loaning handguns

I frequently go to the range with my son. He is 20. He does not have an HQL. Recently he has expressed an interest in going alone, due to schedule conflicts. Thus far my guidance is been to take only the long guns. Handguns only when I am with him. MD law only deals with transfer of title , not loaning. Is there any law case history or precedent that would allow me to feel comfortable legally in letting him take my handguns to the range without me?

And, to complete the conversation, does the situation change once he turns 21 and gets his HQL? The Handguns all belong to me in a legal purchase in Maryland.

As I understand it (from MSI postings), temporary gratuitous loans etc do not require HQL. He could certainly rent a handgun at a range. Seems to me in theory this is ok, I mean if he can rent one why not borrow yours and save $? That said, this seems like it could go sideways many different ways. If he is is pulled over for a ticket or gets in an accident hes in possession of a handgun at 20. Some officers know the law, some dont, some are more gun friendly than others. Even if I okd this - no side trips, certainly no trips through places like Baltimore, and no friends can tag along. Personally, I would stick to going with him or he can go to one of the ranges that allow rentals. Its only a year or less, after which he has something to look forward to.

danb said:

As I understand it (from MSI postings), temporary gratuitous loans etc do not require HQL. He could certainly rent a handgun at a range. Seems to me in theory this is ok, I mean if he can rent one why not borrow yours and save $? That said, this seems like it could go sideways many different ways. If he is is pulled over for a ticket or gets in an accident hes in possession of a handgun at 20. Some officers know the law, some dont, some are more gun friendly than others. Even if I okd this - no side trips, certainly no trips through places like Baltimore, and no friends can tag along. Personally, I would stick to going with him or he can go to one of the ranges that allow rentals. Its only a year or less, after which he has something to look forward to.

Click to expand...

I can’t add much other than “I agree”. As near as I can fathom under the law he would be okay. But okay after an arrest and processing and bailing out and getting the DA to realize the arresting officer was in the wrong...

No fun. I’d wait until he is 21 to cover more bases.

Also keep in mind last session they tried to pass a law banning temporary loans without a full transfer being required (IE HQL, go to barracks or FFL, pay transfer fee, wait 7-days, hand it over. Then once done loaning to back through the whole process).

The law had NO exceptions (except rentals). Not for immediate family. Not for hunting. Not for range use. Not exigent circumstances for self defense against an imminent threat. Nothing.

Maybe they realized how stupid it was and it’ll never be brought up again. I won’t hold my breath.

danb said:

As I understand it (from MSI postings), temporary gratuitous loans etc do not require HQL. He could certainly rent a handgun at a range. Seems to me in theory this is ok, I mean if he can rent one why not borrow yours and save $? That said, this seems like it could go sideways many different ways. If he is is pulled over for a ticket or gets in an accident hes in possession of a handgun at 20. Some officers know the law, some dont, some are more gun friendly than others. Even if I okd this - no side trips, certainly no trips through places like Baltimore, and no friends can tag along. Personally, I would stick to going with him or he can go to one of the ranges that allow rentals. Its only a year or less, after which he has something to look forward to.

Click to expand...

The HQL is not needed to possess a handgun, only to purchase one. Similarly, there are requirements to be 21 to purchase one, not posess. I see no requirements restricting possessing one. Not trying to be a Richard, not trying to start an argument. I'm trying to noodle it out in my mind.

Thanks to our good friends at MSRPA for tracking what's going on in the legislature this year.

There's at least one proposal to change the regs for loaning firearms in the mix right now.

https://www.msrpa.org/2019-maryland-general-assembly-bill-tracker/

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&tab=subject3&id=hb0096&stab=01&ys=2019RS

If this matter interests you please contact your legislator and the MSRPA.

Some Guy said:

Thanks to our good friends at MSRPA for tracking what's going on in the legislature this year.

There's at least one proposal to change the regs for loaning firearms in the mix right now.

https://www.msrpa.org/2019-maryland-general-assembly-bill-tracker/

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&tab=subject3&id=hb0096&stab=01&ys=2019RS

If this matter interests you please contact your legislator and the MSRPA.

Click to expand...

So if this passes, the owner needs to be physically present to keep the transfer rules from kicking in, which would suggest that at present there is no such provision. Thanks.

I am unsure of the language in the current regulations that govern loaning of firearms. You should check current regulations before loaning any firearms to your son.

If i was at the range with folks , they can borrow my guns but i am not loaning them out to take without me there . I would not do that for my own brothers .

ras_oscar said:

So if this passes, the owner needs to be physically present to keep the transfer rules from kicking in, which would suggest that at present there is no such provision. Thanks.

Click to expand...

