Guns in the 2019 session

budman93 said:

My understanding is as amended these prohibit loans to someone if you know they are not allowed to possess a firearm, is that correct?

Click to expand...

MSRPA and MSI still list them as oppose ...

https://www.msrpa.org/2019-maryland-general-assembly-bill-tracker/
https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/legislation-tracker/164-msi-2019-gun-legislation-tracker

As I read the legislation (unless I missed the redaction), it still reads that you have to transfer a firearm that you want to lend to anyone (unless always in your presence) through an FFL.

Despite the burden (both time and expense), a recipient could decide to keep the firearm, and I'm not sure what one's recourse is. Is it considered stolen or would you have needed to prepare a contract for return (which also needs to go through an FFL)?

As was brought up in testimony, what of family members that share a safe and an owner of some of the firearms leaves home with the other remaining home?

I'm thinking that the don't sell to prohibited persons bill modification was to the even more odious LQL legislation which was thankfully gutted.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

fidelity said:

MSRPA and MSI still list them as oppose ...

https://www.msrpa.org/2019-maryland-general-assembly-bill-tracker/
https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/legislation-tracker/164-msi-2019-gun-legislation-tracker

As I read the legislation (unless I missed the redaction), it still reads that you have to transfer a firearm that you want to lend to anyone (unless always in your presence) through an FFL.

Despite the burden (both time and expense), a recipient could decide to keep the firearm, and I'm not sure what one's recourse is. Is it considered stolen or would you have needed to prepare a contract for return (which also needs to go through an FFL)?

As was brought up in testimony, what of family members that share a safe and an owner of some of the firearms leaves home with the other remaining home?

I'm thinking that the don't sell to prohibited persons bill modification was to the even more odious LQL legislation which was thankfully gutted.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I don't see anything that requires private sales through an ffl (currently looking at hb96). I think this is the current version. http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2019RS/bills/hb/hb0096t.pdf

It appears to only prohibit any form of transfer between a person and someone who you know is underage (with exceptions, probably family and such) or has some disqualifying history or intends to use it commit a crime. So it looks to me like hb96 doesn't really do anything. Am i reading this wrong?

Edit: sb346 appears basically the same. http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2019RS/bills/sb/sb0346t.pdf

budman93 said:

I don't see anything that requires private sales through an ffl (currently looking at hb96). I think this is the current version. http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2019RS/bills/hb/hb0096t.pdf

It appears to only prohibit any form of transfer between a person and someone who you know is underage (with exceptions, probably family and such) or has some disqualifying history or intends to use it commit a crime. So it looks to me like hb96 doesn't really do anything. Am i reading this wrong?

Edit: sb346 appears basically the same. http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2019RS/bills/sb/sb0346t.pdf

Click to expand...

Thanks. The one that I read (followed the link from the MSRPA page under "Bill Title" which must have been the original proposed legislation) didn't have all of part A/page 2 stricken.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

All HB0096 does is state the obvious in law that a firearm should not be loaned or transferred by person or dealer to someone that is known by them to be a prohibited person or is known to be intending to use it in a criminal way.

fidelity said:

Thanks. The one that I read (followed the link from the MSRPA page) didn't have all of page 2 stricken.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Yeah, so with the possible exception of the underage part messing things up with peoples children, I'm not sure what the exceptions there are, it appears that these bills are a non-issue. I don't see prohibiting me giving/selling/loaning a firearm to someone who I KNOW is prohibited to be a problem. Thoughts?

If the current legislation (HB96 and SB346) only prohibit transfers to known prohibited persons, MSRPA, MSI, and MD 2A probably don't oppose and simply haven't updated webpages.

Eta: take that back. MSRPA has no position on SB346 (although still lists HB96 as oppose)

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

fidelity said:

If the current legislation (HB96 and SB346) only prohibit transfers to known prohibited persons, MSRPA, MSI, and MD 2A probably don't oppose and simply haven't updated webpages.

