R&R to House of Delegates: "We Will Not Comply!"

fabsroman · Mar 21, 2019

swinokur said:
The only proof will be a NTN and afterwards an entry in the BB.

Right, so if the FFL signs something for the seller, then if the seller is ever questioned about it, the seller can provide the receipt/form from the FFL showing that the make/model/serial gun was sold and a NICS was done on the buyer. No PII on the buyer. Just an affirmation by the FFL that the law was complied with. If law enforcement then wants to take it a step further, law enforcement can go and look at the FFL's bound book.

More paperwork for us gun owners, but IF this law gets passed, it should be passed so that there is no issue as to how we can comply with it and show proof of compliance.

Who knows, maybe this problem is enough to sink the law until they can rethink it. Maybe this is something that Hogan can address through MSP and COMAR if this law gets passed as is.

Does the seller of a regulated firearm get a copy of the Form 77R? I don't know because I have never sold a gun myself. As the buyer, I know I get a copy of the Form 77R.

jefflac02 · Mar 21, 2019

fabsroman said:
I am more worried about law enforcement trying to trace the gun from manufacture to ultimate destination, coming to a law abiding Maryland citizen that sold the gun to somebody, and that citizen then not having anything to show that he/she complied with the NICS requirement upon the sale. That is something that needs to be addressed in this bill. The seller needs something to show that he complied. Otherwise, the seller does not have any evidence if he/she is charged with not complying with this law. I am worried about the law abiding seller, getting charged for something because he does not have proof that he/she complied with the law.

In the same regard, how is it any different if someone were to circumvent this and still sell face to face and the same thing happen. How do you prove when it was sold? Most folks don’t even ask for a written receipt to show proof of sale.

This is where I have a problem with laws like this. It seems to completely go against freedom and liberty and the ability to bear arms.

We cannot ever control what anyone else can do. That to me is the essence of individual liberty.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jimboy · Mar 21, 2019

Hmmmmh, where would people of that mentality have been in 1775?

swinokur · Mar 21, 2019

Yes the seller used to get a copy but I don’t know about the record now with the 77e electronic records.

fabsroman · Mar 21, 2019

Jimboy said:
Hmmmmh, where would people of that mentality have been in 1775?

You think this is 1775 with exorbitant taxes, jailings without due process, confiscation of firearms, etc.? If so, get started on the revolution. Probably way too many fat and happy people in America for a revolution just yet, and the king just got some tax cuts through and we are seeing the result of them right now during this tax season.

swinokur · Mar 21, 2019

My preference is for the crown to keep its nose out of my business.

Alas they want their fines from the peasants

swinokur · Mar 21, 2019

smkranz · Mar 21, 2019

fabsroman said:
Is it unenforceable because there is a federal law against an FFL doing a voluntary NICS check on a private sale (there isn't, but who knows, maybe the NV AG is also misinformed because it suits his agenda)?

Another question then, not to provoke further argument but to gain clarity on the issue of legality of an FFL doing a voluntary NICS check:

28 CFR § 25.6 - Accessing records in the system.

§ 25.6 Accessing records in the system.

(a) FFLs may initiate a NICS background check only in connection with a proposed firearm transfer as required by the Brady Act. FFLs are strictly prohibited from initiating a NICS background check for any other purpose. (emphasis added)

If a NICS check is not currently required by the Brady Act for a private sale, then it seems to me that a NICS check done voluntarily by an FFL to facilitate such private sale because it would be required by Maryland, would be in violation of this federal regulation. No?

jefflac02 · Mar 21, 2019

smkranz said:
Another question then, not to provoke further argument but to gain clarity on the issue of legality of an FFL doing a voluntary NICS check:

28 CFR § 25.6 - Accessing records in the system.

§ 25.6 Accessing records in the system.

(a) FFLs may initiate a NICS background check only in connection with a proposed firearm transfer as required by the Brady Act. FFLs are strictly prohibited from initiating a NICS background check for any other purpose. (emphasis added)

If a NICS check is not currently required by the Brady Act for a private sale, then it seems to me that a NICS check done voluntarily by an FFL to facilitate such private sale because it would be required by Maryland, would be in violation of this federal regulation. No?

Hopefully we can get clarification. Because if that is the case then this bill would violate fed law.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

fabsroman · Mar 21, 2019

swinokur said:
My preference is for the crown to keep its nose out of my business.

Alas they want their fines from the peasants

And I agree. They can pass all the laws they want, as long as they get rid of law enforcement. lol You know I have very little affinity for law enforcement. Somewhat ironic how people are all fine and dandy on here regarding law enforcement, as long as it is not a law they do not disagree with. Now, have law enforcement coming to confiscate guns, and that is a completely different matter.

Then again, my wife and I had two wonderful experiences with a corporal from Howard County pertaining to my wife's credit card being stolen in August and then her identity being stolen in December. Just a pleasant experience with that officer each and every time we interacted with her in person, via e-mail, and via telephone, and I invited her into the house too.

Might have restored some of my faith in law enforcement.

clandestine · Mar 21, 2019

MSP does a NICS check when they do a 77r. The NTN is listed on the 77R by the MSP so it can be applied to the 4473 by the FFL. Without a NTN on the 4473 the FFL would have problems when inspected.

rseymorejr · Mar 21, 2019

fabsroman said:
I think a better argument might be, what proof will the seller get from the license holder that the buyer passed the NICS check? How can I make sure that if I sell a gun, I have some sort of evidence that the buyer passed the NICS check, because I sure as hell do not want to be going to prison after selling a gun to some maniac that uses it in a crime? Am I going to get a copy of the Form 4473 with all the buyer's private information on it? I know I wouldn't want to give my Form 4473 to any of you, except my specific gun dealer, and heck, I don't even think my dealer gives me a copy of the Form 4473, just the Form 77R. So, how will a seller get some sort of receipt to show that he/she complied with this law?

