MSP: we will require information on only a single handgun for HQL training exemption

mr h said:

But we had reports from (IIRC) at least 2 "training sessions" that the intent was to make it handguns.

Click to expand...

I don't know whose "intent" is being referred to here. But on this point, the statutory language has no wiggle room -- it says "regulated firearm," and "regulated firearm" is explicitly defined in the same law.

Yet another exapmle of "what Md/ MSP wishes the law said" vs " the actual law" .

Biggfoot44 said:

Yet another exapmle of "what Md/ MSP wishes the law said" vs " the actual law" .

Click to expand...

I don't know who said what at a training session, but on the point under discussion, I do not see any basis to fault the manner in which the MSP proposes to implement the exemption that the General Assembly wrote. The actual law, the draft regulation, and the explanation from Lt. Cook are consistent, on the point under discussion here, in my opinion.

I'm not quite sure I understand why this is even an issue. If you already have your gun, you don't need to get an HQL to use it, and so no serial reporting is needed. If you buy a new gun, you'll need the HQL, and presumably the gun's serial number will be reported to MSP at time of purchase when you fill out your paperwork.

Who the hell would provide more than one firearm for registration anyway?

The Statute specificaly states "Regulated FIREARM" , you are relating their. Intention to administer the process only recognizing "Regulated HANDGUN" . There are many thousands of recently purchased Regulated Rifles ( and for that matter Regulated Recievers ) that would be improperly excluded from consideration for training exemption. And yes I know actual people who have purchased Regulated Rifles , but don't own handguns, so it's not strictly an obscure hypothetical.

huesmann said:

I'm not quite sure I understand why this is even an issue. If you already have your gun, you don't need to get an HQL to use it, and so no serial reporting is needed. If you buy a new gun, you'll need the HQL, and presumably the gun's serial number will be reported to MSP at time of purchase when you fill out your paperwork.

Click to expand...

Assume for a moment you are someone who has never owned a handgun, but you own an AR.

The law, as written, states you avoid the training requirement for an HQL.

If what we are hearing is true, the intent is to adopt final regulations which will change that to "handgun", thus requiring you to fulfill the training requirement.

The current docs out there for COMAR are only proposed... no one knows what the final will be, yet. But, I fully expect more games to be played with it.

mr h said:

If what we are hearing is true, the intent is to adopt final regulations which will change that to "handgun", thus requiring you to fulfill the training requirement.

Click to expand...

We'll see. I would make a substantial wager that this will not occur. If it does occur, it will be overturned by the first administrative law judge or regular judge who looks at the issue.

Just something to keep an eye out for, is all.....

huesmann said:

I'm not quite sure I understand why this is even an issue. If you already have your gun, you don't need to get an HQL to use it, and so no serial reporting is needed. If you buy a new gun, you'll need the HQL, and presumably the gun's serial number will be reported to MSP at time of purchase when you fill out your paperwork.

Click to expand...

The reason why it is an issue is that a person may wish to obtain the HQL, so he can buy a new gun, without going through the time and expense of a training course that he may feel, based on his background and experience, will be of no real benefit to him. If so, he can avoid the training requirement by providing the "weapon information" on his already-owned regulated firearm. If he does not already lawfully own a regulated firearm, or owns one but does not wish to "register" it, then he must fulfill the training requirement in order to obtain the HQL. The new gun that he wishes to purchase is not part of this equation -- he cannot even submit the paperwork to purchase the new gun until he can present a HQL to the dealer or other seller.

ddeanjohnson said:

The reason why it is an issue is that a person may wish to obtain the HQL, so he can buy a new gun, without going through the time and expense of a training course that he may feel, based on his background and experience, will be of no real benefit to him. If so, he can avoid the training requirement by providing the "weapon information" on his already-owned regulated firearm. If he does not already lawfully own a regulated firearm, or owns one but does not wish to "register" it, then he must fulfill the training requirement in order to obtain the HQL. The new gun that he wishes to purchase is not part of this equation -- he cannot even submit the paperwork to purchase the new gun until he can present a HQL to the dealer or other seller.

Click to expand...

This. No one is saying you MUST give the MSP ANY information on any firearms you own. The simple fact is, you don't HAVE to claim the exemption. You can take the training and fulfill the rest of the HQL requirements, and drive on.

ddeanjohnson, thanks much for the OP. Your posts are vastly more informative than anything we see coming out from the Maryland state government. Well, it may not be wise to compare something against nothing, so let me rephrase it: your posts are extremely useful.

