Are you allowed to lend a gun to a friend?

[mac1_131]

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

Just did one worked fine. I don't have a HQL.

 

[Mark75H]

When was the last time someone was prosecuted for lending a handgun to someone who was not prohibited?

 

[Biggfoot44]

No , an HQL is not required to possess a handgun .

Yes , you may absolutely purchase certain handguns Without an HQL , from a Dealer , using a 77R . Yes , I've been doing so since 2013 without an HQL .

No I haven't yet so purchased a 1911 thus ,but that's a matter of a suitable one at suitable price , when I had the $ at the same time , not that I couldn't if I wanted to .

Point me to a decent shooter pre Series 70 .38 Super , and I'll demonstrate .

 

[trickg]

No , an HQL is not required to possess a handgun .

Yes , you may absolutely purchase certain handguns Without an HQL , from a Dealer , using a 77R . Yes , I've been doing so since 2013 without an HQL .

No I haven't yet so purchased a 1911 thus ,but that's a matter of a suitable one at suitable price , when I had the $ at the same time , not that I couldn't if I wanted to .

Point me to a decent shooter pre Series 70 .38 Super , and I'll demonstrate .

Are you retired military or LE?

 

[Biggfoot44]

Nope . Not exempt , refuse on principle .

 

[Bob A]

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.

No no no.

You do NOT need an HQL to buy a C&R handgun in MD. That was a specific carve-out.

Doesn't matter if it was first, last, or in-between.

If you wish to get the HQL without paying for the course, and you don't already own a handgun, you can buy a C&R handgun. Owning it exempts you from the training. You'll still have to do the fingerprinting and paperwork BS, of course, if you want to get something newer than 1971.

Lots of fine handguns made before 1971.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Eligible to possess Handgun = Not Prohibited

 

[Doctor_M]

No no no.

You do NOT need an HQL to buy a C&R handgun in MD. That was a specific carve-out.

Doesn't matter if it was first, last, or in-between.

If you wish to get the HQL without paying for the course, and you don't already own a handgun, you can buy a C&R handgun. Owning it exempts you from the training. You'll still have to do the fingerprinting and paperwork BS, of course, if you want to get something newer than 1971.

Lots of fine handguns made before 1971.

This. 100% correct. My daughter does not have an HQL and I'm taking her shopping for a c&r handgun this month. No training required. No HQL.

 

[rbird7282]

No no no.

You do NOT need an HQL to buy a C&R handgun in MD. That was a specific carve-out.

Doesn't matter if it was first, last, or in-between.

If you wish to get the HQL without paying for the course, and you don't already own a handgun, you can buy a C&R handgun. Owning it exempts you from the training. You'll still have to do the fingerprinting and paperwork BS, of course, if you want to get something newer than 1971.

Lots of fine handguns made before 1971.

Thank you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Occam]

Just so we're clear here: the proposition, now, is that Maryland (and thus whatever cop is looking in the borrower's car) thinks you can loan an HQL-less someone that Glock 19 you just purchased this week because they are able to buy an antique C&R pistol with only a 77R?

Or are we saying that you can loan an HQL-less someone an antique pistol because they are able to obtain THAT pistol legally without an HQL?

The implication seems to be that one would say, during that traffic accident follow-up, "It's OK, officer - it's cool for me to have that Glock my friend just bought, because I'm allowed to buy antique handguns." Something tells me you'd be having to try that one out on a judge, through a lawyer, not just mentioning it to, say, a Rockville City Police officer before he sends you on your way.

 

[Bob A]

Just so we're clear here: the proposition, now, is that Maryland (and thus whatever cop is looking in the borrower's car) thinks you can loan an HQL-less someone that Glock 19 you just purchased this week because they are able to buy an antique C&R pistol with only a 77R?

Or are we saying that you can loan an HQL-less someone an antique pistol because they are able to obtain THAT pistol legally without an HQL?

The implication seems to be that one would say, during that traffic accident follow-up, "It's OK, officer - it's cool for me to have that Glock my friend just bought, because I'm allowed to buy antique handguns." Something tells me you'd be having to try that one out on a judge, through a lawyer, not just mentioning it to, say, a Rockville City Police officer before he sends you on your way.

Sorry, must comment.

"Antique" usually assumes 100 years old or older. Then there's the pre-1899 version promulgated by BATFE.

In fact, to be considered C&R, it can be younger than 50 years; witness the CZ82 and the allowable versions of the Makarov.

Your hypothetical friend with the borrowed Glock on the front seat is too stupid to be trusted with a firearm. (I know you didn't specify front seat, but this hypothetical traffic stop stuff is severe BGOS.) Don't chat with cops on the job, don't permit them to search, and don't leave borrowed firearms in plain view. It's not complicated.

 

[chilipeppermaniac]

No no no.

You do NOT need an HQL to buy a C&R handgun in MD. That was a specific carve-out.

Doesn't matter if it was first, last, or in-between.

If you wish to get the HQL without paying for the course, and you don't already own a handgun, you can buy a C&R handgun. Owning it exempts you from the training. You'll still have to do the fingerprinting and paperwork BS, of course, if you want to get something newer than 1971.

Lots of fine handguns made before 1971.

Thanks Bob A for your reply. As far as I know, I did not say one needed an HQL for a C and R purchase and may have clumsily worded some prior posts. I was trying to convey that at one session I attended, one sponsoring MGA anti 2A Senator was trying to enact legislation to somehow make a law that would make C and R firearms a regulated firearm. Other MGA Anti 2 A agendas were to try to make loaning a long gun, black powder, handgun firearm the same as selling, trading, transferring of ownership which they wanted FFL and all paperwork required of such transactions. For something like a Husband and Wife swap between themselves, a pair of hunting buddies who want to or need to exchange a rifle or shotgun in a situation such as one guy lives and hunts in certain Shotgun only counties Baltimore, Harford etc, and the other in a Rifle permitted county. The rifle hunter has no shotguns, but the Baltimore County guy has 2 and can lend his buddy a Shotgun when they hunt deer or birds etc together in Balto county. MGA was trying to define this as transfer of ownership and thus an FFL would be mandated if their BS law was enacted.


As for handguns, I am pretty sure my statements addressing HQL's and Possessing a handgun were meant to address the newer post 1971 produced firearms.

My "First, Last and in between," handgun after 2013 statement was basically to state my understanding of the BS HQL law. As far as I understand it, MGA enacted a law stating as of circa Oct 2013? Non prohibited Md citizens now need to get printed and meet the qualifying requirements it stipulates to obtain the HQL in order to purchase for their possession a non C and R handgun in Md.

I also attempted to give my own example of how I was affected by the post Oct 2013 Md Law. In my case, prior to 2013, I purchased and owned a number of handguns from FFL Gun Shops, and one PA auction house which I was legal to do so and filled out all the paperwork at my Md FFL who did the transfer.

Then if my memory is right, Jan 2014 at the annual Gun and Sportsman type auction, I purchased a Glock 40 Cal. I expected the same easy FFL transfer of simply go fill out the forms, pay the transfer fee, and the gun would be mine after the " waiting period" However, I learned via the FFl's wife's question of " did I have my handgun permit?" that we now have to do the BS HQL, Prints, training, approval and the ADDED $$$$$$$$$$$$ over purchase price this tacks on. I was pissed.

Oh yeah, and my question to the FFL's wife when she asked if I had my Handgun permit was, " I have my MSP approved gun collector's status" " Is that what you mean?" She enlightened me about the BS HQL since my last handgun purchase had been pre 2013.

I guess that is the shortest way I can reply. Sorry.

 

[Occam]

Sorry, must comment.

"Antique" usually assumes 100 years old or older. Then there's the pre-1899 version promulgated by BATFE.

In fact, to be considered C&R, it can be younger than 50 years; witness the CZ82 and the allowable versions of the Makarov.

Your hypothetical friend with the borrowed Glock on the front seat is too stupid to be trusted with a firearm. (I know you didn't specify front seat, but this hypothetical traffic stop stuff is severe BGOS.) Don't chat with cops on the job, don't permit them to search, and don't leave borrowed firearms in plain view. It's not complicated.

OK, I should pick a different scenario. How about: the borrower is borrowing the gun specifically because of a concern for life and limb, and actually ends up using it in self defense in their own home.

On the antique vs C&R, good! Clarity is better better better. I'll stick with C&R and use your correct distinction.

And I'll refocus on what I was asking:

For the overwhelming number of people who would ask the question "can I borrow (or lend) a handgun in Maryland" they are of course talking about a contemporary pistol. I used the ubiquitous Glock 19 as a stand-in for all modern pistols (I don't even own one!).

So my question, distilled through the filter of better language/specifics, remains the same:

Can that person who just shot the deranged protecion-order-violating-ex-boyfriend with a Glock 19 they borrowed from their friend at work reasonably say - to a cop, let alone a judge's satisfaction - "It's OK, I'm allowed to have and use this pistol that - since I don't have an HQL - I'm NOT allowed to obtain at a store, because I am allowed to buy a classic old CZ82 without an HQL if I wanted to."

 

[Bob A]

Can that person who just shot the deranged protection-order-violating-ex-boyfriend with a Glock 19 they borrowed from their friend at work reasonably say - to a cop, let alone a judge's satisfaction - "It's OK, I'm allowed to have and use this pistol that - since I don't have an HQL - I'm NOT allowed to obtain at a store, because I am allowed to buy a classic old CZ82 without an HQL if I wanted to."

Best answer I can provide is "I was in fear for my life. I'll give you a statement later, once I've engaged a lawyer."

Then better hope the lender previously instructed the borrower on the laws regarding self defense against both predators and the justice system.

The lender will also be facing some issues, not least a civil suit from the predator's family.

 

[chilipeppermaniac]

OK,

So my question, distilled through the filter of better language/specifics, remains the same:

Can that person who just shot the deranged protecion-order-violating-ex-boyfriend with a Glock 19 they borrowed from their friend at work reasonably say - to a cop, let alone a judge's satisfaction - "It's OK, I'm allowed to have and use this pistol that - since I don't have an HQL - I'm NOT allowed to obtain at a store, because I am allowed to buy a classic old CZ82 without an HQL if I wanted to."

Sarcasm entered here.

Better to be a Crack Head, "Inner City MX Race Team member" on Stolen Dirtbikes, with Stolen Mac 10 strapped across your shoulder, than a law abiding citizen needing to protect oneself from the above mentioned gangbanger. You will have more protection from the law as a thug than you do by being the Average Joe 2A citizen.

 

[Bob A]

Thanks Bob A for your reply. As far as I know, I did not say one needed an HQL for a C and R purchase and may have clumsily worded some prior posts. I was trying to convey that at one session I attended, one sponsoring MGA anti 2A Senator was trying to enact legislation to somehow make a law that would make C and R firearms a regulated firearm. Other MGA Anti 2 A agendas were to try to make loaning a long gun, black powder, handgun firearm the same as selling, trading, transferring of ownership which they wanted FFL and all paperwork required of such transactions. For something like a Husband and Wife swap between themselves, a pair of hunting buddies who want to or need to exchange a rifle or shotgun in a situation such as one guy lives and hunts in certain Shotgun only counties Baltimore, Harford etc, and the other in a Rifle permitted county. The rifle hunter has no shotguns, but the Baltimore County guy has 2 and can lend his buddy a Shotgun when they hunt deer or birds etc together in Balto county. MGA was trying to define this as transfer of ownership and thus an FFL would be mandated if their BS law was enacted.


As for handguns, I am pretty sure my statements addressing HQL's and Possessing a handgun were meant to address the newer post 1971 produced firearms.

My "First, Last and in between," handgun after 2013 statement was basically to state my understanding of the BS HQL law. As far as I understand it, MGA enacted a law stating as of circa Oct 2013? Non prohibited Md citizens now need to get printed and meet the qualifying requirements it stipulates to obtain the HQL in order to purchase for their possession a non C and R handgun in Md.

I also attempted to give my own example of how I was affected by the post Oct 2013 Md Law. In my case, prior to 2013, I purchased and owned a number of handguns from FFL Gun Shops, and one PA auction house which I was legal to do so and filled out all the paperwork at my Md FFL who did the transfer.

Then if my memory is right, Jan 2014 at the annual Gun and Sportsman type auction, I purchased a Glock 40 Cal. I expected the same easy FFL transfer of simply go fill out the forms, pay the transfer fee, and the gun would be mine after the " waiting period" However, I learned via the FFl's wife's question of " did I have my handgun permit?" that we now have to do the BS HQL, Prints, training, approval and the ADDED $$$$$$$$$$$$ over purchase price this tacks on. I was pissed.

Oh yeah, and my question to the FFL's wife when she asked if I had my Handgun permit was, " I have my MSP approved gun collector's status" " Is that what you mean?" She enlightened me about the BS HQL since my last handgun purchase had been pre 2013.

I guess that is the shortest way I can reply. Sorry.

I hope you didn't see my reply as an attack. I kept seeing confusion about HQL and wanted to get that straightened out.

Must have been a shock to you to experience O'Malley's Folly.

 

[chilipeppermaniac]

I hope you didn't see my reply as an attack. I kept seeing confusion about HQL and wanted to get that straightened out.

Must have been a shock to you to experience O'Malley's Folly.

Nope Bob A, no attack seen at all. I am of the philosophy that THE WOKE, 2A Lefty Commies are who we need to view as attacking us.

Bob A and I are good to go!!!! Brother.

F the 2 Odickheads, Malley and Bummer. YUP A SICK AZZ BAD JOKE "SHOCK"

 

[daggo66]

I’ve never heard of someone being charged will “illegal obtaining”. The charge would be illegal possession. Illegal possession wold apply to a prohibited person. The person in the scenario did not own the gun. Ownership would be traced to the person who lent the gun. As long as the person who shot the intruder was not prohibited, possession is not the issue. The legal battle will be manslaughter charges the will inevitably be filed by the state of MD. MD would also probably add pre-meditated charges claiming the person possessed the gun specifically to shoot the person involved which could also lead back to the lender. All of this is why it’s a bad idea to lend any forearm to anyone not your spouse.

However, none of this has anything to do with an HQL which is required to purchase or take ownership by legal transfer of a handgun.

 

[Bob A]

I’ve never heard of someone being charged will “illegal obtaining”. The charge would be illegal possession. Illegal possession wold apply to a prohibited person. The person in the scenario did not own the gun. Ownership would be traced to the person who lent the gun. As long as the person who shot the intruder was not prohibited, possession is not the issue. The legal battle will be manslaughter charges the will inevitably be filed by the state of MD. MD would also probably add pre-meditated charges claiming the person possessed the gun specifically to shoot the person involved which could also lead back to the lender. All of this is why it’s a bad idea to lend any forearm to anyone not your spouse.

However, none of this has anything to do with an HQL which is required to purchase or take ownership by legal transfer of a handgun.

With the exception I keep nattering on about

One does not need an HQL to buy or take ownership of a C&R handgun.

 

[Occam]

So the question still sits there. The finding is that it’s one’s legal ability to obtain a handgun that makes borrowing one not illegal.

Why would the author of that finding bother with that very specific nuance if every 21 year not prohibited person can obtain a handgun?