Mance v Holder: CCRKBA/SAF out-of-state pistol sales, 5th Circuit

RoboRay said:

That's my thinking, too. Per MSP... "In Maryland, it is illegal to sell or offer for sale a handgun manufactured after January 1, 1985, that is not on the Handgun Roster."

It doesn't say it's illegal for "a Maryland resident" to make such a purchase, it forbids it to occur "in Maryland." That's just the website language, though...

The standard-capacity magazine analogy comes to mind.

Click to expand...

This would be in COMAR would it not? What's it say there?

I'm digging now.

RoboRay said:

That's my thinking, too. Per MSP... "In Maryland, it is illegal to sell or offer for sale a handgun manufactured after January 1, 1985, that is not on the Handgun Roster."

It doesn't say it's illegal for "a Maryland resident" to make such a purchase, it forbids it to occur "in Maryland." That's just the website language, though...

The standard-capacity magazine analogy comes to mind.

Click to expand...

That's my thinking. The banned long guns is a different animal. The MD law on the Roster says (paraphrasing) bought, soid or transferred IN MD. So since they never conceived that handgun could be bought outside MD, the language doesn't adress sales outside MD.

So in my non legal mind, if the sale was outside MD, no MD law is broken.

IANAL

but we're probably getting ahead of ourselves. I'm sure out lords in Annapolis will keep their boot on our throats by changing any statute to cover any mistalkes they've uncovered.

An out of state FFL would have to comply with all MD rules... including the HQL and 77r. The roster is small potatoes, I can't see them dealing with the HQL, 77r, and waiting period in the first place. Would the MSP approve a transfer to a MD resident directly from an out of state dealer, when the gun was not on the roster?

If this case holds up, I think that the MSP would rewrite the rules, leaving us at the mercy of an unfriendly state court and/or legislature. I think that an out-of-state FFL willing to comply with all the rules would only transfer a gun on the roster in the first place, and not stick its neck out as a test case.

Just for arguments sake, if a MD resident buys a handgun out of state, why does he need an HQL? The law curreently only allows purchases in state.

This opens a real can of worms in my mind. The HQL is needed to purchase a handgun IN MD. It doesn't address purchases out of state. I'm sure the lords in Annapolis will amend any statute found to be lacking if this is upheld on appeal.

And I stand corrcetd on the HQL. The statute says to rent, purchase or receive. Does not limit this to in state.

[FONT=&quot]2[/FONT][FONT=&quot]7 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]([/FONT][FONT=&quot]O[/FONT][FONT=&quot]) “H[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ANDGUN QUALIFICATION LICENSE[/FONT][FONT=&quot]” [/FONT][FONT=&quot]M[/FONT][FONT=&quot]EANS A LICENSE ISSUED BY[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2[/FONT][FONT=&quot]8 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]T[/FONT][FONT=&quot]H[/FONT][FONT=&quot]E [/FONT][FONT=&quot]S[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ECRETARY THAT AUTHORIZES A PERSON TO PURCHASE[/FONT][FONT=&quot], [/FONT][FONT=&quot]R[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ENT[/FONT][FONT=&quot], [/FONT][FONT=&quot]O[/FONT][FONT=&quot]R[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2[/FONT][FONT=&quot]9 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]RECEIVE A HANDGUN[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

Click to expand...

Patrick said:

Scribd does not count because I hate it.

Click to expand...

Amen to that. It gets reformatted & all messed up for me if I try to read it at work at lunch, but I can download pdfs no problemo

I am posting the actual law below; it is better to look at that than COMAR. Also, I said this when I first joined this board, it is my belief that we should attack the Handgun Roster in the federal courts.

Think about this as it relates to the Supreme Court precedent of the last few years. In Maryland, we start from a premise that all handguns made after 1985 are banned. The only way they are not banned? We apply to a State board of appointed people and ask nicely, and they can say yes or no. Ladies and Gentlemen, this is not how rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights work.

This Board was created when 2A was not applicable to the states, and MD had no 2A equivalent for a State Court latch on to as a reason to strike it down. I swear, this might be some nice low hanging fruit to hit, and it would make some waves. Anyway, statute is below.

"§ 5-406. Manufacture or sale of handguns


(a) Prohibitions. --

(1) Except as provided in § 5-402 of this subtitle, a person may not manufacture for distribution or sale a handgun that is not included on the handgun roster in the State.

(2) A person may not sell or offer for sale in the State a handgun manufactured after January 1, 1985, that is not included on the handgun roster.

(3) A person may not manufacture, sell, or offer for sale a handgun on which the manufacturer's identification mark or number is obliterated, removed, changed, or otherwise altered.

(b) Injunction authorized. -- The Secretary may seek an order from a circuit court to permanently or temporarily enjoin the willful and continuous manufacture, sale, or offer for sale, in violation of this section, of a handgun that is not included on the handgun roster.

(c) Penalties. --

(1) A person who manufactures a handgun for distribution or sale in violation of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $ 10,000 for each violation.

(2) A person who sells or offers to sell a handgun in violation of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $ 2,500 for each violation.

(3) For purposes of this subsection, each handgun manufactured, sold, or offered for sale in violation of this subsection is a separate violation."

Lets say by some miracle this is upheld. You know what will happen. Each retailer will have a list of states they don't sell to because they are incapable of, or unwilling to understanding their individual state laws. Can anyone guess which state will end up on that list?

just like it is now for many out of state FFL's and on line retailers. It will be too much of a hassle for some and therefore they won't participate.

but anything that lessens infringement must be viewed as a step forward, even if we don't reap the benefits

swinokur said:

just like it is now for many out of state FFL's and on line retailers. It will be too much of a hassle for some and therefore they won't participate.

but anything that lessens infringement must be viewed as a step forward, even if we don't reap the benefits

Click to expand...

Agreed.

swinokur said:

just like it is now for many out of state FFL's and on line retailers. It will be too much of a hassle for some and therefore they won't participate.

but anything that lessens infringement must be viewed as a step forward, even if we don't reap the benefits

Click to expand...

that's the key.

it's that reverse liberal incrementalism, right?

Gambler said:

Lets say by some miracle this is upheld. You know what will happen. Each retailer will have a list of states they don't sell to because they are incapable of, or unwilling to understanding their individual state laws. Can anyone guess which state will end up on that list?

Click to expand...

While this is true, there will be some astute businessmen that will seize this opportunity. FFL's just over the border in NOVA, PA, or even WV will have a chance to broaden their customer base.

swinokur said:

And I stand corrcetd on the HQL. The statute says to rent, purchase or receive. Does not limit this to in state.

Click to expand...

Right, but Maryland's laws have no force in a different state. Absent a federal statute saying so, what compels a different state to obey MD law? If MD's law has no force in VA, then they can't be violated in VA. Thus, one could make the argument that purchasing in VA, according to their and federal laws, doesn't break any MD laws.

TheSubieNinja7 said:

Right, but Maryland's laws have no force in a different state. Absent a federal statute saying so, what compels a different state to obey MD law? If MD's law has no force in VA, then they can't be violated in VA. Thus, one could make the argument that purchasing in VA, according to their and federal laws, doesn't break any MD laws.

Click to expand...

Does Maryland have possession of unregistered firearm laws? If so, then who cares if you're breaking MD law in VA...once you come back to MD, you're breaking MD law. That's IF we do have unregistered firearms laws.

TheSubieNinja7 said:

Right, but Maryland's laws have no force in a different state. Absent a federal statute saying so, what compels a different state to obey MD law? If MD's law has no force in VA, then they can't be violated in VA. Thus, one could make the argument that purchasing in VA, according to their and federal laws, doesn't break any MD laws.

Click to expand...

The GCA already requires FFLs to honor the firearms laws of other states for the sale of firearms to residents of those states, which until now has just been for the sale of long guns to residents of those states. It's no stretch for this requirement to be extended to handguns.

OrbitalEllipses said:

Does Maryland have possession of unregistered firearm laws? If so, then who cares if you're breaking MD law in VA...once you come back to MD, you're breaking MD law. That's IF we do have unregistered firearms laws.

Click to expand...

Exactly, but analogize that to someone moving to MD. They didn't buy their handguns on accordance with MD law, but they can get around that by FSA 2013 voluntary registration. Same scenario for this situation: buy out of state and voluntarily register to comply with MD law. But that MD law doesn't apply when you buy out of state (unless there is a federal statute that I feel like I am being ignorant of).

chale127 said:

TRANSFER BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...rstate-handgun-transfer-ban-unconstitutional/

Click to expand...

WHOA!! That's cool.

RoboRay said:

The GCA already requires FFLs to honor the firearms laws of other states for the sale of firearms to residents of those states, which until now has just been for the sale of long guns to residents of those states. It's no stretch for this requirement to be extended to handguns.

Click to expand...

Totally agreed. I'm just spitballing, treating the law as is after this decision.