"There are a number of ways in which a Maryland resident might lawfully possess one or more regulated firearms that are not in the state database. For example, a person may have lawfully acquired a certain firearm before it became regulated in Maryland"

When did the requirement to register private sales of handguns take place in MD?

Publius said:

ddeanjohnson, thanks much for the OP. Your posts are vastly more informative than anything we see coming out from the Maryland state government. Well, it may not be wise to compare something against nothing, so let me rephrase it: your posts are extremely useful.

Click to expand...

Thank you. But my self-imposed task of shedding some light on a few specific components of the new law is trivial, compared to the Herculean burdens that have been imposed on the Maryland State Police Licensing Division by the new law -- imposed on an agency already charged with regulatory tasks far in excess of the resources provided to execute them.

Also, it is a considerable overstatement to say that "nothing" is coming out of state government on this. It is true that they are behind schedule on publishing formal regulations for public comment, but I think the MSP is doing its best to resolve various issues and get information out as fast as practicable. Indeed, whatever value is found in my current series of topic-specific posts derives in substantial part from the willingness of MSP personnel to correspond on those topics and others, even though they have a plethora of other things to worry about, and I represent nobody but myself.

I will go further and observe that in my personal opinion, the animus expressed by some participants in this forum towards the MSP -- I don't mean you, Publius -- is misplaced. The career professionals at MSP did not pass this law. Indeed, certain components of the law would be worse if members of the majority party had not occasionally consulted MSP on some technical issues. The law was enacted by elected legislators, driven by the dictates of a governor who is running for President and wanted some merit badges from certain liberal interest groups. Major components will be reviewed, it appears, by federal judges, who were appointed and confirmed by other elected officials. Complain about administrative missteps all you like, but it is elections that matter.

The career professionals at the MSP are tasked with implementing what the General Assembly and the governor created. I wish success to those who pursue challenges on constitutional grounds to various key provisions, but I'm not among those who hope that the MSP makes as many mistakes as possible to provide more fodder for attack. Rather, my hope is that the MSP will not, by inadvertence or otherwise, impose additional burdens that are not actually dictated by the provisions of the law itself.

The next time a drunken speeder zips past you on the Interstate, reflect that the trooper who might have stopped him is behind a desk, doing the 10th background check this year on the same upstanding citizen, or puzzling over a reference book trying to determine whether a Colt Woodsman .22 plinking pistol is a "curio or relic." That apparently reflects the priorities of your governor. Don't blame the trooper or his career professional superiors. Blame the architects and enacters of the law.

As far as I'm concerned, they can take their handgun license scam and shove it up their a$$e$. I will never get one.

MSP: we will require information on only a single handgun for HQL training exemption

occbrian said:

What If my firearm was purchased out of state before I moved to Md? That sounds like forced registration to me.

Click to expand...

Sgt Preston here...

You would NOT be forced to register your firearm...

You would have to take the training class...

It's your choice...

Just write down the serial number of a rental handgun from a range.

pilgrim said:

Just write down the serial number of a rental handgun from a range.

Click to expand...

That would likely turn out to be a bad thing. Assuming they actually log all of the information from the HQL applications into a database, the rental gun registered to a business which also shows as being yours, according to your application, would throw up a major red flag. One would likely get a visit from MSP regarding the matter.

Evil Twin said:

That would likely turn out to be a bad thing. Assuming they actually log all of the information from the HQL applications into a database, the rental gun registered to a business which also shows as being yours, according to your application, would throw up a major red flag. One would likely get a visit from MSP regarding the matter.

Click to expand...

I agree. Lying on a form is never a good thing.

Now someone who has ever purchased a stripped lower can always make the statement that they had turned it in to an ar style pistol, and provide that serial number. The issue with that is if you try to assemble it in to an ar style rifle with other than a hbar style upper afterwards.

Or better yet, buy one of the 80% kits and build it in to an ar style pistol. Since there is no requirement for a serial number...

pilgrim said:

Just write down the serial number of a rental handgun from a range.

Click to expand...

...and that is called perjury, which I believe the State would take seriously and most likely prosecute for doing on a HQL application.

From the Forum Rules:

Illegal Activity: No threads or posts discussing how to violate laws.