Theoretically wouldn't the state have to prove that you DIDN'T go through the NICS process? I don't see any way they could do that unless they caught you in the act of transferring such as with an undercover buyer??

MigraineMan · Mar 21, 2019

Jefflac said:
Because if that is the case then this bill would violate fed law.

I believe that's exactly the point Mike Doherty made in his committee testimony. And Maryland can't compel other States to participate in a Maryland-internal solution.

clandestine · Mar 21, 2019

Pretty sad that people can endorse UBC's here.

Engine4 · Mar 21, 2019

clandestine said:
Pretty sad that people can endorse UBC's here.

UBC?

GuitarmanNick · Mar 21, 2019

fabsroman said:
And I agree. They can pass all the laws they want, as long as they get rid of law enforcement. lol You know I have very little affinity for law enforcement. Somewhat ironic how people are all fine and dandy on here regarding law enforcement, as long as it is not a law they do not disagree with. Now, have law enforcement coming to confiscate guns, and that is a completely different matter.

Then again, my wife and I had two wonderful experiences with a corporal from Howard County pertaining to my wife's credit card being stolen in August and then her identity being stolen in December. Just a pleasant experience with that officer each and every time we interacted with her in person, via e-mail, and via telephone, and I invited her into the house too.

Might have restored some of my faith in law enforcement.

My father is retired LEO and I know quite a few active and retired LEO's. I have yet to speak to one about Marylandistan's current or proposed legislation that sides with the DemonRats on 2A rights.

Like any occupation, there are going to be some bad apples, but the overwhelming majority are genuinely "good guys".

As Rack has stated in a recent interview, totally unnecessary legislation which will only turn otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals, and accomplish nothing for public safety.

If they truly cared about "public safety" and had any understanding of firearms and their owners, they would encourage more concealed carry permits be issued. It is a fact that violent crime decreases when guns may be present. Guess our founders were onto something!

As for statements about NICS searches being deleted automatically withing 24 hours, I would not be surprised to find out that details of each transaction are being kept by the gooberment's deep state for some future nefarious purpose. Nothing deleted electronically is ever truly deleted and in many cases can be recovered unless additional steps are taken.

KevinK · Mar 21, 2019

Engine4 said:
UBC?

Universal Background Checks

Rack&Roll · Mar 21, 2019

clandestine said:
Pretty sad that people can endorse UBC's here.

Engine4 said:
UBC?

Universal Background Checks...The Holy Grail of the Radical Leftist Gun Grabbers and Infringers to register our legally-owned Constitutionally-protected property f for purposes of confiscating it later.

Embracing UBSs is Quisling at it’s worst.

The are no informed or educated Constitution-loving members here that are licking the boots of the Leftists to welcome UBCs.

But others are.

I risked arrest lecturing the Democrat traitors from the House Gallery about punishing law-abiding citizens because we won’t vote for them!

Then to come back to MDS to read about those who welcome yet more post FSA2013 interference and infringement in our lives is...well, you fill in the curse words....

fabsroman · Mar 21, 2019

Rack&Roll said:
Universal Background Checks...The Holy Grail of the Radical Leftist Gun Grabbers and Infringers to register our legally-owned Constitutionally-protected property f for purposes of confiscating it later.

Embracing UBSs is Quisling at it’s worst.

The are no informed or educated Constitution-loving members here that are licking the boots of the Leftists to welcome UBCs.

But others are.

I risked arrest lecturing the Democrat traitors from the House Gallery about punishing law-abiding citizens because we won’t vote for them!

Then to come back to MDS to read about those who welcome yet more post FSA2013 interference and infringement in our lives is...well, you fill in the curse words....

Does a universal background check really result in a registry? I thought the same at one point, but it is my understand that not much information is transmitted to NICS other than the buyer's identity. NICS would have no idea what firearm I am buying, and law enforcement would not have a clue what I currently own versus what has actually been lost while hunting.

Now, the Form 77R is a different ball game.

What stops the MGA from just making every single type of gun regulated? All it would have to do is put shotguns and rifles in the regulated section of the code. Viola, NICS and Form 77R for everything. If they really, really, really hated us so much, why haven't they already done this to us? It wouldn't be all that difficult. The infrastructure is already there. Granted, MSP might not be able to handle the additional capacity with all the additional guns that Fudds buy. Then again, maybe they are worried about losing votes and their seats on the General Assembly.

fabsroman · Mar 21, 2019

clandestine said:
Pretty sad that people can endorse UBC's here.

Pretty sad that people can endorse violating the law on here. I mean, what does "WE WILL NOT COMPLY" advocate? It advocates breaking the law while waiting for the courts to figure everything out, and continuing to break the law should the courts decide unfavorably for us. Are we not "law abiding"?

R&R to House of Delegates: "We Will Not Comply!"

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Jimboy

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

In a State of Bliss

Certified Caveman

Active Member

Ultimate Member

AR-15 Savant

Ultimate Member

Defenestration Specialist

AR-15 Savant

Curmudgeon

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

R.I.P

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics