Orders before Oct 1 but fulfilled after?

[ShallNotInfringe]

FWIW, I agree with swinokur's interpretation. The legislation is written this way to close a huge, obvious loophole: submit a huge standing purchase order to your FFL for every gun on the sun, and then write yourself a bunch of clauses that essentially amount to "I'll buy what I want when I want".

I remember Del Simmons having a hissy fit during the Committee voting session on 3/29 about this very subject.

 

[SigDog]

I'd be very surprised if the "official" interpretation allowed transfers of regulated firearms after Oct 1 if the gun in question were not already in possession of your FFL.
Not arguing with others here that interpret it otherwise but I just don't see the state leaving that "loophole" open for us to utilize.
I've been wanting to get an LRB forged M1A and with the backorder situation there, I doubt I'll be able to fill that desire prior to Oct 1.
If it is interpreted that just a purchase order will work after Oct, LRB will be getting a call and a credit card number from me for sure.

 

[eruby]

I'd be very surprised if the "official" interpretation allowed transfers of regulated firearms after Oct 1 if the gun in question were not already in possession of your FFL.
Not arguing with others here that interpret it otherwise but I just don't see the state leaving that "loophole" open for us to utilize.
I've been wanting to get an LRB forged M1A and with the backorder situation there, I doubt I'll be able to fill that desire prior to Oct 1.
If it is interpreted that just a purchase order will work after Oct, LRB will be getting a call and a credit card number from me for sure.

Agree with this post. Hope I'm wrong.

 

[abean4187]

Thanks for getting his clarification on that. This is good news. Did anyone ask about the purchases of firearms spanning the 10/1 date (purchase before and pick up after) and the necessity for the HQL for transfer/receipt after 10/1?

I’d also like to know this. If I can’t pick up a handgun that I purchased before 10/1 after 10/1 than I am just going to stop buying handguns for now. If it is the other way though I need to get on gunbroker and start picking up some more things that I want to get.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

Focusing on "receive" language in the sections we are discussing... Here's a litany.

Black's Law Dictionary has the following definition for RECEIVE (and it is not redefined in the bill or in the Annotated Code of MD that I can locate):
To take into possession and control; accept custody of; collect.

Here's the bill language on the banned long guns (Section 4-302) - handguns are handled in a different section..
4–303.
(a)Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person may not:
(1) transport an assault WEAPON into the State; or
(2) possess, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, or receive an assault WEAPON.

(b)
(1) A person who lawfully possessed an assault pistol before June 1, 1994, and who registered the assault pistol with the Secretary of State Police before August 1, 1994, may:
(I) continue to possess AND TRANSPORT the assault pistol; or
(II) while carrying a court order requiring the surrender of the assault pistol, transport the assault pistol directly to the law enforcement unit, barracks, or station if the person has notified the law enforcement unit, barracks, or station that the person is transporting the assault pistol in accordance with a court order and the assault pistol is unloaded.

(2) A LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER MAY CONTINUE TO POSSESS, SELL, OFFER FOR SALE, OR TRANSFER AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON THAT THE LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER LAWFULLY POSSESSED ON OR BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2013..

(3) A PERSON WHO LAWFULLY POSSESSED, HAS A PURCHASE ORDER FOR, OR COMPLETED AN APPLICATION TO PURCHASE AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2013 MAY:

(I) CONTINUE TO POSSESS AND TRANSPORT THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON; OR

(II) WHILE CARRYING A COURT ORDER REQUIRING THE SURRENDER OF THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON, TRANSPORT THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON DIRECTLY TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT UNIT, BARRACKS, OR STATION IF THE PERSON HAS NOTIFIED THE LAW ENFORCEMENT UNIT, BARRACKS, OR STATION THAT THE PERSON IS TRANSPORTING THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON IN ACCORDANCE WITH A COURT ORDER AND THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON IS UNLOADED.