Eta: take that back. MSRPA has no position on SB346 (although still lists HB96 as oppose)

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Can't discuss in detail right now (time and work limitations) - there are significant wording differences between the amended versions of the bills moved in the House of Delegates - hence the differing stances on the MSRPA front.

Bob A said:

My preference would be to become a nice spicy pot of chili. Keep me in the family - at least for a day or so.

Click to expand...

Please don't bury me
Down in that cold cold ground
No, I'd druther have "em" cut me up
And pass me all around
Throw my brain in a hurricane
And the blind can have my eyes
And the deaf can take both of my ears
If they don't mind the size
Give my stomach to Milwaukee
If they run out of beer
Put my socks in a cedar box
Just get "em" out of here
Venus de Milo can have my arms
Look out! I've got your nose
Sell my heart to the junkman
And give my love to Rose

Give my feet to the footloose
Careless, fancy free
Give my knees to the needy
Don't pull that stuff on me
Hand me down my walking cane
It's a sin to tell a lie
Send my mouth way down south
And kiss my ass goodbye

- John Prine

7 more days. Hopefully all these get held off on or forgotten about.

Seems like the private transfer is just about finished up though

so far as a current recap.

Hbar bill = likely dead?

lgql = dead?

transfer bill = harmless and spells out current law?

80 % lower law = ?

those were the big 4 this year, right?

SB737/HB786 LGQL/NCIS Check: Is in play right now. SB737 was amended in committee today, but we've not seen the amendments. Prior to amendments, SB737 had the LGQL. Even if the LGQL ends up being gone from both versions of this proposed legislation, the remaining crud in them is a big middle finger to law-abiding gun owners.

SB1000/HB1343 HPRB repeal: passed second read in House today.

SB882/HB740 3D/Home-made: Still no movement out of Senate Judicial Proceedings committee.

HB612 HBAR: Still no movement out of House Judiciary committee.

rockstarr said:

so far as a current recap.



Hbar bill = likely dead?



lgql = dead?



transfer bill = harmless and spells out current law?



80 % lower law = ?



those were the big 4 this year, right?

Click to expand...

Someone alerted me that background checks on secondary sales of long guns is still very alive. Don't know the bill numbers.

Eta: my phone hadn't loaded PowPow's post when I responded ...

PowPow said:

SB737/HB786 LGQL/NCIS Check: Is in play right now. SB737 was amended in committee today, but we've not seen the amendments. Prior to amendments, SB737 had the LGQL. Even if the LGQL ends up being gone from both versions of this proposed legislation, the remaining crud in them is a big middle finger to law-abiding gun owners.
...

Click to expand...

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

PowPow said:

SB737/HB786 LGQL/NCIS Check: Is in play right now. SB737 was amended in committee today, but we've not seen the amendments. Prior to amendments, SB737 had the LGQL. Even if the LGQL ends up being gone from both versions of this proposed legislation, the remaining crud in them is a big middle finger to law-abiding gun owners.

SB1000/HB1343 HPRB repeal: passed second read in House today.

SB882/HB740 3D/Home-made: Still no movement out of Senate Judicial Proceedings committee.

HB612 HBAR: Still no movement out of House Judiciary committee.

Click to expand...

What does SB737/HB786 look like right now? My biggest issue with them when they came out of committee is that the exceptions for a "transfer" were not broad enough. Anybody have the most current bills with amendments?

fabsroman said:

What does SB737/HB786 look like right now? My biggest issue with them when they came out of committee is that the exceptions for a "transfer" were not broad enough. Anybody have the most current bills with amendments?

Click to expand...

The Senate will be taking both of them up on the floor tomorrow (4/5). The amendments to SB737 have not been posted yet. HB0786 is the same as was passed on third reader two weeks ago.

PowPow said:

The Senate will be taking both of them up on the floor tomorrow (4/5). The amendments to SB737 have not been posted yet. HB0786 is the same as was passed on third reader two weeks ago.

Click to expand...

Thanks

So other than HB786/SB737, is anything else up on the agenda for Monday? I'm assuming they're not working on the weekend. With Tuesday being Sine Die, wondering how much they can get through in terms of antigun legislation, especially with HB786/SB737 still being reconciled between both chambers. Perhaps it will be their final gun control legislation for the session (no additional safe storage laws, no HBAR ban, etc). Didn't see any pictures of late on Friday, and if the MDA members persisted.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

SB346 (loans) has had a conference committee appointed, so that one seems likely to pass.

It's much less problematic in it's current form though.

I haven't heard anything yet. I am still hoping they don't get 786/737 reconciled in time. I am tentatively okay with UBC. I'd feel a lot better with a NICS system average citizens can access. That or mandating maximum fees that an FFL can charge for facilitating a transaction and/or allowing MSP to do it for a $10 charge (no, not proposing that the FFL fee cap should be $10).


As one or two have said, only law abiding citizens will follow it. Well that's the point, law abiding sellers, which I assume just about all of us are would follow it and it would make it harder for criminals and prohibited people to get guns. Is it going to do much? Probably not as police statistics seem to say almost all guns being used in crime in Maryland are straw purchased or stolen. The few guns I've sold F2F the guys all seemed reputable (1 was an FFL01 and one was an FFL03 even), but I can't PROVE that they were. I know that I am not prohibited when it comes to the guns I've bought F2F.


I'll be honest part of it is I want a carve out. There was one for C&R holders, but that looks like ALL carve outs were removed from the bill. I suspect this is in part because the bill changed transfer to buy/sell. But I have bad news for the MGA, the only exception on an FFL dealer being required to facilitate the sale is for FFL dealers.


Really bad news, FFL MANUFACTURERS aren't dealers. So if I am reading the text correctly, an FFL dealer will have to facilitate the sale and a NICS check will need to be conducted. So what happens here if an FFL manufacturer sells directly to a police department? Because my reading of the text says and FFL-01 would HAVE to facilitate the transaction...


Or if for some reason a manufacturer was buying firearms from another manufacturer.


Just saying, there just should be a blanket exception for FFLs. And yes, it is partly because I am an FFL-03 and pissed this means there apparently will be zero exceptions for me. There were under the original text. Wondering how this'll work with out of state transfers. I assume MD can't do or say a thing about that and transfers in to the state would also possibly be okay. The regulated firearm thing is at least as stringent and MD AG opinion is that FFL-03 can have qualifying C&R firearms shipped to them, even though in-state transfers have to be done through a regulated firearm dealer or the MSP.


If you are going through all of the extra hoops for an FFL-03, it should mean something. MGA seemed to sort of be recognizing that, and now they aren't.


I do think it raises the question, now that transfer is out, and loan language is in as well and all of those limitations on where and when a firearm can be temporarily transferred or loaned or whatever, I guess that means for many you can transfer a long gun, so long as it isn't a sale.


Whole thing, like Fabs said elsewhere still seems very rushed and very poorly written.

Well, not a solution. Looking more closely at the text, the exception to licensees (an FFL who holds a dealers license according to the bill text) looks like it would actually cover and FFL-03 who purchased a C&R firearm from an FFL-01 and had it shipped in state. Because the FFL-01 is excepted from the requirements of the bill, they would not be required to conduct a NICS check UNLESS federal law/regulation required it and federal law/regulation does not require an FFL-03 to undergo a NICS check.

So I am still annoyed as hell about the bill and how it is written, but it seems like it would preserve the ability to have an FFL-03 have a C&R long gun shipped to them from out of state, but only if an FFL-01 was selling it. Which also limits things. Though unsure if federal law would still cover things in that case and an FFL-03 could in general conduct a sale/purchase across state lines (while standing in Maryland) if the buyer/seller was not an FFL-01.

Another question, I am looking at MGA leg calendar and it says that June 1st is the earliest a bill can go in to effect except for emergency bills, July 1 is when the budget bill goes in to effect and October 1 is the usual effective date for bills.


So how do we know when a bill will go in to effect? Or do we not know until it is passed?