MSP advisory "received" and "one-shot" requirement.

PUBLIC SAFETY §5-117.1(c) states that “A person may purchase, rent, or
receive a handgun only if the person:
(1) (i) possesses a valid handgun qualification license issued to the
person by the Secretary in accordance with this section;...”
The Maryland State Police (MSP) has applied the ruling in Chow v. State, 393
Md. 431 (2006) to interpret the definition of “receive” as it pertains to PS §5-
117.1(c). Chow held “the temporary gratuitous exchange or loan of a regulated
handgun between two adult individuals, who are otherwise permitted to own and
obtain a regulated handgun, does not constitute an illegal “transfer” of a
firearm....” The MSP views “transfer” and “receive” as equivalent for purposes
of Maryland’s firearms laws and interprets “receive” as including the gratuitous
permanent exchange of title or possession, but excluding temporary gratuitous
exchanges or loans of handguns.
Therefore, an individual, not otherwise prohibited from owning or possessing
regulated firearms, is not required to possess an active HQL in order to borrow a
regulated firearm from another individual on a temporary basis.

Click to expand...

PUBLIC SAFETY §5-117.1(c)(3)(iii) requires a firearms orientation component that demonstrates the person’s safe operation and handling of a firearm, which includes, as required by COMAR 29.03.01.29.C(4), a practice component in which the applicant safely fires at least one round of live ammunition.
1) 2)
The Maryland State Police (MSP) has received several requests to review
alternative non-lethal, marking projectiles to satisfy the “live fire” component of
the HQL training requirement. The MSP has determined that the use of non-lethal
marking projectiles would meet the HQL “live fire” training requirement
provided that the non-lethal marking projectile meets the following requirements:
meets the definition of “ammunition” as defined in Public Safety §5-133.1(a):
“a cartridge, shell, or any other device containing explosive or incendiary
material designed and intended for use in a firearm;” and
can be fired from a firearm as defined in Public Safety §5-101(h)(1)(i): “a
weapon that expels, is designed to expel, or may readily be converted to expel
a projectile by the action of an explosive.”

Click to expand...

danb said:

yes, we knew that. But what prompted this?

Click to expand...

lx1x said:

Probably too many calls asking their interpretation on it. Lol

Click to expand...

danb said:

There are like half a dozen shops that rent firearms in Central MD.



Why do I suspect antis are calling up "how is this legal?"

Click to expand...

danb said:

I edited my post.



Can my son/daughter/spouse use my gun at the range does not seem like a question you call the police to ask. And if they are getting a lot of these questions, enough to write a memo, there is a lot of new interest out there.

Click to expand...

teratos said:

The thing that pisses me off about the one shot requirement is that live fire was in SB218 initially. It was taken out of the bill when we argued that it would be onerous. MSP put it back in after the bill was passed without it.

Click to expand...

teratos said:

The thing that pisses me off about the one shot requirement is that live fire was in SB218 initially. It was taken out of the bill when we argued that it would be onerous. MSP put it back in after the bill was passed without it.

Click to expand...

teratos said:

The thing that pisses me off about the one shot requirement is that live fire was in SB218 initially. It was taken out of the bill when we argued that it would be onerous. MSP put it back in after the bill was passed without it.

Click to expand...

protegeV said:

How is that even legal?

Click to expand...

teratos said:

The thing that pisses me off about the one shot requirement is that live fire was in SB218 initially. It was taken out of the bill when we argued that it would be onerous. MSP put it back in after the bill was passed without it.

Click to expand...

Mark75H said:

The way the MD consitution is written, only a final approval committee actually enacts the letter of the law going into COMAR.

The General Assembly votes and sends the Act to the releveant state agency for COMAR text write up, the agency writes it up and sends the COMAR text back - not to the entire General Assembly - but simply to the committee empowered to approve the text that will be entered into COMAR. The committee has the power to approve or disapprove any changes the agency sends over.

So, in MD its not actually the General Assembly that writes law, its just that final approval committee - as enshrined in the MD constitution.

Click to expand...

Mark75H said:

The way the MD consitution is written, only a final approval committee actually enacts the letter of the law going into COMAR.

The General Assembly votes and sends the Act to the releveant state agency for COMAR text write up, the agency writes it up and sends the COMAR text back - not to the entire General Assembly - but simply to the committee empowered to approve the text that will be entered into COMAR. The committee has the power to approve or disapprove any changes the agency sends over.

So, in MD its not actually the General Assembly that writes law, its just that final approval committee - as enshrined in the MD constitution.

Click to expand...

danb said:

yes, we knew that. But what prompted this?

Click to expand...

esqappellate said:

The MSI HQL lawsuit. As to the receive point, we challenge it as a violation of due process as vague. And no, the advisory doesn’t moot this aspect of the suit.

Click to expand...

esqappellate said:

The MSI HQL lawsuit. As to the receive point, we challenge it as a violation of due process as vague. And no, the advisory doesn’t moot this aspect of the suit.

Click to expand...