I don't see "may"..."receive" in (b)3(I)... I do see "receive" specifically called out in 1(a) as a "MAY NOT". There no exception for "receive" in b(3)(I). Only 1 of the list in 1(a) is excepted - possess. Then a thrown in "transport", which IIRC was added for "clarification".

Who knows? Not trying to cause a stir, just a straight reading of the black letters on the white paper.

I recall the floor debate about this and the discussion was about the dealers being able to sell them out of state to rid themselves of inventory (Dumais)

Here's a "fun" paragraph.... That has the word "receive" in it:

4–304.
A law enforcement unit may seize as contraband and dispose of according to regulation an assault WEAPON transported, sold, transferred, purchased, received, or possessed in violation of this subtitle.

Here's the bill language on Handguns (Section 5-117.1):

(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;

They do use the word "receive" here. This reads like you need a HQL after 10/1 to receive a handgun. The bill is silent on possession. So you don't need a HQL to possess a handgun after 10/1.

And in the section in magazines (4-305) they use "receive" and "transfer". But are silent on possession. So you can possess a magazine with more than 10 round capacity after 10/1, but cant do any of the other actions listed.

(a)This section does not apply to:
(1) a .22 caliber rifle with a tubular magazine; OR
(2) A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR A PERSON WHO RETIRED IN GOOD STANDING FROM SERVICE WITH A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES, THE STATE, OR ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY IN THE STATE.
(b) A person may not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, purchase, receive, or transfer a detachable magazine that has a capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition for a firearm.

 

[Mr H]

This is the issue I've been trying to point out...

The language is still not clear AND we don't have any clear direction from anyone supposedly in the know.

I hear people talking about this, who should know the details, conflating the two aspects and end up giving out [what I believe to be] incorrect and/or confusing information. It will not be good, if that keeps up.

The "promise" was made that long guns purchased prior to 10/1 could be received after (the amorphous "Purchase Order" language), but I still don't see where that's been set in stone. "I don't see where that would be a problem," was bothersome to me when I heard Baron von Frosh say it on the Senate floor, and it smells worse now. I didn't believe him then, and I still think it was said just to shut people up.

I agree, that it's looking more and more like handguns held past 10/1 will require the HQL. But I see that as being direct "harm", and ripe for legal challenge, too. The only "good" (all things being relative) I see in that is the exemption for current handgun owners from the training requirement. Otherwise, it still stinks on ice.

 

[Mr H]

According to Del Mike last night on Seeing Red, if you have the PO for a rifle before October 1 your good to receive it when ever, if you have a PO for a pistol with higher than 10 round mags before October 1 you are good, if you have a PO for magazines of more than 10 rounds before October 1 you are good. /thread

I heard that last night, and I don't agree with all he said.

To my knowledge, there has never been any mention of the "purchase order" for handguns, if only because there was no expected "ban". Magazines are simple... 20 got changed to 10... otherwise the rules are the same.

100-day waits weren't anticipated, so I seriously doubt any thought was given to that aspect.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

This is the issue I've been trying to point out...

The language is still not clear AND we don't have any clear direction from anyone supposedly in the know.

I hear people talking about this, who should know the details, conflating the two aspects and end up giving out [what I believe to be] incorrect and/or confusing information. It will not be good, if that keeps up.

The "promise" was made that long guns purchased prior to 10/1 could be received after (the amorphous "Purchase Order" language), but I still don't see where that's been set in stone. "I don't see where that would be a problem," was bothersome to me when I heard Baron von Frosh say it on the Senate floor, and it smells worse now. I didn't believe him then, and I still think it was said just to shut people up.

I agree, that it's looking more and more like handguns held past 10/1 will require the HQL. But I see that as being direct "harm", and ripe for legal challenge, too. The only "good" (all things being relative) I see in that is the exemption for current handgun owners from the training requirement. Otherwise, it still stinks on ice.

I am not an insider, so who knows what's happening behind the scene, but the black letters on white paper are clear.

Maybe exceptions are being created in smoke filled rooms as we type, but right now all I have to read is what they wrote down, voted on and the Governor signed.

 

[delegatemikesmigiel]

SB-281 says as long as you have a receipt that a purchase was made prior to the Oct. 1, 2013 date the purchase will be grandfathered in. I believe that the NRA will be filing suit immediately after the effective date (because that is when the case becomes ripe) and that the court will also issue and injunctive order at that time to stop the implementation of SB-281. I am not sure if the firearms purchased after that date, even with a receipt, will be grandfathered in if the suit were unsuccessful or that portion of the suit were upheld. So get your purchase orders in before Oct. 1, 2013.

 

[Pinecone]

Ok it says MAY, but it doesn't make an exception for firearms possessed after Oct 1 . It says FFL can transfer it if possessed prior to Oct 1, but no allowance after Oct 1. I read that as not allowed.

Not prohibited is allowed.

Basic tenent of US law.

 

[Pinecone]

Law says you can possess it, if you had a purchase order for it before Oct 1.

So that implies that you can receive it to possess it.

 

[flyingblind]

Can you also ask him about the question posted about HQL and 10/1? There are A LOT of people inquiring about that. The speculation and reading of the law may start a severe drop off in handgun sales very soon (given the current wait times near 100 days) if the answer isn't clear.

Transactions that were started before 10/1 follow pre ban rules per Del Mike

 

[erwos]

Transactions that were started before 10/1 follow pre ban rules per Del Mike

With all due respect to the man, his interpretation isn't the one that matters. It's the AG's and the MSP's.

 

[eruby]

With all due respect to the man, his interpretation isn't the one that matters. It's the AG's and the MSP's.

This.

I'm a great admirer of delegate Mike, and his aide-de-camp Andi. But the AG has the final word and saying "Mike said it was okay" as I'm taken away won't cut it.

That's IF you can find an FFL to give you the gun after 10/1.

 

[andimorony]

This.

I'm a great admirer of delegate Mike, and his aide-de-camp Andi. But the AG has the final word and saying "Mike said it was okay" as I'm taken away won't cut it.

That's IF you can find an FFL to give you the gun after 10/1.

ROFLMAO "aide-de-camp"....I love it! Do I get a special wreath for my suit or something to go with that ;-)

I hear what you are saying about this issue but it does warrant a reminder that not only is Mike a Delegate ON the Judiciary Committee (and who has worked these issues for YEARS) but he is a practicing attorney. And as you all know he was in the committee room and in the back room for all the discussions on this (dumbass!) bill.

No, he isn't the AG (and I am not an attorney) but I don't think the AG can or will comment on any case currently in the courts. Nor do I think we will get any kind of beneficial response from the AG regarding something he reasonably expects will go to court.

Ipso facto, Mike's the best resource I can think of on what will be allowed or not allowed under this (dumbass!) bill. ;-)

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

This.

Hey aide-de-camp! Good to see ya here!

Well y'all can take your chances. I don't trust any of the decision makers (AG) to come down on the side of gun rights. . Especially after his SB281 memo.

Absolutely no disrespect intended with regard to Delegate Mike.

 

[andimorony]

This.

Hey aide-de-camp! Good to see ya here!

Well y'all can take your chances. I don't trust any of the decision makers (AG) to come down on the side of gun rights. . Especially after his SB281 memo.

Absolutely no disrespect intended with regard to Delegate Mike.

We're good ;-)

I intend to buy as much I can on my "need/want" list as far in advance as I can of Oct 1.

 

[semper000]

I just don't see MD being ok with putting in a PO to a retailer with a 12-18 month lead time (I'm sure there are a few companies out there with extreme back orders), then being able to receive your regulated and now outlawed item in 2014 or 2015. So much is really unclear on exactly what they really mean.

 

[swinokur]

Not prohibited is allowed.

Basic tenent of US law.

Then why is there a specific carve out to allow? Allowing before Oct 1 means to prohibit after Oct 1 in my mind.

This needs an AG opinion.

 

[pez34a]

Can a citizen ask for an AG opinion directly, or does it need to come from a delegate?