, maybe more about timing and procedure than the stated law itself. Still think a good lawyer can shoot the AG OP down.

Not true.

The law that passed in April clearly states that you need a HQL for both acts, purchasing and receiving, surrounding a handgun after 10/1. The act of "transfer" is separate and distinct from the act of "sell", and both acts are called out in the new law. None of the listed acts are permitted without.a HQL.

Here's the clip:

"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."

What is wrong is the state prolonging the ability for purchasers to receive the handgun due to the indefinite amount of time afforded to them by the law for issuing the Not Disapproved.

There was ample warning back then that the delay would be approaching and surpass 100 days back in April.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

Go back and read the bill, better yet, let me copy and paste that for you;

Link to bill as signed: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/Chapters_noln/CH_427_sb0281e.pdf

The above quote is at the bottom of page 26.

So as you can see in the above quoted test, and HQL is not only needed to receive as you stated above, but it is also need to purchase.

So your above statement is wrong.

I am referring to getting a handgun that spans October 1 in response to the post about a span purchase.

If you bought it before 10/1, you didnt need the HQL to file the 77R. If you can't get it until after 10/1, they are considered different acts in the new law. And you will need the HQL to pick it up then.

Agreed that for purchases after 10/1 you need it for both.

The AG opinion is consistent with the new law.

 

[dblas]

I am referring to getting a handgun that spans October 1. If you bought it before 10/1, you didnt need the HQL to file the 77R. If you can't get it until after 10/1, they are considered different acts in the new law. And you will need the HQL to pick it up then.

Agreed that after 10/1 you need it for both.

The AG opinion is consistent with the new law.

Yeah, I saw that after you updated and clarified your post, hence why I deleted mine.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

Yeah, I saw that after you updated your post, hence why I deleted mine.

Cool . Saw it disappear. Wondered why we were disagreeing...

They worded that law in an interesting way.

Thank goodness a lot of FFL's created reasonable release policies.

 

[MDElite]

Would this work?

If the firearm is purchased at a pawn shop. The dealer could release after 8 days and immediately pawn the firearm for no cost until the ND comes back. Or after being pawned back to the pawn shop the customer could redeem the firearm by filing out the 4473 and passing the background check.

We are still doing a limited 8th day release until I think this through some more. But that might be a solution.

Dan
bbestpawn

 

[BBQMAN]

What do I do with an FFL who:

1) Won't listen when I told him that this decision came out in the last few days. He kept repeating to me that the MSP and such stated that they were allowing transfers after Oct 1 if you already paid for it and he didn't see them "changing their minds" and the problems it would cause

2) Won't transfer the gun to another FFP and will NOT cancel the sale either citing for both that the paperwork has been submitted and can not be changed.

This is in regards to my wife who purchased her first handgun. Do I have any legal means to chancel the sale? I don't care about losing some money but I don't want a gun hanging out there when it requires a HQL to transfer and there is no point in getting one for her as this will probably be her only purchase.

 

[fabsroman]

See, this is what I am saying. There are two different requirements. One is to purchase and one to own. If the HQL was already in effect 100 days ago, I would not have been able to purchase my handgun, which I did already. I am basically only waiting to see if I can keep it with a ND. I still think AG's opinion is flawed, maybe more about timing and procedure than the stated law itself. Still think a good lawyer can shoot the AG OP down.

No, what you need is a Judge, or Judges since it will most likely be appealed, that are willing to find a way to side with your argument. I think both sides can be argued. This is not an open and shut case in either regard.

The real question is when is the sale between a dealer and buyer completed. I still think it is when the gun is finally provided by the dealer to the buyer.

What are dealer policies when an ND comes back on a purchase? Do you still own the gun and have to arrange for them to resell it, or do you just lose your deposit and the gun goes back into dealer inventory? Guessing most dealers do NOT want to resell your firearm if you get an ND. Guessing that most people do NOT want to gift their firearm to somebody else either.

 

[fabsroman]

What do I do with an FFL who:

1) Won't listen when I told him that this decision came out in the last few days. He kept repeating to me that the MSP and such stated that they were allowing transfers after Oct 1 if you already paid for it and he didn't see them "changing their minds" and the problems it would cause

2) Won't transfer the gun to another FFP and will NOT cancel the sale either citing for both that the paperwork has been submitted and can not be changed.

This is in regards to my wife who purchased her first handgun. Do I have any legal means to chancel the sale? I don't care about losing some money but I don't want a gun hanging out there when it requires a HQL to transfer and there is no point in getting one for her as this will probably be her only purchase.

Send me more of the facts via PM. For instance, when did you enter into the contract, at the time of entering into the contract what was your understanding of when the dealer would release the handgun, etc.

It really is shocking how many dealers either do not understand what is going on or are feeding their customers a pile of lies.

 

[mxrider]

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.

If you are talking about dealers releasing after 8 days because they are legally allowed to, then you are correct. However, if the dealer chooses to wait for the ND and releases on or after 10/1/13, then you will need an HQL regardless of how long ago you submitted your paperwork.

 

[mxrider]

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.

The main reason that MD does not allow dealers to do their own NICS is that Maryland's background goes beyond what NICS does. NICS is required to meet federal laws, and that is the only reason it is even done. People can still be denied per MD rules and pass NICS (however I am not aware of an actual occurrence of that).

 

[MigraineMan]

Okay, so we will need HQLs moving forward. Ah, found the MSP webpage that instructs me on how to apply for one ...

Specific instructions on how to apply are in progress, pending based on the development of the automated system.

Hmmm. Instructions are dependant on development of the automated application process. Let's click on the link and see how that's going ...

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.

