Vinny DeMarco, re: HQL

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • mvee

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 13, 2007
    2,493
    Crofton
    Suppose the Frederick Sheriff is at a local gun store on October first to buy some ammo and a cleaning kit. If he and sees a lady walk up to the counter next to him and pickup a handgun that she purchased 8 days prior without showing a HQL. Couldn't he arrest the lady and the FFL if he witnesses the transaction?
     

    Mr H

    Unincited Co-Conservative
    Suppose the Frederick Sheriff is at a local gun store on October first to buy some ammo and a cleaning kit. If he and sees a lady walk up to the counter next to him and pickup a handgun that she purchased 8 days prior without showing a HQL. Couldn't he arrest the lady and the FFL if he witnesses the transaction?

    Jenkins??

    Would be interesting, considering he is a "Mack Pledge" sheriff.
     

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    The regulation language mimics the law. It is illegal to transfer/receive a handgun after 10/1. The MSP does not have the luxury of deciding which laws to execute. Their job is to execute the laws as written. There is no wiggle room in the law giving them the ability to reinterpret the provision.

    Well in fact they have duty not to enforce unconstitutional laws... I dont know if they are making that claim...

    Bottom Line ---when elephants dance stand clear...

    Stand back and wait for the courts....
     

    ShallNotInfringe

    Lil Firecracker
    Feb 17, 2013
    8,554
    Well in fact they have duty not to enforce unconstitutional laws... I dont know if they are making that claim...

    Bottom Line ---when elephants dance stand clear...

    Stand back and wait for the courts....

    Did the MSP say they aren't enforcing SB281 because it is an unconstitutional law?
     

    Mr H

    Unincited Co-Conservative
    Did the MSP say they aren't enforcing SB281 because it is an unconstitutional law?

    This is the core of their rationale...

    The Maryland State Police (MSP) will not enforce the requirements of the new law with respect to applicants whose applications are pending as of October 1. It was widely understood that the new requirements would not be enforced as to applications that were pending before October 1. In light of the number of currently pending applications—resulting from the unprecedented spike in new applications in recent months—it is a fair, reasoned, and appropriate result for those who are waiting for their pending purchase applications to be processed.

    Besides... didn't Doogie say something like SB281 was "likely Constitutional"??

    That sounds good to me....... NOT!!!
     

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    Did the MSP say they aren't enforcing SB281 because it is an unconstitutional law?

    They are saying they are not willing to get caught in the middle...

    The HQl required interpretation is impeachable in court, the question is if the argument will be persuasive to the court. Then there is the injunction issue. I can not say we will win. I can say there is a case to be made.

    And today it started ..

    There is no way the MSP can be a blunt as some of us would like...

    Just like the press release about the gov gun bill that walked very close to insubordination but did not cross the line..

    A good way to start my long weekend :)
     

    ShallNotInfringe

    Lil Firecracker
    Feb 17, 2013
    8,554
    They are saying they are not willing to get caught in the middle...

    The HQl required interpretation is impeachable in court, the question is if the argument will be persuasive to the court. Then there is the injunction issue. I can not say we will win. I can say there is a case to be made.

    And today it started ..

    There is no way the MSP can be a blunt as some of us would like...

    Just like the press release about the gov gun bill that walked very close to insubordination but did not cross the line..

    A good way to start my long weekend :)

    You really should take the LSAT with me next weekend. :)
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    276,048
    Messages
    7,306,133
    Members
    33,561
    Latest member
    Davidbanner

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom