rwbow1969
Get Wiffit
I don't know how else to put it.
I don't know how else to put it.
I would think you should not underestimate how brilliant. Start doing some math...how many regulated firearms have been sold since this started?
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.
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:
Can you provide any legal letters or documentation on these two points? I would like to pass it on to my friend?
Thanks!
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.
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!
"MSP Motion to dismiss" said: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.
18 USC 922 (t) said:(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.
That's funny. I didn't even know that MSP had the ability to "pass laws".
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
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.
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.