SB346 (Loans): favorable with amendments

TexDefender · Mar 13, 2019

So basically, ranges can no longer rent guns to individual to use at their range? I don't really like this at all, it almost insinuates that anyone wanting to rent a firearm would have to have a background check done.

esqappellate · Mar 13, 2019

TexDefender said:
So basically, ranges can no longer rent guns to individual to use at their range?

Nope. The amendment doesn’t do that at all

TexDefender · Mar 13, 2019

Well I'm finding hard to tell just exactly what it does..

esqappellate · Mar 13, 2019

danb said:
This seems mostly like what was reported earlier for HB96.

The same. We are fine with these amendments. And yes showing up and testifying made a big difference

MJD438 · Mar 13, 2019

TexDefender said:
Well if finding hard to tell just exactly what it does..

It makes loaning a regulated firearm to a prohibited person a crime, as long as the lender _knows_ or _has reason to believe_ that the other party is a prohibited person based on specified criteria.

fabsroman · Mar 13, 2019

TexDefender said:
So basically, ranges can no longer rent guns to individual to use at their range? I don't really like this at all, it almost insinuates that anyone wanting to rent a firearm would have to have a background check done.

You need to go to Public Safety section 5-101 for the definitions of certain words used in the section.

(s) “Rent” means the temporary transfer for consideration of a regulated firearm that is taken from the property of the owner of the regulated firearm.

Looks like ranges would still be able to "rent" firearms as long as they are not removed from the premises.

esqappellate · Mar 13, 2019

fabsroman said:
You need to go to Public Safety section 5-101 for the definitions of certain words used in the section.

(s) “Rent” means the temporary transfer for consideration of a regulated firearm that is taken from the property of the owner of the regulated firearm.

Looks like ranges would still be able to "rent" firearms as long as they are not removed from the premises.

Correct

TexDefender · Mar 13, 2019

Don't get me wrong, this totally different that what it started out. I'm just making sure, seems much of this is not necessary. I would assume if an individual loaned a felon a firearm that would be against the law already, but I haven't check the Maryland Penal Code. I find it hard to believe that no such law doesn't already exist. So how does this law make us safe?

danb · Mar 13, 2019

I am confused by this part:

A person may not sell, rent, or transfer:

...

a firearm other than a regulated firearm to a minor

underlined here simply means that the numbering changed in this section, right, no other changes?

here is third reader:

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2019RS/bills/sb/sb0346t.pdf

fabsroman · Mar 13, 2019

TexDefender said:
Don't get me wrong, this totally different that what it started out. I'm just making sure, seems much of this is not necessary. I would assume if an individual loaned a felon a firearm that would be against the law already, but I haven't check the Maryland Penal Code. I find it hard to believe that no such law doesn't already exist. So how does this law make us safe?

My guess is that this is all the result of Chow v. State where a friend "loaned" a friend a handgun and the friend took that handgun home. The Court of Appeals held that the gratuitous loan was not a "transfer" per the statute and the friend that borrowed the handgun for the sake of his safety (i.e., Chow) was found not guilty.

TexDefender · Mar 13, 2019

fabsroman said:
My guess is that this is all the result of Chow v. State where a friend "loaned" a friend a handgun and the friend took that handgun home. The Court of Appeals held that the gratuitous loan was not a "transfer" per the statute and the friend that borrowed the handgun for the sake of his safety (i.e., Chow) was found not guilty.

Ok, this law makes that (the above example) illegal now?

MJD438 · Mar 13, 2019

danb said:
I am confused by this part:

underlined here simply means that the numbering changed in this section, right, no other changes?

here is third reader:

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2019RS/bills/sb/sb0346t.pdf

Changes are indicated by BOLD (additions) or BRACKETS (deletions).

The stuff that is just single-underlined is existing and unmodified text. The reason it is underlined is to indicate that it was an amendment to the BILL, not to the existing STATUTE.

In this case, they completely wiped the original functional contents of the bill (the single and double strikethroughs on page 2 of the 3rd Reader text - https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...=82bb314a96bf12c2780645164dae8e57&oe=5D06A67F) and modified 5-134 instead of the original plan to rewrite 5-124.

mac1_131 · Mar 13, 2019

TexDefender said:
Don't get me wrong, this totally different that what it started out. I'm just making sure, seems much of this is not necessary. I would assume if an individual loaned a felon a firearm that would be against the law already, but I haven't check the Maryland Penal Code. I find it hard to believe that no such law doesn't already exist. So how does this law make us safe?

Correct. That's why everyone's work against this was so important. Let's hope we do as well on the rest of the bad bills.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

danb · Mar 13, 2019

MJD438 said:
Changes are indicated by BOLD (additions) or BRACKETS (deletions).

The stuff that is just single-underlined is existing and unmodified text. The reason it is underlined is to indicate that it was an amendment to the BILL, not to the existing STATUTE.

In this case, they completely wiped the original functional contents of the bill (the single and double strikethroughs on page 2 of the 3rd Reader text - https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...=82bb314a96bf12c2780645164dae8e57&oe=5D06A67F) and modified 5-134 instead of the original plan to rewrite 5-124.

