Maryland Shall Issue Files Suit Against the Maryland State Police

[rwbow1969]

I don't know how else to put it.

 

[Mark75H]

I don't know how else to put it.

Yeah ...

I would think you should not underestimate how brilliant. Start doing some math...how many regulated firearms have been sold since this started?

60,000 so far this year. About half have been fully processed by MSP

 

[HoCoShooter]

60k in 2013? I wonder what the total number since Newtown to date Vs. the same dates in 2011-2012 is.

Mind numbing liberal logic.

 

[Mark75H]

60k in 2013? I wonder what the total number since Newtown to date Vs. the same dates in 2011-2012 is.

Mind numbing liberal logic.

Approximately 4 times as many after the election & Newtown compared to before

 

[dblas]

It was told to me, by a friend of mine, who is an FFL, that without a NICs number he is putting his license at risk by releasing early. The ATF has made a deal with the MSP that all regulated firearms, that is firearms which the MSP say are regulated in this state, are to go through the MSP only. Other free states like PA, VA, etc., the FFL does all NICs inquiries instantly. The MSP is telling FFL's that you can release after 7 days but you take responsibility for the firearm. Contrary to that, it is an absolute no-no for FFL to release, by Federal law without a NICs #. Therefore if the FFL can not only lose the ability to sell in MD but across the country, if the Feds see they are doing this. As per my friend the MSP send memoranda's to the FFL on a weekly basis that contradict what the public is hearing. Once again this is per my friend who is an FFL.

It is not the FFL's fault it is the MSP that has created a new class of firearm, passes a law as to their time of release and then infringes on constitutional rights to have them. It is the MSP which need to be tired in federal court for breaking Civil Rights! MSI should have never dropped their law suit!

1. MSP has stipulated in the lawsuit that FFLs are under no liability from MSP if they release on the 8th day, so your above comment is BS.

2. FFLs CAN release without a NICS number, the ATF has said so:

(All bold Italicized items are mine)

Let's start with the ATF FAQ: http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/brady-law.html

Let's look at question #57 : If a State is acting as a NICS point of contact (POC) and State law has requirements regarding the amount of time that a licensee must wait before transferring a firearm after contacting the State, should the licensee comply with the State requirements, the Federal requirements, or both?

And here is the answer:
(Let's change 10 days to 7 since we are in Maryland)
Example: State D is acting as a POC for NICS checks. State law requires a background check prior to the transfer of any firearm. State law also requires the licensee to wait 10 days to get a response from the State. The licensee must contact the State POC for a NICS check and a State background check. The licensee must comply with both Federal and State law by waiting 10 days for a response prior to transferring the firearm. If the licensee has not received a response from the State after 10 days, he or she may transfer the firearm.

Now, let's look at ATF for 7743: http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

Let's look at the directions for NICS: starting on Page 5 and finishing on page 6.

Question(s) 21, 22, 23, NICS BACKGROUND CHECKS: 18 U.S.C. § 922(t) requires that prior to transferring any firearm to an unlicensed person, a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer must first contact the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). NICS will advise the licensee whether the system finds any information that the purchaser is prohibited by law from possessing or receiving a firearm. For purposes of this form, contacts to NICS include contacts to State agencies designated to conduct NICS checks for the Federal Government. WARNING: Any seller who transfers a firearm to any person they know or have reasonable cause to believe is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm violates the law, even if the seller has complied with the background check requirements of the Brady law.
After the buyer has completed Section A of the form and the licensee has completed questions 18-20, and before transferring the firearm, the licensee must contact NICS (read below for NICS check exceptions.) However, the licensee should NOT contact NICS and should stop the transaction if: the
buyer answers “no” to question 11.a.; the buyer answers “yes” to any question in 11.b.-11.l., unless the buyer only has answered “yes” to question 11.l. and also answers “yes” to question 12; or the buyer is unable to provide the documentation required by question 20.a, b, or c.
At the time that NICS is contacted, the licensee must record in question 21.a- c: the date of contact, the NICS (or State) transaction number, and the initial response provided by NICS or the State. The licensee may record the Missing Disposition Information (MDI) date in 21.c. that NICS provides for delayed transactions (States do not provide this number). If the licensee receives a “delayed” response, before transferring the firearm, the licensee must record in question 21.d. any response later provided by NICS or the State or that no resolution was provided within 3 business days. If the licensee receives a response from NICS or the State after the firearm has been transferred, he or she must record this information in question 21.e. Note: States acting as points of contact for NICS checks may use terms other than “proceed,” “delayed,” “cancelled,” or “denied.” In such cases, the licensee should check the box that corresponds to the State’s response. Some States may not provide a transaction number for denials. However, if a firearm is transferred within the three business day period, a transaction number is required.
NICS Responses: If NICS provides a “proceed” response, the transaction may proceed. If NICS provides a “cancelled” response, the seller is prohibited from transferring the firearm to the buyer. If NICS provides a “denied” response, the seller is prohibited from transferring the firearm to the buyer. If NICS provides a “delayed” response, the seller is prohibited from transferring the firearm unless 3 business days have elapsed and, before the transfer, NICS or the State has not advised the seller that the buyer’s receipt or possession of the firearm would be in violation of law. (See 27 CFR § 478.102(a) for an example of how to calculate 3 business days.) If NICS provides a “delayed” response, NICS also will provide a Missing Disposition Informa- tion (MDI) date that calculates the 3 business days and reflects when the firearm(s) can be transferred under Federal law. States may not provide an MDI date. Please note State law may impose a waiting period on transferring firearms.

So, now that I have spoon fed you the information that has been provided previously in this thread (Several times), what else would you like to talk about?

 

[deesly1]

1. MSP has stipulated in the lawsuit that FFLs are under no liability from MSP if they release on the 8th day, so your above comment is BS.

2. FFLs CAN release without a NICS number, the ATF has said so:

Can you provide any legal letters or documentation on these two points? I would like to pass it on to my friend?

Thanks!

 

[HeatSeeker]

That is the legal documentation on these two points. ^^^^^

 

[L0gic]

1. MSP has stipulated in the lawsuit that FFLs are under no liability from MSP if they release on the 8th day, so your above comment is BS.

2. FFLs CAN release without a NICS number, the ATF has said so:

Can you provide any legal letters or documentation on these two points? I would like to pass it on to my friend?

Thanks!

your Friend Needs To Read The atf Handbook That Cover His business. Not Sure How Much More Hand Holding Can Be Done...

 

[Sourkraut115]

It is not the FFL's fault it is the MSP that has created a new class of firearm, passes a law as to their time of release and then infringes on constitutional rights to have them. It is the MSP which need to be tired in federal court for breaking Civil Rights! MSI should have never dropped their law suit!

That's funny. I didn't even know that MSP had the ability to "pass laws". I had this funny idea that that sort of thing was done by the General Assembly, and that the MSP was pretty much left holding the bag for said constitutionally designated legislative authorities. Not gonna excuse other members of the executive branch, but blaming a police agency for this over the elected officials who actually imposed this on us is downright idiotic, and illustrates a lack of attention that might explain why the government gets away with this sort of thing.

 

[Mark75H]

That's funny. I didn't even know that MSP had the ability to "pass laws". I had this funny idea that that sort of thing was done by the General Assembly, and that the MSP was pretty much left holding the bag for said constitutionally designated legislative authorities. Not gonna excuse other members of the executive branch, but blaming a police agency for this over the elected officials who actually imposed this on us is downright idiotic, and illustrates a lack of attention that might explain why the government gets away with this sort of thing.

yep, civics is not taught in school any more. Ignorance is in deed their tool

 

[dblas]

1. MSP has stipulated in the lawsuit that FFLs are under no liability from MSP if they release on the 8th day, so your above comment is BS.

2. FFLs CAN release without a NICS number, the ATF has said so:

Can you provide any legal letters or documentation on these two points? I would like to pass it on to my friend?

Thanks!

I'm not going to be as nice as some of the guys above.

Have you read ANY of this thread? Have you followed ANY of the links to the ATF and to the Documentation from the lawsuit?

More importantly, did you read anything other than two statements I provided and you quoted? If you would have, you would have seen all of the links to the answers for the 4473 are in my last post complete with where to find the damn information!

Here, let me spoon feed you the rest of the information.....

For #1: Motion to dismiss, which states that the Dealers will incur no liability from MSP for 8th day release. ; https://marylandshallissue.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/MTD.pdf

With respect to MFLDA, MSP's delay in providing a notice of disapprovals does not impose a legal barrier to that entity's members' ability to sell or transfer regulated firearms after the expiration of the seven-day period. Although MSP would prefer that those dealers refrain from making sales or transfers before receiving notice from MSP that a puchaser or transferor is not disapproved, MSP does not have the authority to prohibit them from doing so or to attach any legal consequences if they do so.

For those that can't or won't follow links, above is the specific verbage from the motion. PLease not the bold section (My doing).

For #2: USC 18 922 (t) ; http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

(t)
(1) Beginning on the date that is 30 days after the Attorney General notifies licensees under section 103(d) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that the national instant criminal background check system is established, a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer shall not transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless—

(A) before the completion of the transfer, the licensee contacts the national instant criminal background check system established under section 103 of that Act;

(B)

(i) the system provides the licensee with a unique identification number; or

(ii) 3 business days (meaning a day on which State offices are open) have elapsed since the licensee contacted the system, and the system has not notified the licensee that the receipt of a firearm by such other person would violate subsection (g) or (n) of this section; and

(C) the transferor has verified the identity of the transferee by examining a valid identification document (as defined in section 1028 (d) of this title) of the transferee containing a photograph of the transferee.

(2) If receipt of a firearm would not violate subsection (g) or (n) or State law, the system shall—

(A) assign a unique identification number to the transfer;

(B) provide the licensee with the number; and

(C) destroy all records of the system with respect to the call (other than the identifying number and the date the number was assigned) and all records of the system relating to the person or the transfer.

(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a firearm transfer between a licensee and another person if—

(A)

(i) such other person has presented to the licensee a permit that—

(I) allows such other person to possess or acquire a firearm; and

(II) was issued not more than 5 years earlier by the State in which the transfer is to take place; and

(ii) the law of the State provides that such a permit is to be issued only after an authorized government official has verified that the information available to such official does not indicate that possession of a firearm by such other person would be in violation of law;

(B) the Attorney General has approved the transfer under section 5812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or

(C) on application of the transferor, the Attorney General has certified that compliance with paragraph (1)(A) is impracticable because—

(i) the ratio of the number of law enforcement officers of the State in which the transfer is to occur to the number of square miles of land area of the State does not exceed 0.0025;

(ii) the business premises of the licensee at which the transfer is to occur are extremely remote in relation to the chief law enforcement officer (as defined in subsection (s)(8)); and

(iii) there is an absence of telecommunications facilities in the geographical area in which the business premises are located.

(4) If the national instant criminal background check system notifies the licensee that the information available to the system does not demonstrate that the receipt of a firearm by such other person would violate subsection (g) or (n) or State law, and the licensee transfers a firearm to such other person, the licensee shall include in the record of the transfer the unique identification number provided by the system with respect to the transfer.

(5) If the licensee knowingly transfers a firearm to such other person and knowingly fails to comply with paragraph (1) of this subsection with respect to the transfer and, at the time such other person most recently proposed the transfer, the national instant criminal background check system was operating and information was available to the system demonstrating that receipt of a firearm by such other person would violate subsection (g) or (n) of this section or State law, the Attorney General may, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, suspend for not more than 6 months or revoke any license issued to the licensee under section 923, and may impose on the licensee a civil fine of not more than $5,000.

(6) Neither a local government nor an employee of the Federal Government or of any State or local government, responsible for providing information to the national instant criminal background check system shall be liable in an action at law for damages—

(A) for failure to prevent the sale or transfer of a firearm to a person whose receipt or possession of the firearm is unlawful under this section; or

(B) for preventing such a sale or transfer to a person who may lawfully receive or possess a firearm.

Note the bold sections above (My doing)

There you go dude, in black and white codified in the Federal Register in the Federal law. No letter needed from ATF, no permission needed from the ATF or the MSP.


Anyone else need spoon fed, or are we good here?

 

[Mr H]

That's funny. I didn't even know that MSP had the ability to "pass laws".

Battered Citizen Syndrome?!??!

Yes, it's sad that people no longer have knowledge of--or interest in--the way our system is structured.

 

[johnnyb2]

I think that ........ " WHAT WE HAVE HERE..." " IS A FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE " :-)

Couldn't think of a way to say it...southern style :-)

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

I think that ........ " WHAT WE HAVE HERE..." " IS A FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE " :-)

Couldn't think of a way to say it...southern style :-)

The transmitter is functional.... It's a receiver issue

 

[dblas]

The transmitter is functional.... It's a receiver issue

Do we need to start passing out Q-tips???

 

[mcornish86@gmail.com]

We got f over on this lawsuit. I was expected MSP to really hire more people and speed up on these apps not get slower with less apps

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2



Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[MDFF2008]

We got f over on this lawsuit. I was expected MSP to really hire more people and speed up on these apps not get slower with less apps

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2



Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

It takes time to hire and train people, plus, they apparently have some backwards ass systems at MSP HQ.

However, dealers have been green lighted to release early.

 

[tomh]

It takes time to hire and train people, plus, they apparently have some backwards ass systems at MSP HQ.

However, dealers have been green lighted to release early.

Why is everyone making excuses for the MSP - fact is, a lot of dealers are not releasing, there are 100+ day delays, and not much changed due to the lawsuit.

In all, it was an expensive "nothing."

 

[rob-cubed]

Why is everyone making excuses for the MSP - fact is, a lot of dealers are not releasing, there are 100+ day delays, and not much changed due to the lawsuit.

In all, it was an expensive "nothing."

The fact that the fallout from the lawsuit encouraged several FFLs to release early is not a nothing... though it may not have been the something we are all hoping for.

I strongly suspect the MSP have been quietly "disincentivized" to fix the backlog issue--either due to lack of adequate funding or some other political roadblock which they have no control over. They punted to deflate the lawsuit but in the end I don't think pushing forward would have solved the backlog issue before Oct 1 anyway. The powers-that-be are gleefully happy with the current situation and eager to ensure it doesn't change before clock runs out.

 

[Ab_Normal]

The fact that the fallout from the lawsuit encouraged several FFLs to release early is not a nothing... though it may not have been the something we are all hoping for.

I strongly suspect the MSP have been quietly "disincentivized" to fix the backlog issue--either due to lack of adequate funding or some other political roadblock which they have no control over. They punted to deflate the lawsuit but in the end I don't think pushing forward would have solved the backlog issue before Oct 1 anyway. The powers-that-be are gleefully happy with the current situation and eager to ensure it doesn't change before clock runs out.

There is no lack of funding, they get $10 per application.