Klunatic
Ultimate Member
Is she a prohibited person? If not go ahead and loan it to her.
Can my wife take one of my guns to the range without me been present?
- Thread starter nomade
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Doitsouthstyle
Active Member
I agree without what everyone saying but just to be the devils advocate for one moment depending on the guns purchase date pre/post fsa 2013 wouldn't any regulated handgun aka "all handguns" wouldn't anyone without and HQL or FFL be prohibited? Just asking because this I am assuming is what the OP was getting at?
HQL is strictly for purchase/transfer not possession.
Doitsouthstyle
Active Member
Okay yes true but with if I let a friend borrow my pre non Hbar AR to go to the range and gets questioned about it by an officer? I will say it again I do completely think it is okay and would let my wife but just for the sake of talking about it these are "I think" valid thoughts/questions.
This is kinda where I was hoping to hijack this thread too...but to steer clear of any, "what really makes it an HBar" debate, how about an M1A, with a couple 20 rnd mags? The not otherwise prohibited borrower takes them to the range, then returns them to the legally registered owner. (Obviously we are assuming the borrower doesn't rob any banks along the way). No harm, no jail?
And...to avoid the "it's not illegal cuz you didn't get caught argument," let's say that the borrower is involved in a car accident that incapacitates their car...so now the police definitely know there is a SCAW and hicap deathmags in the mix...still ok?
Doitsouthstyle
Active Member
Same train of thought without us trying to make a hard left. Lol but unfortunately there is ALOT of gray areas in MD's gun laws and until they are specifically defined there is a lot of what if I do or how far can I push till? Now to my knowledge there is no arrest made on law abiding citizen having possession of a banned or regulated firearm being transported to a place of recreational use since the start of FSA 2013.
So use your best judgement do take advice from others here and be smart.
So use your best judgement do take advice from others here and be smart.
- Nov 11, 2009
- 30,964
The gray areas are deliberate.
It's a poor way to write a law, but it gives a lot of leeway to those who enforce it, and to those who defend people who run afoul of it. Think of it as the Lawyers' Full Employment Acts.
- Feb 4, 2013
- 28,175
Based on what?
Biggfoot44
Ultimate Member
- Aug 2, 2009
- 33,217
Based on the MDS running gag.
you would expect someone with 13,000 posts to get that one 
danb
dont be a dumbass
Currently, MD case law (which I believe is Chow v State of Maryland , http://caselaw.findlaw.com/md-court-of-appeals/1123356.html) defines a transfer to be a permanent transfer of title ("We find that 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 in violation of Maryland Code ").
No one really envisions filling out a 77r every time their significant other goes to the range. But someone may question whether it's a gift, which would require an HQL and 77r. I lend my wife and kids stuff all the time, which they really like, which suddenly become gifts.
If you buy yourself a new firearm because she is using your other one too often, it might be a gift.
That said, the law is purposefully ambiguous, and state is always looking to broaden the definition of transfer and gift to sneak in some restrictions that did not make it through the legislature. (Note the dissent in Chow: "I would hold that “transfer” includes a loan-at least one in which possession and control of the firearm is relinquished for anything more than a momentary period. "). All it takes is one horrendous defendant.
Depending on the county, prosecutor, and officer, one can be right about the legal definition of transfer or gift, but it still costs tens thousands to prove it in court.
No one really envisions filling out a 77r every time their significant other goes to the range. But someone may question whether it's a gift, which would require an HQL and 77r. I lend my wife and kids stuff all the time, which they really like, which suddenly become gifts.
If you buy yourself a new firearm because she is using your other one too often, it might be a gift. That said, the law is purposefully ambiguous, and state is always looking to broaden the definition of transfer and gift to sneak in some restrictions that did not make it through the legislature. (Note the dissent in Chow: "I would hold that “transfer” includes a loan-at least one in which possession and control of the firearm is relinquished for anything more than a momentary period. "). All it takes is one horrendous defendant.
Depending on the county, prosecutor, and officer, one can be right about the legal definition of transfer or gift, but it still costs tens thousands to prove it in court.
- Feb 19, 2013
- 18,760
Biggfoot44
Ultimate Member
- Aug 2, 2009
- 33,217
Rent is defined as removing it from the premesis.
MD_3%er
Member
There is nothing preventing you from having her 'borrow' it.
This is not an issue of transferring, as it is temporary (unless, of course, she REALLY likes it)
Agreed! This is why I hate it even more when Gun Shops will not let you look at a firearm unless you have your HQL on you because they are "transferring" it!
Fox123
Ultimate Member
BGOS
- Feb 19, 2013
- 18,760
Probably because you can't buy it then, is the real reason. Their excuse sounds better.
Integrity
Ultimate Member
I would imagine gun shops use that as an excuse to keep people with no intention of buying from playing with the merchandise, and not as an actual misinterpretation of the law. But that's just my assumption.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is what I was thinking, no HQL, no authorization to transport.
I don't think so. HQL has nothing to do with possession or transport. For example, if you owned a handgun prior to this disaster of a law, you don't need to get an HQL to transport it. As stated above, it's required for purchase.
There is some language in the law around "possession" of banned long guns that might be more of a gray area.
daggo66
Ultimate Member
What gun shop does this? BP did it for a little while, but no longer.
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
Suggestions for a low powered, large objective rifle scope? (12 Viewers)- Started by E.Shell
- Replies: 2
-
-
Timonium Gun Show April 27-28 (Timonium Fairgrounds Exhibition Hall) (1 Viewer)
- Started by joro55
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-