Let the 8th day release begin!

[iH8DemLibz]

Which Beltway? There ar 2 of them in MD.

Me thinks you are mistaken regarding the spelling of the second beltway.

It's not spelled: B-E-L-T-W-A-Y.

It's spelled: L-I-G-H-T-R-A-I-L.

 

[bobthefisher]

Your info on Accuracy Clinic 'Uncle Frank' is old, his new place of business is in Poolesville. His email address has changed as wel.

Frank P Och
19640 Fisher Ave. Poolesville, MD 20837
frankpoch@verizon.net
301-929-1727

Roger that! I'll update the map later tonight.

 

[bobthefisher]

I see on Google map that no one on the Eastern Shore is releasing on 8th day. Very disappointed!

More reasons to call the FFL's in the "dark regions" and get some info out of them. Get on it fellas! I'll do my best to do the same.

 

[FWPhoto]

Here is all the information I received from my research. Please, please, PLEASE! Challenge my information and use the numbers and email address to contact these people and verify the information. It does not get any easier that this.

Quick summary:
-MD law requires 7 days from the day the paperwork is submitted until the day the firearm is picked up.
-MSP has 7 days to issue a disapproval. If there is no response within 7 days, the firearm may be released.
-Federal law requires 3 days to receive a response for NICS. If no response is received, the firearm may be released.
-It is MSP's problem to retrieve a firearm from a prohibited person. This is not a kick down the door at midnight process. MSP will contact the person and ask who they would like to transfer the firearm too. (Im sure if someone on the FBI's most wanted list bought a firearm the door kicking may be an option)
-MD law automatically puts you in compliance with Federal law.




ATF:

On 5/1/2013, I spoke with the ATF. I called 202-648-7090 EXT 5. I was transferred the voicemail for a "Specialist". I received a call back from the phone number 202-648-9999. He confirmed that MSP is correct, after 7 days the firearms may be released. He explained that MD law is more restrictive than Federal. So as long as the FFL is compliant with MD, he is ok. He also confirmed that it IS MSP and ATF that will come get the firearm. However, they WILL NOT be kicking down your door. It actually is them saying you cant own it, who do you want to transfer it too. He would not give me his name. He told me the same thing that Thomas Williams from MSP told me. That all this information is on the paperwork, the NICS website, and I believe the ATF website as well. He also said this is all compliant within the Brady Law. He wont give anything on official letterhead because its already printed in the laws. REPEAT THIS IS ALREADY PRINTED IN THE CURRENT LAWS. HE COULD NOT STRESS TO ME ENOUGH THAT FFL'S SHOULD KNOW THESE LAWS SINCE THEY ARE SUCH A BIG DEAL FOR THEIR BUISNESS.


MSP

Here are the emails I exchanged with Thomas Williams from MSP. You can see his email address, the date, and time of the emails. Please, feel free to challenge this info and contact him yourself.

Why dont you have your ffl call?

On Apr 30, 2013 9:21 PM, <xxx@yahoo.com> wrote:
I appreciate your assistance. Just one more question. I just want to be clear. This means that a NICS transaction number has not been aquired by the 7th day and its still legal for the FFL to release the regulated firearm. I know this is slightly repetitive to what I have asked but this is basically how my FFL asked me to word it.
Thanks,
John


On Apr 30, 2013, at 21:03, Thomas Williams -State Police- <thomas.williams@maryland.gov> wrote:

The ffl is well aware of the law. He knows what he is doing and in his defense he does not wish to release a firearm unless he has some assurances the person is not prohibited. Your ffl already has the phone number for the Licensing Division as well as the contact persons information. He is certainly welcome to call me but he already knows the answers.
Tom

On Apr 30, 2013 8:30 PM, <xxxx@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thank you for the reply. Would it be possible to recieve that on a document to show to my FFL? Or possibly a contact phone number incase they have any questions?
Thanks,
John


On Apr 30, 2013, at 19:51, Thomas Williams -State Police- <thomas.williams@maryland.gov> wrote:

That is correct. A licensed firearms dealer may release the firearm after 7 days if they have not received a hold or disapproval from the MSP.

On Apr 30, 2013 4:45 PM, <xxxx@yahoo.com> wrote:
Good afternoon sir,

I sent an email to you previously, however I'm not sure that it went through. If it did, I'm sorry to have sent this one as well. I am inquiring about a email that was posted that is said to be from you. The email states that Maryland FFL's may release a regulated firearm after the 7 day wait without getting a response from Maryland State Police. I dont believe everything I see on the internet and wanted to go to the source to verify the information. If this is true, would it be possible to get official documentation, perhaps on Maryland State Police letterhead and get it to FFL's? I would also like volunteer my services to assist in any way of getting this information out there or assisting in any way with the transfer application process. Thank you for your time, and I hope to hear from you soon.

Thanks,
John

OK...so I've been searching high and low to find this actual 7 day mandate. Finally...an FFL on FB posted it. The FFL's name is Jeffrey Underwood. Here is what he posted. It would appear that none of us should have had to wait. So, when your Mr. Williams says it's in the law and they shouldn't need something on letterhead, he is correct and here it is in black and white. I still haven't heard a word from mine about releasing.

BTW...this is a link to that COMAR below http://www.dsd.state.md.us/COMAR/getfile.aspx?file=29.03.01.10.htm

"I spoke to Mark Bowen, MSP, AG today. He CONFIRMED what I already knew -- firearm seller can transfer the fire after 7 days REGARDLESS of response from MSP and seller will be in FULL compliance of the law. ########### ##########################################

Maryland Public Safety - § 5-123

(a) A licensee may not sell, rent, or transfer a regulated firearm until after 7 days following the time a firearm application is executed by the firearm applicant, in triplicate, and the original is forwarded by the prospective seller or transferor to the Secretary. ##########################################

COMAR 29.03.01.10

.10 Sale or Transfer of Regulated Firearms without Approval.

A. If a dealer or person does not receive a notification of a hold for an open disposition of a criminal proceeding or disapproval within the 7-day waiting period between submission of the application and a purchase, rental, or transfer, the dealer or person may sell, rent, or transfer the regulated firearm if all applicable provisions of Public Safety Article, Title 5, Subtitle 1, Annotated Code of Maryland, have been complied with. The application to purchase or transfer a regulated firearm form shall be stamped "not disapproved" to show that action was taken by the State Police if a disapproval was not warranted."

Mr. Underwood went on further to give me the number to reach the officer he spoke to after I asked if they would be sending something out in writing to the FFL's:

"The law is the law. I've requested written confirmation but only received phone call from Mark Bowen. Give him a call 410-653-4224. Pas this # on to all you know and we'll all ask the same. he said a letter was going out to FFL's but who knows when?"

 

[Wojo]

MAY... One word that causes the confusion. May not shall

 

[FWPhoto]

MAY... One word that causes the confusion. May not shall

MSP, can I release this firearm after 7 days?

Dealer, yes you may.

What other reason would they have for including this section in the law? If they intended for the firearm to held indefinitely, they wouldn't have bothered to include this section. This section offers a remedy for what we are dealing with now. They already have a section that says the dealer must hold it at least 7 days and the other section speaks of what to do after the 7 days. I asked this in another reply somewhere but haven't gotten an answer, has anyone had to wait longer than the 8th day prior to the Sandy Hook shooting when no word had come back from the MSP? If they were releasing on the 8th day before, why not now? The wording of those sections haven't changed since then. Two different folks from the MSP are on record stating what the law is speaking about. They were asked to put in writing and both gave the same reply, 'it's already in the law and shouldn't need further clarification.' I remember, when I purchased my first firearm several years ago, my dealer at the time (Fred's Sporting) telling us that after 7 days we could pick up the firearms regardless but had to wait the full 7 days.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

May has many different meanings.

May can be a request is some cases. As in: May I leave the table?

AND

May can be an authorization to do something. As in: You may proceed when the light turns green.

In this case, MAY, means you CAN get your firearm in 7 days.

Laws are not drafted with ambiguity of language.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

May has many different meanings.

May can be a request is some cases. As in: May I leave the table?

AND

May can be an authorization to do something. As in: You may proceed when the light turns green.

In this case, MAY, means you CAN get your firearm in 7 days.

Laws are not drafted with ambiguity of language.

Oh Yes they are. Make no mistake about that. May, can, should, could...

Here's a perfect example, straight out of Public Safety Article 4-404:

(c) A person may not store or leave a loaded firearm in a location where the person knew or should have known that an unsupervised child would gain access to the firearm.

 

[Wojo]

Oh Yes they are. Make no mistake about that. May, can, should, could...

Here's a perfect example, straight out of Public Safety Article 4-404:

(c) A person may not store or leave a loaded firearm in a location where the person knew or should have known that an unsupervised child would gain access to the firearm.

Bingo...

Some guys have made up their mind saying that FFLs by law are to release firearms after 7 days; it makes them feel better about not having their firearms because the FFLs are disobeying the law in their eyes. When in actually the FFL MAY release or he/she MAY NOT until they recieve and NTN and ND. If and FFL wants to cove all bases so be it.

I am done with these conversations I promise. Dead Horse has been beaten to oblivion. I respect everyone's opinions but wish everyone would respect each FFLs decison on both sides. Neiter side of the coin is breaking the law... Well... Maybe not. Time will tell.

 

[FWPhoto]

Originally Posted by Wojo View Post
MAY... One word that causes the confusion. May not shall

MSP, can I release this firearm after 7 days?

Dealer, yes you may.

What other reason would they have for including this section in the law? If they intended for the firearm to held indefinitely, they wouldn't have bothered to include this section. This section offers a remedy for what we are dealing with now. They already have a section that says the dealer must hold it at least 7 days and the other section speaks of what to do after the 7 days. I asked this in another reply somewhere but haven't gotten an answer, has anyone had to wait longer than the 8th day prior to the Sandy Hook shooting when no word had come back from the MSP? If they were releasing on the 8th day before, why not now? The wording of those sections haven't changed since then. Two different folks from the MSP are on record stating what the law is speaking about. They were asked to put in writing and both gave the same reply, 'it's already in the law and shouldn't need further clarification.' I remember, when I purchased my first firearm several years ago, my dealer at the time (Fred's Sporting) telling us that after 7 days we could pick up the firearms regardless but had to wait the full 7 days.

I may be way off base but something just dawned on me while I was rereading what I posted. Bear with me while I pull it all together and try to make sense of it. If what I am thinking is correct, the FFL's that are releasing early may come out better in the end.

What have we been asking:

Why would the MSP put out an update with specific directions on how to release a firearm prior to approval?

What do we know:

MSI filed a lawsuit against the MSP for not completing applications in a timely fashion according to the state mandate (COMAR 29.03.01.10.) therefore delaying the release of firearms.

MD has a mandate that states a dealer may not release a firearm for 7 days (Maryland Public Safety - § 5-123) and may release it after 7 days (COMAR 29.03.01.10.)

What could be the reason for MSP's update:

Could they be using the FFL's to win the lawsuit?

Could they have used the update to inconspicuously remind the FFL's of the mandate (COMAR 29.03.01.10.) with directions on how to be compliant?

Could they throw the FFL's under the bus during the lawsuit in an effort to place blame on them for the delay of release? See the example scenario below.

'Your Honor, we have a backlog and our laws have a remedy incorporated into the wording for such times as this. Therefore, we are not to blame for the delayed release of the citizens' firearms. The FFL's have a remedy and we reminded them of such in an update on 5/31/13 and even gave specific directions on how to be compliant.'

Keep in mind that two different posts here speak about officers reminding the callers that this 8th day release is in the law and the FFL's know this. Therefore no further notice needed to be given.

How could this play out:

When all this begun, I thought the MSP was trying to trap the FFL's into releasing firearms early thus jeopardizing their license. That was before I saw both mandates side by side. I still think the MSP may be trying to use them but in a different way now. If MSI loses this lawsuit on the grounds that the state has a mandate therefore MSP is not to blame, the case could have wording that leaves the FFL's open to litigation for not following the mandate. I have read many state that the word 'may' clouds the water. I agree and it works both ways in this argument. This is why I said that the FFL's that released early because of the mandate may fare much better in the end of this.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

MAY I ask how to start a Water Cooler thread about Safety Zone Speed Cameras?

I'm trying.

Signed, Born Again MDS Member

 

[bogus130]

Originally Posted by Wojo View Post
MAY... One word that causes the confusion. May not shall



I may be way off base but something just dawned on me while I was rereading what I posted. Bear with me while I pull it all together and try to make sense of it. If what I am thinking is correct, the FFL's that are releasing early may come out better in the end.

What have we been asking:

Why would the MSP put out an update with specific directions on how to release a firearm prior to approval?

What do we know:

MSI filed a lawsuit against the MSP for not completing applications in a timely fashion according to the state mandate (COMAR 29.03.01.10.) therefore delaying the release of firearms.

MD has a mandate that states a dealer may not release a firearm for 7 days (Maryland Public Safety - § 5-123) and may release it after 7 days (COMAR 29.03.01.10.)

What could be the reason for MSP's update:

Could they be using the FFL's to win the lawsuit?

Could they have used the update to inconspicuously remind the FFL's of the mandate (COMAR 29.03.01.10.) with directions on how to be compliant?

Could they throw the FFL's under the bus during the lawsuit in an effort to place blame on them for the delay of release? See the example scenario below.

'Your Honor, we have a backlog and our laws have a remedy incorporated into the wording for such times as this. Therefore, we are not to blame for the delayed release of the citizens' firearms. The FFL's have a remedy and we reminded them of such in an update on 5/31/13 and even gave specific directions on how to be compliant.'

Keep in mind that two different posts here speak about officers reminding the callers that this 8th day release is in the law and the FFL's know this. Therefore no further notice needed to be given.

How could this play out:

When all this begun, I thought the MSP was trying to trap the FFL's into releasing firearms early thus jeopardizing their license. That was before I saw both mandates side by side. I still think the MSP may be trying to use them but in a different way now. If MSI loses this lawsuit on the grounds that the state has a mandate therefore MSP is not to blame, the case could have wording that leaves the FFL's open to litigation for not following the mandate. I have read many state that the word 'may' clouds the water. I agree and it works both ways in this argument. This is why I said that the FFL's that released early because of the mandate may fare much better in the end of this.

But the law states a disapproval must be given in 7 days, not the firearm be transferred after 7 days. I think the fight is against the MSP not getting through the paper work fast enough, as opposed to people not getting their guns after 7 days. They seem to be the same thing, but I don't think they are. MSP not giving disapprovals within 7 days (against the law), dealer not releasing firearm after 7 days (discretion of the FLL).

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

Originally Posted by Wojo View Post
MAY... One word that causes the confusion. May not shall

I may be way off base but something just dawned on me while I was rereading what I posted. Bear with me while I pull it all together and try to make sense of it. If what I am thinking is correct, the FFL's that are releasing early may come out better in the end.

What have we been asking:

Why would the MSP put out an update with specific directions on how to release a firearm prior to approval?

What do we know:

MSI filed a lawsuit against the MSP for not completing applications in a timely fashion according to the state mandate (COMAR 29.03.01.10.) therefore delaying the release of firearms.

MD has a mandate that states a dealer may not release a firearm for 7 days (Maryland Public Safety - § 5-123) and may release it after 7 days (COMAR 29.03.01.10.)