That's my take on it also. Looks like they are trying to eliminate loaning a friend a gun but you could use my gun at the range if I'm there. My opinion is that you are GTG until and if this passes. Not a lawyer or an expert though.

ras_oscar said:

The HQL is not needed to possess a handgun, only to purchase one. Similarly, there are requirements to be 21 to purchase one, not posess. I see no requirements restricting possessing one. Not trying to be a Richard, not trying to start an argument. I'm trying to noodle it out in my mind.

Click to expand...

I agree with you 100%. Perhaps I used the wrong words and was not as articulate as I could be.

My point was simply that even though it's legal, there are a lot of ways that this could go wrong. Don't count on a traffic cop or anyone else to actually know the law in tremendous detail.

Some Guy said:

There's at least one proposal to change the regs for loaning firearms in the mix right now.

Click to expand...

This is probably a reaction to a tragedy that my own family experienced last year. My 1st cousins daughter, Lauren, was the University of Utah athlete who was shot to death in October by her ex-boyfriend. Her killer borrowed the gun from his roommate. My cousin and his wife are lobbying hard to make it illegal to loan firearms.

My brother has 4 daughters, when we talked about Lauren's murder, he said if it had been one of his girls, he would have been at the University the day it was discovered that the boyfriend was a convicted felon, a sex offender who spent a decade in prison. He told me he would have pulled his daughter out of school, brought her home kicking and screaming, until the guy was found and arrested and back in prison. I know my brother well, that's exactly what he would have done. He's a self made man worth tens of millions and a great dad, but also as tough as hardened steel, he doesn't mess around.

Unfortunately, Lauren was essentially left to deal with the issue herself, getting guidance over the phone from her parents. The University and University police completely screwed up, she called and she called, they never took any action. Police had his correct address, they never even went by, his actions were a parole violation that would have put him back in custody. Nothing. Lauren was a 21 year old kid who grew up in the farmland of Pullman, Washington where both of her parents were professors at WSU.

My cousin grew up in Montana, finished #1 in Montana when he graduated, 1600 SAT, went to MIT as a double major, graduated #1 at MIT, went to get a Phd in physics from Berkeley, his wife has a Phd from Berkeley in economics. Unfortunately, they have all the IQ in the world but lacked the real world common sense to recognize the real danger their daughter was in. You can listen to the tapes of her calls to police, it's heartbreaking, she was all alone.

JakeThePit said:

This is probably a reaction to a tragedy that my own family experienced last year. My 1st cousins daughter, Lauren, was the University of Utah athlete who was shot to death in October by her ex-boyfriend. Her killer borrowed the gun from his roommate. My cousin and his wife are lobbying hard to make it illegal to loan firearms.

My brother has 4 daughters, when we talked about Lauren's murder, he said if it had been one of his girls, he would have been at the University the day it was discovered that the boyfriend was a convicted felon, a sex offender who spent a decade in prison. He told me he would have pulled his daughter out of school, brought her home kicking and screaming, until the guy was found and arrested and back in prison. I know my brother well, that's exactly what he would have done. He's a self made man worth tens of millions and a great dad, but also as tough as hardened steel, he doesn't mess around.

Unfortunately, Lauren was essentially left to deal with the issue herself, getting guidance over the phone from her parents. The University and University police completely screwed up, she called and she called, they never took any action. Police had his correct address, they never even went by, his actions were a parole violation that would have put him back in custody. Nothing. Lauren was a 21 year old kid who grew up in the farmland of Pullman, Washington where both of her parents were professors at WSU.

My cousin grew up in Montana, finished #1 in Montana when he graduated, 1600 SAT, went to MIT as a double major, graduated #1 at MIT, went to get a Phd in physics from Berkeley, his wife has a Phd from Berkeley in economics. Unfortunately, they have all the IQ in the world but lacked the real world common sense to recognize the real danger their daughter was in. You can listen to the tapes of her calls to police, it's heartbreaking, she was all alone.

Click to expand...

A truly sad story, but wasn't it already illegal for him to possess, doesn't need to be made double illegal.

Mark75H said:

A truly sad story, but wasn't it already illegal for him to possess, doesn't need to be made double illegal.

Click to expand...

The legislation specifically targets the gun owner, not the criminal who used the gun. It would hold gun owners accountable even if they didn't know the person was a felon or on parole.

Under both federal and Utah law it's already illegal to knowingly lend a firearm to a felon.

18 USC 922(d),

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance…; (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien— (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa…(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child…(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

ras_oscar said:

I frequently go to the range with my son. He is 20. He does not have an HQL. Recently he has expressed an interest in going alone, due to schedule conflicts. Thus far my guidance is been to take only the long guns. Handguns only when I am with him. MD law only deals with transfer of title , not loaning. Is there any law case history or precedent that would allow me to feel comfortable legally in letting him take my handguns to the range without me?

And, to complete the conversation, does the situation change once he turns 21 and gets his HQL? The Handguns all belong to me in a legal purchase in Maryland.

Click to expand...

That's a question you would have to take up with the gun range because most have rules preventing anyone under 21 from using the range without being accompanied by someone over the age of 21. Once he turns 21 he would be allowed to go on his own.

A truely sad situation , but it's already illegal both state and Federally for him to have possesed any firearm . Likewise it's already illegal to murder ex- girlfriends , whether firearms , knives, blunt objects, strangulation , etc .

JakeThePit said:

The legislation specifically targets the gun owner, not the criminal who used the gun. It would hold gun owners accountable even if they didn't know the person was a felon or on parole.

Under both federal and Utah law it's already illegal to knowingly lend a firearm to a felon.

18 USC 922(d),

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance…; (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien— (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa…(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child…(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

Click to expand...

To me thats part of being a responsible gun owner. You shouldnt be loaning out you gun to any and every Tom, Dick and Harry, if it is someone you know and you dont know that they have been convicted of a felon then its somebody you really dont know and you shouldnt be lending them a firearm.

Biggfoot44 said:

A truely sad situation , but it's already illegal both state and Federally for him to have possesed any firearm . Likewise it's already illegal to murder ex- girlfriends , whether firearms , knives, blunt objects, strangulation , etc .

Click to expand...

It's hard for me to be impartial on this issue. However, this legislation is aimed at the owner who lends his gun, not the felon who uses the gun.

I think the imbecile who lends his firearm to someone he has only known for a month should be held accountable, to a point. I wouldn't do that, I don't know anyone who would.

The reason he wasn't charged was because he didn't know anything about the guy, because basically he didn't know him at all, including that he was a convicted rapist on parole.

Rowland may well have still murdered her, but the willful recklessness and irresponsibility of the gun owner who lent him his gun is unforgivable and that guy should probably not own a firearm.

bigmanindc said:

To me thats part of being a responsible gun owner. You shouldnt be loaning out you gun to any and every Tom, Dick and Harry, if it is someone you know and you dont know that they have been convicted of a felon then its somebody you really dont know and you shouldnt be lending them a firearm.

Click to expand...

ON THE NOSE!!!!

So instead criminalize people like me for sharing with wife, daughter, co-workers in high security jobs, people known entire life , who are all not doing anything wrong ?

Biggfoot44 said:

So instead criminalize people like me for sharing with wife, daughter, co-workers in high security jobs, people known entire life , who are all not doing anything wrong ?

Click to expand...

That's a gigantic false equivalency and it also isn't what I said. For some reason, you are throwing out a straw man and trying to put words in my mouth. Let's discuss it.

Do you see any difference between lending your firearm to your wife, daughter, co-workers in high security jobs, people known entire life and lending it to a virtual stranger you've known for weeks, a stranger who it turns out is a convicted violent criminal looking for a weapon to commit a murder? Any difference or is it exactly the same? I see a huge difference.

If a person lends their weapon to someone they barely knew, who turned out to be a homicidal maniac who used it an hour later to murder someone, do you think they should be held accountable AT ALL? In the Utah case, the gun owner faced no consequences. Not criminal, not civil.

The reason he didn't face consequences? Because he didn't KNOW Rowland was a criminal. The fact is, he didn't know Rowland at all, he was a new acquaintance. That puts him in the clear? That doesn't seem right. At the very least, a gun owner should have the OBLIGATION to be 100% certain, as certain as you are with your wife, kids, lifelong friends and co-workers who hold high security jobs and clearances. Failing to be certain should have consequences if the outcome is tragic.

If a gun owner lends their firearm to a co-worker with a top security clearance who goes home and shoots their wife, that's on THE KILLER, not on the gun owner. However, if they lend a firearm to someone they barely know, who turns out to be a convicted rapist who uses it to murder the girl who dumped them, that is on the killer and the gun owner with no brains and terrible judgment, in my opinion. Responsible gun ownership and willful recklessness are not the same thing.

The Utah gun owner is the sort of gun owner who puts everyone's 2A rights in jeopardy. Irresponsible, willfully reckless with their firearms, doesn't consider the consequences of their actions. He doesn't have the sense to understand that he lacks the right stuff to be a gun owner, so he buys a gun and tragedy ensues. At a minimum, that guy should NOW forfeit his right to own just as Rowland the convicted felon forfeited his. I am OK with that.