New 77R Forms

[hodgepodge]

Del Mike Smiegel has a link to the new 77R forms.

http://delegatemike.com/state-police-show-the-proposed-changes-to-the-77r-forms/

 

[bmelton]

I've saw those earlier, and browsing around other conversations on here, it seems like people think having a handgun exempts you from the need for the HQL. According to this (and something I heard when the debates were still going on), it seems like the "official" interpretation is that you don't need to get qualified for the handguns you own, but will need qualification to purchase future handguns.

Is the idea here that people are just going to stop buying handguns?
(Not being argumentative, just asking the question since I've been out of the loop lately due to some family emergencies.)

 

[GHETTO BLASTER]

From what I have seen if you already own a regulated firearm you don't have to have the required training but you still need the HQL to make a purchase after OCT 1st.There are many threads on here that have more in depth information on post 10/1 requirements check in the maryland 2a section

 

[bmelton]

Yeah, that jives with what I'm reading too -- I've just seen so many comments like "Glad that doesn't apply to existing gun owners" and such... and wasn't sure if that meant something different, or if everybody just up and decided that nobody was buying handguns after 10/1.

 

[aireyc]

I see they finally fixed the grammatical error, "then" instead of "than."

 

[Biggfoot44]

Having previously purchased a regulated weapon exempts you from the Training portion of the HQL, but must still go thru the rest and have a HQL. Active duty , and full Retired Mil are exempt from having a HQL . ( But not former Mil short of actual Retirement )

No HQL is needed for handguns already lawfully owned , by a then current Md resident . Anything further purchased after 10/01/13 will require complience with HQL procedures.

Current gunowners are split. Some are chomping at the bit to surrender their Funamental Rights in order to show the state that they can't stop them from buying handguns if they feel like it. Other substantial numbers will refuse to comply with the blatently Unconstitutional process , and and make do with what they already have / aquire by Oct 1 .

Meanwhile , I can predict with a minimum of crystal ball skills , that a very substantial porportion of potential first time purchasers when told of the time , expense , and procedures involved will decline to do so. Kind of like the percentages of regular gunowners who would kinda like to have a supressor or SBR , but don't want to deal with NFA .

 

[MDNavyVet]

I noted that on the proposed form 77R it mentions the exemptions for a HQL include either being an active duty military service member or retired. No exemption for an individual who served but did not retire is provided for. My Son who spent 8 years in the Marine Corps has more handgun/firearms experience than I had in my entire 20 year career in the Navy.

 

[Mr H]

Having previously purchased a regulated weapon exempts you from the Training portion of the HQL, but must still go thru the rest and have a HQL. Active duty , and full Retired Mil are exempt from having a HQL . ( But not former Mil short of actual Retirement )

No HQL is needed for handguns already lawfully owned , by a then current Md resident . Anything further purchased after 10/01/13 will require complience with HQL procedures.

Good summary. It's an area of great confusion, and this covers the basics nicely.

I noted that on the proposed form 77R it mentions the exemptions for a HQL include either being an active duty military service member or retired. No exemption for an individual who served but did not retire is provided for. My Son who spent 8 years in the Marine Corps has more handgun/firearms experience than I had in my entire 20 year career in the Navy.

No one ever claimed this thing made any sense!!!!

 

[Publius]

Looks like the social security number will be required in this new 77R. I don't think it is in the current 77R, thought that separate mental health form currently requires it. In the federal form they ask but it's voluntary information.

 

[fabsroman]

Kind of pathetic that the PBJ issue does not mention that if the PBJ was expunged, the applicant can answer "No", or that the matter does not prohibit the applicant. That is going to be confusing as hell to most applicants.

(B–1) (1) “CONVICTED OF A DISQUALIFYING CRIME” INCLUDES:
(I) A CASE IN WHICH A PERSON RECEIVED PROBATION BEFORE JUDGMENT FOR A CRIME OF VIOLENCE; AND
(II) A CASE IN WHICH A PERSON RECEIVED PROBATION BEFORE JUDGMENT IN A DOMESTICALLY RELATED CRIME AS DEFINED IN § 6–233 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ARTICLE.

(2) “CONVICTED OF A DISQUALIFYING CRIME” DOES NOT INCLUDE A CASE IN WHICH A PERSON RECEIVED A PROBATION BEFORE JUDGMENT:
(I) FOR ASSAULT IN THE SECOND DEGREE; OR
(II) THAT WAS EXPUNGED UNDER TITLE 10, SUBTITLE 1 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ARTICLE.

So, how does one answer this question under oath after they receive a PBJ for a crime of violence and have it expunged? Do they answer "Yes" and then try to explain the situation after they are Disapproved, or do they answer "No", which would be an incorrect answer. Of course, if they answer "Yes", they are instructed not to proceed beyond question 16 and that they cannot purchase a firearm.

The question regarding a habitual drunkard is rather misleading too. It refers to being found guilty of ANY three alcohol offenses, one of which occurred in the past year. Sadly, that is not what SB281 defines it as. Having an open container does not count. Possessing alcohol as a minor does not account, which could be relevant if the applicant was between 20 and 21 when the conviction occurred. Drinking in public does not count. Supplying alcohol to minors does not count. Pretty sure there are plenty of other alcohol offenses out there that are not relevant. As far as I know, it is only convictions under Md. Trans. section 21-902(a), (b), or (c).

My wife and sister needed my help in answering the questions on the current Form 77r and they are both college educated and very bright. My wife has a doctorate degree. Sadly, not everybody is going to be able to consult with their attorney before completing the Form 77r, much less take their attorney along to interpret this new God awful form. I didn't even make it past question 16. My head already hurts.

 

[fabsroman]

Question 23 has be banging my head too. Where in SB281 does it say that the Owner of a handgun must notify any subsequent recipient of the handgun about the requirement to notify the authorities of the loss or theft of a handgun within 72 hours of discovering the loss or theft?

Plus, if ALL future handgun sales in the State of MD are done on this new Form 77r, wouldn't Form 77r provide said notice via Question 23?

If they have an attorney helping them draft this pile of poo, they need to hire a better one. If not, they need to get one.

 

[Boom Boom]

I noted that on the proposed form 77R it mentions the exemptions for a HQL include either being an active duty military service member or retired. No exemption for an individual who served but did not retire is provided for.

The same applies to former LEOs.

 

[AntiGun]

...
Current gunowners are split. Some are chomping at the bit to surrender their Funamental Rights in order to show the state that they can't stop them from buying handguns if they feel like it. Other substantial numbers will refuse to comply with the blatently Unconstitutional process , and and make do with what they already have / aquire by Oct 1 .
...

make due with what you already have, AKA:
Give the State ruling class exactly what they wanted, that is, for you to fade away stewing in your own sense of righteousness while buying no more guns.

If I see something I want and can afford at that time then HQL be damned, I will be buying it.
There will be even fewer new gun owners if the existing gun owners just fall by the wayside under the guise of non-compliance as protest. A silent and easily ignored protest it will be.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Yup , that's the other argument, and not without merit.

But regardless how we can kick this around over either a campfire or adult beverages, the State's long term goal ( largly achieved ) goes beyond the response of either of us.

This scheme goes a long ways to de-normalize handgun ownership. In in mind of the greater populace it is going from moderate hassle , but that most regular people can deal with in a few weeks ( non-panic) , into a major undertaking involving lots of time , lots of $$ , and multiple beauracratic hoops to jump thru , akin to getting Amataur Radio lic , or Private Piolit Lic. And a generation from now will be about as common as Radio and Pilot Lics. If you mention 20yrs from now about back in the day when lots of people semi-easily bought handgun , you'll get blank/ condescending looks like I do now when talking about cars with points or carbs .

 

[SigDog]

Looks like the social security number will be required in this new 77R. I don't think it is in the current 77R, thought that separate mental health form currently requires it. In the federal form they ask but it's voluntary information.

It's not "required" on current 77R's and some buyers refuse to give it "voluntarily".
But when the 77R comes back from MSP, it's been written in by whoever did the background check.
At least that's what I've seen.

 

[Mr H]

Well, these are supposedly the PROPOSED changes...

But, it will become a problem if folks say nothing.

Get on the horn to your legislatorsand MSP leadership with your concerns now, and let them know you're still paying attention!

 

[swinokur]

I hope Del Smiegel or his staff read this thread.