Confiscation in Maryland

[Triggerscan]

Who retrieves a firearm

If a FFL transfers a firearm prior to 7-days or after a "Disapproved", it is up to the FFL to retrieve the firearms (FFL is at fault).

If a FFL transfers a firearm on or after the 8th day or with a "Not Disapproved", it is up to the MSP to retrieve the firearms (MSP is at fault).

If the MSP asks me to retrieve a firearm that was "legally" transferred, I would "just say no!"

The reason for marking "8th Day Release" on the top of the paperwork was to help the MSP segregate those applications from normal applications so that they could update them with the NICS approval when completed.

 

[Gbh]

In the spirit of the Olympics:

 

[Rack&Roll]

If a FFL transfers a firearm prior to 7-days or after a "Disapproved", it is up to the FFL to retrieve the firearms (FFL is at fault).

If a FFL transfers a firearm on or after the 8th day or with a "Not Disapproved", it is up to the MSP to retrieve the firearms (MSP is at fault).

If the MSP asks me to retrieve a firearm that was "legally" transferred, I would "just say no!"

The reason for marking "8th Day Release" on the top of the paperwork was to help the MSP segregate those applications from normal applications so that they could update them with the NICS approval when completed.

Yikes…I think you mean if the FFL does what you describe in your first line, the wife of the FFL will have to retrieve him from jail….

 

[Triggerscan]

Yikes…I think you mean if the FFL does what you describe in your first line, the wife of the FFL will have to retrieve him from jail….

True. The MSP could revoke the license and press charges if they so desired. What I said is what was briefed to us by the MSP when they issued us our Regulated Firearms License. Bottom line is if a FFL follows the law, they should never have to retrieve a firearm.

 

[Rack&Roll]

You advertise that you have a Federal Firearms License. Serious business.

It's fun to talk politics, but you are posting here and on an HBAR thread in a way that suggests that you are uncertain about the legal aspects of your business.

Not sure if that's the best way to get up to speed in your biz. Sounds like you have some homework to do off line.

 

[A1Uni]

It was my understanding that the MSP confiscates firearms, not the FFL.

I wonder if he has a PBJ for a crime that had more than 2 years jail time and is now prohibited from purchasing firearms because of FSA 2013?

THIS /\

 

[Mooseman]

If a person is too dangerous to have firearms, why would the MSP send a mere citizen to take firearms away from this dangerous person?

 

[Dogmeat]

You advertise that you have a Federal Firearms License. Serious business.

It's fun to talk politics, but you are posting here and on an HBAR thread in a way that suggests that you are uncertain about the legal aspects of your business.

Not sure if that's the best way to get up to speed in your biz. Sounds like you have some homework to do off line.

Triggerscan knows his stuff. He did a transfer for me back in Sept before FSA2013 took effect and he knows the rules, regs, in's and out's. A very knowledgeable and personable individual whom I would not hesitate to use again.

Dogmeat

 

[brownspotz]

If a person is too dangerous to have firearms, why would the MSP send a mere citizen to take firearms away from this dangerous person?

mind=blown

 

[sykesville]

Could be a case where everyone is familiar with each-other and the FFL offered because they known the person and have good rapport with them and the police were happy to not get involved because they think the situation stinks too.

That's the way I'm going to picture it anyway

that's what I was picturing

 

[Mark75H]

Well, here's a proposed House bill that will seal the deal.

Oppose as Written
(HB623)- Public Safety - Criminal Justice Information System - Integration With Maryland Automated Firearms System Delegates Simmons and Kramer
Requiring the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services to integrate the Criminal Justice Information System with the Maryland Automated Firearms System to allow the Department of State Police to identify individuals who purchased a firearm prior to October 1, 2013, and were subsequently convicted of a disqualifying crime requiring the surrender of firearms; etc.
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?id=HB0623&stab=01&pid=billpage&tab=subject3&ys=2014RS
~~In the House - Hearing 3/04 at 1:00 p.m.




This is a post from me in the MSI forum I'm sharing my thoughts because I wrote it:

The date is when the(SB281) or FSA 2013 took effect. With the new bill came new disqualifying crimes that would prohibit someone from possessing a firearm. These new offenses did not prohibit possession before Oct. 1 2013 but, with the new law enacted it made more people prohibited for possession.

I'm thinking I want to oppose this bill but, if you say that, you say it's alright for these now newly prohibited people to possess firearms.

Twice a year they want to run everyones name through the system who purchased a firearm before Oct. 1 2013 and see if you screwed up. If so, they will be wanting your firearms.

People that owned and purchased firearms before Oct. 1 2013 were not held accountable to these new disqualifying crimes. Now that the law passed, some of these people figured out they cannot purchase under the new law and don't do so. Now the state wants to find them because if they don't attempt to purchase again, the system doesn't pick up on them having firearms.

Much like going retroactive on domestic violence abusers possessing firearms, the state wants to mop up on these people retroactively also.



This bill will be heard in House Judiciary on 3/04 at 1:00 p.m. Please come this day and make your voice heard.

Wouldn't it make more sense to check people one at a time when they become newly prohibited than to check everyone on the list twice a year?

Eventually the ex post facto provisions are going to be challenged

 

[Dogmeat]

Eventually the ex post facto provisions are going to be challenged

So, let me see if I have this straight...

The Gov't is basically stating that a person who may have committed a youthful transgression, i.e. got in a fight, is forever branded a violent person and will never change.

By that reasoning, if someone goes to jail, they should should stay in jail forever because, at least according to the Gov't, they will never change.

So, why to we have parole?


I am sooooo confused!

 

[Mark75H]

So, let me see if I have this straight...

The Gov't is basically stating that a person who may have committed a youthful transgression, i.e. got in a fight, is forever branded a violent person and will never change.

By that reasoning, if someone goes to jail, they should should stay in jail forever because, at least according to the Gov't, they will never change.

So, why to we have parole?


I am sooooo confused!

And why do felons get their voting rights restored in MD?

 

[kenpo333]

The FFl told me he was not under any obligation to buy them back either. After sale he plans on paying him a percentage.

 

[Rack&Roll]

There is never an obligation to buy someone's property.

Sounds like consignment. I hope the FFL does right by the owner.

 

[Lou45]

It was my understanding that the MSP confiscates firearms, not the FFL.

I wonder if he has a PBJ for a crime that had more than 2 years jail time and is now prohibited from purchasing firearms because of FSA 2013?

Without complete knowledge of the individual's criminal history, I'd say this ^ is most likely correct, providing the word "violent" is interjected immediately preceeding the word "crime".

Slightly OT, but does anyone know if back during the Frenzy, did the MSP give preliminary GO/NOGOs to FFLs doing 8 day releases prior to the actual release but long before the actual background check was completed?

I've often wondered what was the purpose of having the FFL hand write "8th day release" across the top of the submitted 77r other than to try to head something like this off at the pass.

The answer below in the next quoted post by Mdeng.

No they refused to and would not allow the FFL to do an instant check through NICS.

We have heard of several instances for 8-day release where, once MSP finally got around to doing their 17,000 point background check, the buyer came back "Disapproved", and have been required to turn over the firearm(s).

This part is not that unusual (given the times).

My understanding was that getting them turned in/'recovered' was to be handled by MSP. I can't see how getting the FFL to act in their stead is legal.

When MSP calls the dealer to inform the dealer a given applicant (8th day release) has been disapproved, MSP first asks if the firearm has been released. Then if so, asks the dealer if there is a dealer policy in place (not required in any capacity) that permits the disapproved person to return the gun to the dealer. It's up to the dealer and if so, at a portion of the cost or be it at no financial restitution whatsoever. If there is a no return policy of disapproved 8th day releases, the dealer indicates to MSP that the applicant surrenders the firearm to the MSP. I've had two of these issues so far with the MSP backlog of applications. Yeah, MSP retrieves the guns.

If a FFL transfers a firearm prior to 7-days or after a "Disapproved", it is up to the FFL to retrieve the firearms (FFL is at fault).

If a FFL transfers a firearm on or after the 8th day or with a "Not Disapproved", it is up to the MSP to retrieve the firearms (MSP is at fault).

If the MSP asks me to retrieve a firearm that was "legally" transferred, I would "just say no!"

THIS ^^^

True. The MSP could revoke the license and press charges if they so desired. What I said is what was briefed to us by the MSP when they issued us our Regulated Firearms License. Bottom line is if a FFL follows the law, they should never have to retrieve a firearm.

THIS ^^^

The FFl told me he was not under any obligation to buy them back either.

THIS ^^^


It's not the dealer's fault that the individuals making application to purchase regulated firearms to beat the 09/30/13 deadline are ill informed (or not informed at all) of the new prohibiting factor. The Federal and state paperwork (77r's and 4473) pre 10/01/13 had no reference to the now new (post 09/30/13) current prohibiting factor. In this light, I feel it is unconstitutional that the new law didn't at least "grandfather" the pre 10/01/13 applications as they would have been ultimately "NOT disapproved" by law pre 10/01/13.

 

[Mark75H]

I see this as an ex post facto punishment. It should be challenged as such.

 

[zoostation]

I was talking to an FFL in Whayleville( near ocean city) and he had just gotten a call to pick up a full ak and an ar lower that he had sold to a previous customer on an 8 day release. The customer had bought a handgun from him in 2011 and had had no problem. Theycjust came back and said that he had to get the two items he had sold and they were going to go pick up the pistol since they had approved that purchase and were now rescinding it.

I was told that nothing had happened since 2011 and that the guidelines had changed and they could not go back to previous sales. In fact the infraction happened when he was teenager.

Is this true? Can they do that?

Not to cast dispersions on your source of info but I cannot for the life of me believe MSP or any other agency would ever ask an FFL to retrieve a firearm from a disqualified person like some kind of repo man. The liability in doing that, as well as the very real danger to the FFL dealer, is incredible.

I could possibly see them asking the FFL to contact the purchaser and ask him to bring them back in. But to go pick them up, no way.

 

[Alea Jacta Est]

Interestingly, AG Holder (soon to be former AG) wants convicted felons to regain the right to vote... And now the MSP can dredge up past sins and rescind your right to own firearms. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot over. Something just ain't right with this picture.

These folks are imbued by unmitigated gall.

 

[Bolts Rock]

truncated link

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2014RS/bills/hb/hb0623F.pdf

So... We do 2 things with this bill...

Legislate "good bookkeeping" and force an audit of systems that should be working together to begin with, and...

Assume that anyone pre-10/13 will be likely to commit a disqualifying act, and recheck them all semi-annually.

Amazing...

And people wonder why I want to leave this state!