It's not a "loophole". It's a specifically allowed activity under 4-203.
There is ample discussion here of what constitutes "bona fide" since it isn't defined in the statute. Some have argued for both positions as far as being a DC. I woiuld think that an official designation from MSP would constitute "bona fide".
Others disagree. YMMV.
IANAL.
Gratuitous loans are legal according to MD SC ruling. But borrowing a pistol without an HQL would not be legal. The MD SC ruling occurred prior to FSA 2013.
IANAL
So is my wife allowed to shoot my handguns? With me ok without no??
My wife took possession of all of my handguns, rifles and ammo long before SB281, all as part of MD being a community property state.
Liberal laws go both ways.
You do know that Maryland is not a community property state, right?
My bad. googlefu comes in with: Maryland has an "equitable distribution" statute.
I was attempting humor at the fact that my wife seems to have taken possession of all of my other belongings: house, cars, clothes, etc. I figured that the guns just fell in naturally here.
The problem with the current issue with "receive" and trying to reconcile that with Chow, is that "receive" was not the issue in Chow. Transfer was the issue in Chow. The statute in question in Chow did not address receive, because receive was not in the language of the statute in question. Here is the statute that was at issue in Chow:
“(d) Sale by other than regulated firearms dealer. – (1) A person who is not a regulated firearms dealer may not sell, rent, transfer, or purchase any regulated firearm until after 7 days shall have elapsed from the time an application to purchase or transfer shall have been executed by the prospective purchaser or transferee, in triplicate, and the original copy is forwarded by a regulated firearms dealer to the Secretary.”
Statutory interpretation is outlined pretty well in Chow. The Court will not look into legislative history when there is no ambiguity in the wording of the law. With FSA2013, I doubt there is much ambiguity in "receive". Question really is how hard does law enforcement want to push the entire "receive" matter when it comes to normally law abiding citizens?
If my wife and I head to AGC to shoot our handguns, can my wife shoot the handguns that are in my name since she does not have a HQL? Can I shoot the ones that are in her name if I do not have an HQL?
Same issue goes for "possess" when it comes down to it. End of the day, I believe holding (i.e., possessing) a banned Assault Weapon that you did not possess prior to FSA2013, even if it is in the presence of the person that possessed it prior to FSA2013, would be a violation of the law. The question is whether law enforcement really wants to head down that road where it starts throwing otherwise law abiding people in prison for gun law technicalities.
It is my opinion that there are so many laws and regulations on the books, that we are all criminals to some degree, including politicians and law enforcement. It just depends who they decide to target.
Esq-nothing attached sir.
I agree. These points are correct. Now, the AG has taken the position in a letter to a Delegate that Chow is relevant as to the meaning of "receive" as well, stating that "if someone who doesn't have a handgun qualification license were to obtain possession of a handgun on a temporary basis with the intent to return it to the owner, she would not violate the statute." See attached letter to Del. Arora, dated March 12, 2013. This is the only written material I have seen on the question. Please note that this letter is NOT binding on the courts or, for that matter, on the States Attorneys in each county.....
Thanks for the letter. First time I have seen that. Still doesn't clear up the issue and "receive" was a horrible use of wording. If they wanted to be clear, they could have used "purchase, rent, or receive via any transfer of ownership". The legislature sure likes to keep us attorneys in business and provide plenty of work for the courts.
Also, thanks for the edit. This letter, while good to mitigate the sentence should somebody be found guilty after relying on this letter, does not bind the prosecutor or the courts to anything.