What could be the reason for MSP's update:

Could they be using the FFL's to win the lawsuit?

Could they have used the update to inconspicuously remind the FFL's of the mandate (COMAR 29.03.01.10.) with directions on how to be compliant?

Could they throw the FFL's under the bus during the lawsuit in an effort to place blame on them for the delay of release? See the example scenario below.

'Your Honor, we have a backlog and our laws have a remedy incorporated into the wording for such times as this. Therefore, we are not to blame for the delayed release of the citizens' firearms. The FFL's have a remedy and we reminded them of such in an update on 5/31/13 and even gave specific directions on how to be compliant.'

Keep in mind that two different posts here speak about officers reminding the callers that this 8th day release is in the law and the FFL's know this. Therefore no further notice needed to be given.

How could this play out:

When all this begun, I thought the MSP was trying to trap the FFL's into releasing firearms early thus jeopardizing their license. That was before I saw both mandates side by side. I still think the MSP may be trying to use them but in a different way now. If MSI loses this lawsuit on the grounds that the state has a mandate therefore MSP is not to blame, the case could have wording that leaves the FFL's open to litigation for not following the mandate. I have read many state that the word 'may' clouds the water. I agree and it works both ways in this argument. This is why I said that the FFL's that released early because of the mandate may fare much better in the end of this.

Totally agree.

Wedges.

There was no release for comment on the attachment "request". It was an ad hoc "will". Not a "shall", so do the FFL's have to comply? If it was meant to be a new regulation, the procedure was abandoned (I.e. release for public comment, publish in the Maryland Register). The notice on 5/31 has caused a lot of confusion.

 

[FWPhoto]

But the law states a disapproval must be given in 7 days, not the firearm be transferred after 7 days. I think the fight is against the MSP not getting through the paper work fast enough, as opposed to people not getting their guns after 7 days. They seem to be the same thing, but I don't think they are. MSP not giving disapprovals within 7 days (against the law), dealer not releasing firearm after 7 days (discretion of the FLL).

That may be the case as well. I guess it really depends on how the case plays out in court. I just keep wondering what the purpose/intent of that seemingly out of place set of directions in an update was about. It comes at a pretty odd time seeing how we are in the middle of a sh*t storm of angry FFLs and gun owners because the MSP has a backlog and not getting paperwork back in a timely fashion. In my mind, it serves only two purposes. One...they honestly really want gun owners and FFLs to be happy or it's a cleverly placed update with a lawsuit looming in the wings. Which one is the most plausible?

 

[T'Challa]

I am tired of checking these forums but they are the only hope I see. Why won't the FFL's just release purchases already? If everyone were releasing the the MSP would get off their butts and process the paperwork faster.

 

[swinokur]

Because they don't have to. The law says "may". That's all the reason they need.

 

[Mr H]

Because they don't have to. The law says "may". That's all the reason they need.

There you go, being reasonable again.......

 

[ianmcall]

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

 

[A1Uni]

I am tired of checking these forums but they are the only hope I see. Why won't the FFL's just release purchases already? If everyone were releasing the the MSP would get off their butts and process the paperwork faster.

I preface this with the fact that we do release on the 8th business day in many cases, but not always.


If you were seeking a new nanny or babysitter for your kids, would leave that person alone with your kids just based on an interview, or would you wait for their background check to come back?

If you were renting out your house, would you let strangers move in based on a brief face to face meeting, or would you wait for the credit check to come back?

If you had amassed a tidy fortune and wanted a financial manager to handle it for you, would you put them right on the checking account, or would you wait until you knew more about their reliability, and their background had come back?

Lets say you are just hiring someone to handle the cash register at your small business. Would you let someone walk in off the street and start making change out of the drawer, or would you wait until you had checked their references?

Does FFLs waiting for background checks to come back before they hand out firearms start to sound a bit more reasonable now?

 

[swinokur]

There you go, being reasonable again.......

It's just a really bad habit. I'm trying to quit.