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

pilgrim · Sep 15, 2013

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.

I thought they wanted a number off a handgun you had fired. I did not realize it had to be a handgun you owned.

61 months to go.

swinokur · Sep 15, 2013

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

This is a really really bad suggestion IMO.

And as noted, against forum rules as well.

ShallNotInfringe · Sep 15, 2013

pilgrim said:
I thought they wanted a number off a handgun you had fired. I did not realize it had to be a handgun you owned.

61 months to go.

Please read the law before providing advice. It's confusing enough.

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/Chapters_noln/CH_427_sb0281e.pdf

bpSchoch · Sep 15, 2013

I don't see why they can't take a affidavit stating that you own a regulated firearm. An sworn affidavit should be good enough as it's binding under a penalty of perjury of false. If you falsify an affidavit, then you can go to jail. No need to give them a serial number IMHO.

Don H · Sep 16, 2013

Don H said:
When did the requirement to register private sales of handguns take place in MD?

Anyone know the answer?

I did a search but could not find the answer.

Chris · Sep 16, 2013

As I remember since 1996 all private transfers of regulated firearms in the State of Maryland had to be done either at an FFL or MSP at that time the firearm was then registered. Eight day release is OK. Not to do so would make for an illegal sale. Correct me if I'm wrong on the year. Chris

Mr H · Sep 16, 2013

1996 is what I recall being correct as well

ddeanjohnson · Sep 16, 2013

I do not know when the current Maryland database of regulated firearms commenced, or when the law was changed to apply transfer paperwork requirements to non-dealer sales. I may have read in the past that private transfers were regulated beginning in or about 1985, but I am not at all sure about this, and cannot at the moment run it down.

One thing I can say for certain is that the 77R transfer form was used, at least for dealer transactions, at least as early as 1992, and I suspect a good deal earlier.

These questions have been raised in several threads on this forum recently, and we might hope that somebody will come forward with a document that provides a definitive answer before too long.

Don H · Sep 16, 2013

So 1996 and after all private handguns transferred needed to have a 77R, correct?

ddeanjohnson · Sep 16, 2013

Don H said:
So 1996 and after all private handguns transferred needed to have a 77R, correct?

As indicated in my post above, my vague recollection based on past reading is that the date may be well earlier, perhaps around 1985, but I do not have time to research the issue at the moment. I am hoping somebody else will pop up here with an authoritative document on this point.

Bradw410 · Sep 16, 2013

Who would go through anymore of there ********? I'm not gettin a HQL. Or my fingerprints takin

jrumann59 · Sep 16, 2013

I do not understand this requirement, especially for people that have bought regulated firearms in MD. What I gather from this is the database is not connected to the background checks database that MD uses. Which means the fix is in and they needed to justify the extra fee to get an HQL. To me logic would dictate that if you provide all the personal info for an HQL the moment the person at the HQL office would see a file with every regulated firearm you have bought in the state of MD with serial number this step should be relegated to this question, "Do you own a regulated firearm purchased in Maryland? Yes/no, If no you need to attend approved training or apply for exemption."

ddeanjohnson · Sep 16, 2013

jrumann59 said:
I do not understand this requirement, especially for people that have bought regulated firearms in MD. What I gather from this is the database is not connected to the background checks database that MD uses. Which means the fix is in and they needed to justify the extra fee to get an HQL. To me logic would dictate that if you provide all the personal info for an HQL the moment the person at the HQL office would see a file with every regulated firearm you have bought in the state of MD with serial number this step should be relegated to this question, "Do you own a regulated firearm purchased in Maryland? Yes/no, If no you need to attend approved training or apply for exemption."

The training exemption is available to anyone who "lawfully owns a regulated firearm" at the time he or she makes the application. Your proposed question would not suffice, because you may have lawfuly purchased a regulated firearm in Maryland at some point in the past, and then later disposed of it in any one of a number of lawful ways -- for example, by selling it to a person in another state who holds a federal firearms license (FFL) of one of several types applicable to such transactions. There would be no record of such a lawful transaction in the Maryland system.

Again, nobody is "required" to claim the training exemption based on current lawful ownership of a regulated firearm. If someone wishes to claim the exemption, however, it seems to me a reasonable construction of the statutory language for the MSP to ask for identifying information on that single firearm. I am not speaking to the merits of the law itself, for which legislators and the governor are accountable, but to the manner in which it is interpreted and enforced.

jrumann59 · Sep 16, 2013

ddeanjohnson said:
The training exemption is available to anyone who "lawfully owns a regulated firearm" at the time he or she makes the application. Your proposed question would not suffice, because you may have lawfuly purchased a regulated firearm in Maryland at some point in the past, and then later disposed of it in any one of a number of lawful ways -- for example, by selling it to a person in another state who holds a federal firearms license (FFL) of one of several types applicable to such transactions. There would be no record of such a lawful transaction in the Maryland system.

Again, nobody is "required" to claim the training exemption based on current lawful ownership of a regulated firearm. If someone wishes to claim the exemption, however, it seems to me a reasonable construction of the statutory language for the MSP to ask for identifying information on that single firearm. I am not speaking to the merits of the law itself, for which legislators and the governor are accountable, but to the manner in which it is interpreted and enforced.

My point being what difference does it matter if I have or have owned a regulated firearm MD has record of every regulated firearm I have bought in MD whether I still own it or not is irrelevant. Both databases should be linked.

ddeanjohnson · Sep 16, 2013

jrumann59 said:
MD has record of every regulated firearm I have bought in MD whether I still own it or not is irrelevant. Both databases should be linked.

Whether you "still own it or not" is not irrelevant. That is to say, it is highly relevant. If you do not still own that firearm at the time of your application for a HQL, then you do not fall under the "lawfully owns a regulated firearm" description and you cannot claim the exemption from the training requirement.

I expect that those state databases will be linked, although I've not inquired into the matter. But the state database is a database of transfers through the Maryland system. It is not a list of guns that you currently own. As already discussed, there are many ways that a gun might still be in the Maryland system under your name, although you no longer own it, for reasons that do not involve any violation by you of state or federal law.

fidelity · Sep 17, 2013

ddeanjohnson said:
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.

Well said. And thanks for the new information in this thread as well as the more substantial one in which you helped interpret SB-281.

JettaRed · Sep 17, 2013

ddeanjohnson said:
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.

That's fine. But as we have seen, the Attorney General could change his interpretation any time and Lt Cook's interpretation becomes obsolete. Just like we suddenly now have to take possession on handguns before the 1st if you don't want to have to start over.

ddeanjohnson · Sep 17, 2013

JettaRed said:
That's fine. But as we have seen, the Attorney General could change his interpretation any time and Lt Cook's interpretation becomes obsolete. Just like we suddenly now have to take possession on handguns before the 1st if you don't want to have to start over.

I understand that things can change, based on AG opinions, court rulings, and other variables. However, when the language of the law is consistent, on its face, with the interpretations now being put out by the MSP, the odds are probably pretty high that the interpretation will stick.

That was not the case with regard to the issue that you raise. It's too bad that anybody was ever given the impression that he could order a handgun before October 1 and accept delivery of it after October 1, without obtaining a HQL (except transactions that fall under the exemptions in the law). I find it hard to fault the legal reasoning in the August 1 letter in which the AG's office opined that a person may not take delivery of a handgun from a dealer, after October 1, without possessing the HQL, regardless of when the handgun was ordered. The law itself says that the HQL is required. There are exceptions in the law, but no exception for handguns ordered prior to October 1.

In contrast, the law contains specific language about delivery of to-be-banned "assault"/"copycat" firearms that are ordered or applied for before October 1. Thus, the legislature took two distinctly different approaches to pre-October 1 orders with respect to handguns and "assault" firearms, respectively. I don't think that the implementers/enforcers should be faulted for observing the distinction.

ELEMENT94 · Sep 17, 2013

Straightforword and sensible ********. Maryland knows every gun you ever bought from an in state FFL. Name and address should be enough.

ddeanjohnson · Sep 17, 2013

ELEMENT94 said:
Straightforword and sensible ********. Maryland knows every gun you ever bought from an in state FFL. Name and address should be enough.

Name and address should be "enough" for what specific purpose?

As already discussed, name and address are not enough for purposes of asserting that someone "lawfully owns a regulated firearm." It merely shows that the person lawfully owned a regulated firearm at a certain date in the past. There are multiple lawful ways by which that owner could have disposed of that regulated firearm, that would not have been recorded in the Maryland system. It follows that if someone wishes to claim the exemption from training, based on lawful ownership of a regulated firearm, he must identify one (1) such firearm that he owns at the time of the application for the HQL. Of course, in many cases it might be a firearm that was never recorded in the Maryland system, and yet is lawfully owned. Such a firearm may have been acquired in any of several lawful ways.

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

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Active Member

In a State of Bliss

Lil Firecracker

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Banana'd

autodidact

Ultimate Member

autodidact

Banned

DILLIGAF

autodidact

DILLIGAF

autodidact

piled higher and deeper

Ultimate Member

autodidact

Wild eyed pistol waver.

autodidact

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics