Are you allowed to lend a gun to a friend?

[trickg]

Moving the goal posts is a sure sign of knowing you've lost the argument you started. Did you really think this entire conversation was about home-made guns?

Besides that, 80 percent home creations are legal only in the context that they are for your own personal use, and even that one is a slippery slope. While by definition a non-prohibited person "can" legally create a pistol from a poly 80, if something goes south and they get caught with it, it's more fodder for the leftists and anti's as proof that those dastardly ghost guns need to be banned. Gee, thanks.

 

[trickg]

This isn't really necessary, now that the argument has been abandoned in favor of the special case of home-built guns.

As a separate topic: there is an important difference between obtaining a handgun (which implies the handgun exists, and you obtain it) and creating one.

View attachment 319419

But...but.....you HIGHLIGHTED things, ergo, you changed the context!

 

[GunBum]

I don’t need an HQL to buy, obtain, transfer, or any other word you want to use, a handgun that is more than 50 years old.

 

[Occam]

I don’t need an HQL to buy, obtain, transfer, or any other word you want to use, a handgun that is more than 50 years old.

BUT: you can only loan that 60 year old Walther to someone who's got an HQL (or, I suppose, a fellow FFL who, like you, could obtain that handgun in the same way you did).

 

[GunBum]

BUT: you can only loan that 60 year old Walther to someone who's got an HQL (or, I suppose, a fellow FFL who, like you, could obtain that handgun in the same way you did).

There is a specific exemption for C&R to NOT require an HQL.

And by C&R, they mean firearms over 50 years old, not a type of FFL.

 

[NateIU10]

Just wondering, but, if a loan of a regulated firearm was not allowed, why would the GA have attempted to pass HB0096 in 2019? I don't keep up with MD gun laws that much any more, but I don't believe a subsequent version of this passed.

From MSI at the time:

Redefining "Transfer" - MSI OPPOSES
HB96 "Public Safety - Regulated Firearms - Transfer" - Hearing on 2/25 in the House Judiciary Committee at 10am

This bill is particularly tricky. You can read our testimony on it here for a full explanation.

Q: What does this bill do?

A: A law-abiding non-prohibited adult who loans a handgun to another law-abiding, non-prohibited adult must go through all the transfer requirements as if they were actually selling or permanently transferring ownership of a handgun or regulated firearm.

Q: What does that mean for me?

A: The bill includes in its definition of “transfer” all loans of handguns between law-abiding adults except for those loans which are “temporary” and “gratuitous” and even those sorts of temporary loans are exempt from coverage only so long as the persons involved stay “at the same location for the duration of the exchange.” This definition would criminalize a loan of a handgun between a husband and wife in the home if either spouse were to thereafter leave the house for any reason. That would mean that one spouse could not loan a handgun to the other spouse for self-protection in the home while away on a business trip. For the same reasons, the owner of a handgun could no longer allow his or her spouse to take the owner’s handgun to the range for practice. Effectively, each spouse would be required to own their own firearms because sharing would be a “transfer,” subject to the Form 77-R process at the State Police barracks. Any knowing “participation” in a failure to follow that procedure is punishable with 5 years in prison under Section 5-144. Similarly, a person would no longer be able to borrow the handgun from any other person, including a member of the family, to take the range to try out unless he or she was accompanied to the range by that person.

 

[Occam]

There is a specific exemption for C&R to NOT require an HQL.

And by C&R, they mean firearms over 50 years old, not a type of FFL.

We all know what C&R items are. And you need to be an FFL3 to purchase them, if you're not buying them in the more traditional manner from a dealer.

The topic here isn't YOUR ability to purchase, we're talking about your ability to loan one of those 50+ year old handguns to someone else. It's still a handgun, and for someone who hasn't applied for that FFL3 like you did, or doesn't have an HQL, we're still talking about the same problem. Obviously things like black powder guns are - so far - a whole different topic.

 

[NateIU10]

We all know what C&R items are. And you need to be an FFL3 to purchase them, if you're not buying them in the more traditional manner from a dealer.

The topic here isn't YOUR ability to purchase, we're talking about your ability to loan one of those 50+ year old handguns to someone else. It's still a handgun, and for someone who hasn't applied for that FFL3 like you did, or doesn't have an HQL, we're still talking about the same problem. Obviously things like black powder guns are - so far - a whole different topic.

A non-licensee, non-HQL holder can purchase and 77R a C&R handgun from a Regulated Firearms Dealer in MD. I'm a little confused what you're saying here...

 

[chilipeppermaniac]

DEFINITELY not if they do not have an HQL (if it is a handgun). I would lend a handgun to a friend who had an HQL. I have a close group of friends and we may or may not lend each other stuff all the time. Rifles and shotguns can lent to friends, though MD is trying to close that loophole because of all of the people in Maryland borrowing long guns to kill people....

Doc, I was in Annapolis for presenting our side of 2A during proposed bills hearings.

Could not believe my ears when they wanted to make laws registering C n R's and if memory serves. Black powder firearms.

Pretty sure our side rebutted something to the effect of Just how would registering antique firearms with no serial numbers work and numerous other objections.

 

[Occam]

A non-licensee, non-HQL holder can purchase and 77R a C&R handgun from a Regulated Firearms Dealer in MD. I'm a little confused what you're saying here...

News to me! Have never trafficked in C&R items. Assumed that Average Joe, if not licensed, would be in the usual MD boat with that 77R (which I don't believe I can submit online without completing the HQL field, as the process is unaware at that point of what vintage handgun you're buying).

As with the 80% home-brews introduced during the Goalpost Relocation Maneuver up-thread, this discussion can reasonably be understood to be about someone loaning a contemporary handgun to someone - the situation that the overwhelming number of Marylanders would be in as the loaner or borrower.

 

[daggo66]

Just wondering, but, if a loan of a regulated firearm was not allowed, why would the GA have attempted to pass HB0096 in 2019? I don't keep up with MD gun laws that much any more, but I don't believe a subsequent version of this passed.

From MSI at the time:

EXACTLY! That’s why we have so many MDA supporter’s here. A version doesn’t need to be passed when we have members here who believe it already exists!

 

[Bob A]

C&R for the win.

No need for HQL to purchase; that said, anyone who is not banned for cause can obtain a "regulated" (redundant term, since all handguns are regulated in MD) handgun. That would seem to eliminate any objection to loan a C&R to a person who could legally possess one.

No one has ever asked to borrow any of my guns. I've offered to lend one, once, but the person declined.

The gun laws in Maryland are increasingly designed to split gun owners into isolated individuals; they make no sense form any other perspective. Preventing sharing of arms in times of danger helps destroy the sense of community, and throws the disarmed onto the mercy of The State.

On the whole, most lawmakers are not farsighted enough to realise this, but their masters are well aware of why they're insisting on these laws.
.

 

[chilipeppermaniac]

This is 100% bad information. You need an HQL to posses a handgun in MD. Period. Under no circumstances should you ever lend another individual a handgun in the state of MD- or anywhere for that matter. Sure we all have friends we love and trust, but it's just a dumb idea all around that has little to no upside.

The *only* exception to this rule is letting someone, under your direct supervision, use your firearm. Other than that- not worth risking losing your rights for the rest of your life.

I have a little differing side to this.

I purchased/owned/possessed handguns legally in Maryland before there ever was an HQL.

It was not or would not have made me a law breaker to continue to own my hand guns AFTER the HQL crap was enacted. The only way an HQL would have made a difference to me would have been in purchasing a new Hand gun after 2013.

I found this out with my first Glock purchase in 2014 at a PA. auction where I had legally bought other hand and long guns and did a simple FFL transfer until THIS TIME. My FFL's wife asked if I had my handgun permit. I had to ask her WTF did she mean? Then I found out. HQL BS Prints, CLASS, First Born etc.

My point I guess is that anyone who wants to own their first handgun AFTER 2013 is now required to have the HQL in MD. But not everyone who possesses a handgun w/o the HQL is violating the law.

As for the OP's question.

Illegal, Possibly but only because it is MD.

Unconstitutional to prohibit, YES

Wise to loan, the yay and nay reasons already addressed

Advisable, Likely not. Too many Nazi Mommies to get your friend, you, and anyone not woke, into trouble for no reason.

I am in the let the person rent one camp about now.

 

[Occam]

EXACTLY! That’s why we have so many MDA supporter’s here. A version doesn’t need to be passed when we have members here who believe it already exists!

Stop it with the absurd MDA BS. Can you grasp that talking about about a law and its ramifications aren't the same as supporting it? Yes or no. Just say yes or no, so you can get that out of your system and leave it alone.

As for HB0096: if you read it as it was originally written, you know there was more to it than just clarifying that the person loaning the gun to a prohibited person will be in trouble.

 

[rbird7282]

A non-licensee, non-HQL holder can purchase and 77R a C&R handgun from a Regulated Firearms Dealer in MD. I'm a little confused what you're saying here...

Long time no post!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[chilipeppermaniac]

Stop it with the absurd MDA BS. Can you grasp that talking about about a law and its ramifications aren't the same as supporting it? Yes or no. Just say yes or no, so you can get that out of your system and leave it alone.

As for HB0096: if you read it as it was originally written, you know there was more to it than just clarifying that the person loaning the gun to a prohibited person will be in trouble.

Occam, I won't be refuting anything or opposing your message. Just asking for clarity.

Would one of those " More to it" things be like, MGA making it a requirement that a husband could not legally lend, hand, let use at the range etc his handgun to his wife or vice versa without doing an FFL transfer, fill out the forms etc just like it were a sale?

Pretty sure the MGA hearings I was at brought that scenario into their proposed laws they wanted to saddle us with.

 

[daggo66]

Occam, I won't be refuting anything or opposing your message. Just asking for clarity.

Would one of those " More to it" things be like, MDA making it a requirement that a husband could not legally lend, hand, let use at the range etc his handgun to his wife or vice versa without doing an FFL transfer, fill out the forms etc just like it were a sale?

Pretty sure the MDA hearings I was at brought that scenario into their proposed laws they wanted to saddle us with.

Good point. A wife can use her husband’s handgun without an HQL. He can in fact LEND it to her for use anytime he wants without the requirement of her having an HQL because he is not transferring ownership. Now before anyone says “show me where it says you can to that”, show me where it says you can’t! The absurdity here is people can’t seem to understand laws only specify what you can’t do.

 

[Occam]

Occam, I won't be refuting anything or opposing your message. Just asking for clarity.

Would one of those " More to it" things be like, MDA making it a requirement that a husband could not legally lend, hand, let use at the range etc his handgun to his wife or vice versa without doing an FFL transfer, fill out the forms etc just like it were a sale?

Pretty sure the MDA hearings I was at brought that scenario into their proposed laws they wanted to saddle us with.

Yes, out of the chute, the law would have monkeyed up range rentals, clubs letting junior students using .22s, and more insane drama.

 

[GunBum]

News to me! Have never trafficked in C&R items. Assumed that Average Joe, if not licensed, would be in the usual MD boat with that 77R (which I don't believe I can submit online without completing the HQL field, as the process is unaware at that point of what vintage handgun you're buying).

So, basically you don’t know what you are talking about. You can indeed 77R a C&R handgun without an HQL.

 

[trickg]

So, basically you don’t know what you are talking about. You can indeed 77R a C&R handgun without an HQL.

Try doing that with a C&R 1911 and see how far you get.