So if I'm reading this right, they plan to use an existing licensing solution (which wasn't designed for the HQL burden) to accept applications. No word on how the applications will be reviewed nor how licenses will be issued. The "automated" component appears to be "not started yet," but a beta-release for the HQL application proces is scheduled for the 19th of August. Reading a bit further down about the enhanced background check system upgrades:

This “Dashboard” would enable MSP to conduct federated searches across multiple systems to expedite the background check process. The funding for this project is grant-based, and the project is currently awaiting an award decision.

So they haven't even found funding for automation of "check multiple databases." Would imply that the checks are going to be done manually in the interim.

You can't apply for the HQL until the day you need it. And there might be delays in the MSP implementation of the applicaiton process. And there's no telling how long it'll take to process your application and issue you an HQL. MSP is massively overloaded with regular firearms purchase background checks, with no resolution of that on the horizon. Dang, am I the only one who thinks MSP (and the legislature) are one big high-school student expecting to start writing his term paper the night before it's due?

 

[aireyc]

The main reason that MD does not allow dealers to do their own NICS is that Maryland's background goes beyond what NICS does. NICS is required to meet federal laws, and that is the only reason it is even done. People can still be denied per MD rules and pass NICS (however I am not aware of an actual occurrence of that).

That doesn't even make any sense. I keep hearing that argument, but it defies logic. Just because a dealer does NICS doesn't mean the MSP can't do its own check later. The people who are blocked by MSP checks that aren't blocked by NICS are probably less likely to commit crimes anyway. And the whole "double count" on NICS is BS as well as the MSP is re-running NICS if the number expires within 5 days or whatever of faxing the ND, so I don't see how that's a problem. It's just a power grab and a middle finger to pro-2A individuals.

 

[chillman]

So the training requirement must be completed within 3 yrs of the purchase? I thought an older hunters safety course would be accepted.

Okay, so we will need HQLs moving forward. Ah, found the MSP webpage that instructs me on how to apply for one ...


Hmmm. Instructions are dependant on development of the automated application process. Let's click on the link and see how that's going ...



So if I'm reading this right, they plan to use an existing licensing solution (which wasn't designed for the HQL burden) to accept applications. No word on how the applications will be reviewed nor how licenses will be issued. The "automated" component appears to be "not started yet," but a beta-release for the HQL application proces is scheduled for the 19th of August. Reading a bit further down about the enhanced background check system upgrades:



So they haven't even found funding for automation of "check multiple databases." Would imply that the checks are going to be done manually in the interim.

You can't apply for the HQL until the day you need it. And there might be delays in the MSP implementation of the applicaiton process. And there's no telling how long it'll take to process your application and issue you an HQL. MSP is massively overloaded with regular firearms purchase background checks, with no resolution of that on the horizon. Dang, am I the only one who thinks MSP (and the legislature) are one big high-school student expecting to start writing his term paper the night before it's due?

 

[mxrider]

That doesn't even make any sense. I keep hearing that argument, but it defies logic. Just because a dealer does NICS doesn't mean the MSP can't do its own check later. The people who are blocked by MSP checks that aren't blocked by NICS are probably less likely to commit crimes anyway. And the whole "double count" on NICS is BS as well as the MSP is re-running NICS if the number expires within 5 days or whatever of faxing the ND, so I don't see how that's a problem. It's just a power grab and a middle finger to pro-2A individuals.

While I agree with you completely in what you are saying, I was just stating why MSP won't give up being POC. In their eyes, nobody should get their gun until ALL checks have been completed. I have tried and tried to get action going to remove MSP as the POC to provide at least some form of "clearance" and peace of mind to the dealers that feel a moral obligation to not release to a potential disapproved person.

 

[swinokur]

Because gun control isn't about guns, it's abount CONTROL.

The liberal/ Socialist mantra.

 

[henn5849]

My FFL who is doing a transfer of 13 firearms for me doesn't do early release. But, he will release all my pistols to me prior to oct 1st if this is true. What a relief...

 

[kalister1]

If you are talking about dealers releasing after 8 days because they are legally allowed to, then you are correct. However, if the dealer chooses to wait for the ND and releases on or after 10/1/13, then you will need an HQL regardless of how long ago you submitted your paperwork.

Correct, If the dealer chooses to wait, then you are affected by the DEALER not the STATE. That is why I capitalized STATE. People want to file a suit against the State for forcing them to get the license for a gun they purchased 3 months before the new law. You cannot blame the state if the FFL is the one holding your property because he wants to.
Anyone who buys from a dealer that will not release as soon as allowed by law will need the HQL, BUT, you can't blame the state unless you wait until the last few days of September.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

Correct, If the dealer chooses to wait, then you are affected by the DEALER not the STATE. That is why I capitalized STATE. People want to file a suit against the State for forcing them to get the license for a gun they purchased 3 months before the new law. You cannot blame the state if the FFL is the one holding your property because he wants to.
Anyone who buys from a dealer that will not release as soon as allowed by law will need the HQL, BUT, you can't blame the state unless you wait until the last few days of September.

You have to agree those anti's have set this table brilliantly.

 

[kalister1]

Dang, am I the only one who thinks MSP (and the legislature) are one big high-school student expecting to start writing his term paper the night before it's due?

Do you really think they will start that soon?

Lets face it, the law suit will come whether the HQL app is ready or not. The STATE does not care one bit about the rights of it's citizens that do NOT vote Democrat. We have already seen how the courts rule on Gun Laws, who has their Permit to carry without Good and Substantial?

Don't hold your breath looking for relief from the Courts.

This is Maryland, where only Felons can carry guns!

 

[kalister1]

You have to agree those anti's have set this table brilliantly.

I used to think they were STUPID, but not so much anymore!