JettaRed
Ultimate Member
I understand that things can change, based on AG opinions, court rulings, and other variables. However, when the language of the law is consistent, on its face, with the interpretations now being put out by the MSP, the odds are probably pretty high that the interpretation will stick.
That was not the case with regard to the issue that you raise. It's too bad that anybody was ever given the impression that he could order a handgun before October 1 and accept delivery of it after October 1, without obtaining a HQL (except transactions that fall under the exemptions in the law). I find it hard to fault the legal reasoning in the August 1 letter in which the AG's office opined that a person may not take delivery of a handgun from a dealer, after October 1, without possessing the HQL, regardless of when the handgun was ordered. The law itself says that the HQL is required. There are exceptions in the law, but no exception for handguns ordered prior to October 1.
In contrast, the law contains specific language about delivery of to-be-banned "assault"/"copycat" firearms that are ordered or applied for before October 1. Thus, the legislature took two distinctly different approaches to pre-October 1 orders with respect to handguns and "assault" firearms, respectively. I don't think that the implementers/enforcers should be faulted for observing the distinction.
Dean,
Thanks for your thoughtful and non-emotional responses.
Clearly, the mad rush to deliver handguns that have been held in purgatory for the last four months indicates that many were under the impression that they could order a handgun before October 1 and accept delivery of it after October 1, without obtaining a HQL.
Anyone attempting to read the bill can easily see how interpreting it for implementation is near impossible. It is actually shameful how non-specific and ambiguous the language appears to be.