I had a small panic attack when I saw that part but realized it meant there was no change.

TexDefender · Mar 13, 2019

mac1_131 said:
Correct. That's why everyone's work against this was so important. Let's hope we do as well on the rest of the bad bills.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

Me too! If so very hard to get up to the capital from work.

fabsroman · Mar 13, 2019

danb said:
I am confused by this part:

underlined here simply means that the numbering changed in this section, right, no other changes?

here is third reader:

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2019RS/bills/sb/sb0346t.pdf

Hallelujah. I just read through the link you posted. Common sense has actually prevailed.

Granted, I think the "loan" of an assault weapon was already covered in the fact that somebody cannot possess an assault weapon unless they possessed it prior to 10/1/2013, but this makes a criminal out of the person loaning the assault weapon and it makes both parties criminals should they loan a handgun.

Somewhat sucks, but such is life. My dad can defend his household with a double barrel shotgun a la Biden.

If my understanding is correct, there is no loaning of assault weapons or handguns.

Now, let's say that somebody is determined to be a habitual user of alcohol or illicit drugs and he/she has a 2 year disqualification from possessing firearms. Can that person put his/her regulated firearms with an FFL for 2 years and then get them back after 2 years, or must they all go bye bye?

scout6 · Mar 13, 2019

Section E still seems over the top.

(E) (1) A person may not sell, rent, or transfer:

(i) ammunition solely designed for a regulated firearm to a person who is under the age of 21 years; or

(ii) 1. a firearm other than a regulated firearm to a minor;
2. ammunition for a firearm to a minor
3. pepper mace, which is an aerosol propelled combination of highly disabling irritant based products and is also known as oleo–resin capsicum (O.C.) or
4. another deadly weapon to a minor.

If I am reading this correctly, a parent cannot give a child ammo for deer hunting? Or a rifle for that matter? My 16yr old daughter can't be given pepper spray to protect herself. What is a deadly weapon? Hammers are used to kill people, does that qualify as a deadly weapon? What defines 'deadly weapon'? AM I misreading this?

jefflac02 · Mar 13, 2019

It goes to show, contrary to some members here who think those of us who testify are wasting our time, that there can be a difference made.

This bill is the perfect example. I confronted Sen Ferguson on twitter and his indication was this bill was to stop straw gun purchase for prohibited persons. That is it the way the bill was written and Sen Hough even confronted him on the intent of the bill in session.

Thanks to everyone who testified and especially to Mark and Mike and the others from Md 2A orgs who put hard facts on the table to show that this bill was egregious.

No where close to the finish line, but one having one go down without infringements should encourage us to keep the push on our legislators that many other bills need killed or severely amended to stop punishing us, the non-criminal. Jeff

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MJD438 · Mar 13, 2019

TexDefender said:
Don't get me wrong, this totally different that what it started out. I'm just making sure, seems much of this is not necessary. I would assume if an individual loaned a felon a firearm that would be against the law already, but I haven't check the Maryland Penal Code. I find it hard to believe that no such law doesn't already exist. So how does this law make us safe?

The issue raised by the other side is that Chow v Maryland (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/md-court-of-appeals/1123356.html) was getting in the way of prosecutions of illegal possessors because their lawyers rely on the Chow decision and call the possession a "loan".

The statute, as it stands today (Public Safety 5-134) penalizes transfers to prohibited persons; the Chow decision defines a "transfer" as a permanent transaction for compensation (paraphrasing heavily, since one needs to read the full decision to make sense of it). Therefore, the hole - a loan is neither for compensation, nor considered permanent.

We lobbied heavily to get the bill changed to the way it stands now - which requires a mens rea (Mark can define better than me) test - IF the Loaner knows or has reason to believe that the Loanee is prohibited and still loans a regulated firearm, both the Loaner and Loanee can be pursued in court for criminal penalties.

MJD438 · Mar 13, 2019

scout6 said:
Section E still seems over the top.

(E) (1) A person may not sell, rent, or transfer:

(i) ammunition solely designed for a regulated firearm to a person who is under the age of 21 years; or

(ii) 1. a firearm other than a regulated firearm to a minor;
2. ammunition for a firearm to a minor
3. pepper mace, which is an aerosol propelled combination of highly disabling irritant based products and is also known as oleo–resin capsicum (O.C.) or
4. another deadly weapon to a minor.

If I am reading this correctly, a parent cannot give a child ammo for deer hunting? Or a rifle for that matter? My 16yr old daughter can't be given pepper spray to protect herself. What is a deadly weapon? Hammers are used to kill people, does that qualify as a deadly weapon? What defines 'deadly weapon'? AM I misreading this?

Subsection E is existing law (as 5-134(d)). It is now Subsection E because of additions above that point. Nothing in that subsection is being changed other than the section identifier.

I will let the more lawyerly folks answer the remaining questions.

SB346 (Loans): favorable with amendments

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

MSI Executive Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics