Long Gun Purchases and the October 1 Deadline

[fabsroman]

This could get interesting....I have a LaRue OBR in 5.56 on order. An order placed in March of this year. LaRue isn't taking deposits. Based on their current production rates, I'll be lucky to see the gun a year from now.

You will be lucky to see the gun at all. If the court cases go our way, it might only take 2 to 3 years to have the issue decided. Is LaRue going to hold onto the gun that long for you because I doubt any FFL is going to receive it for you after October 1, 2013 until the Courts find in our favor on this matter, if they find in our favor whatsoever.

 

[miles71]

I was planning on ordering a M&P 40 cal from smith and Wesson. I was told by S&W there was no way I would get it delivered to my FFl before Oct 1. My FFL told me without the pistol in hand, even if I had paid for it in advance with S&W they wouldn't have the serial number to do the application. Therefore I could not get the 15 round mags after Oct 1 and would have to start my wait time once the pistol actually showed up.

Once it was all said and done it cost me 85.00 more to just buy the one they had in stock. If I would have ordered from S&W I could have gotten an instructor discount, but would have had to do all the transfer fees. They get ya no matter what!! When asked about the wait and if they would release early I was told that md may say ok, but if something comes back that wold prohibit the Feds can fine the FFL severely.

I will say, I don't really have much urge to own any more 9 mm, so ill just grab whatever evil-more-than-ten round mag I can for the new 40. No matter what full size M&P I get n the future they should work right?

Enough rant, did I hijack my own response.......... These new laws are causing mental deficiencies.
TD

 

[A1Uni]

Your FFL cannot take possession of a banned assault weapon after October 1, 2013, and he certainly cannot transfer it to you after October 1, 2013 UNLESS the banned assault weapon was in his possession BEFORE October 1, 2013.

That is the big issue here and one that this POS letter did NOT clarify. Just got back from a "vacation" on Long Island for a bridal shower and will be chatting with JP Rifles tomorrow to order my AR-15 lower/upper from it. Was looking at complete JP rifles on Thursday on its website and saw MD added to the "We will not ship to CA, CO, DC, etc.". About had a heart attack. Wrote an e-mail to JP and somebody replied that if I can show that it is legal to ship to Maryland before October 1, 2013 AND I have an FFL willing to accept shipment, they will ship it. Proof of legality and my order will be discussed tomorrow.

Not exactly, especially for 07-FFLs...business/transfers in these may still be conducted, just not in Maryland.

This subtitle does not apply to:

(3) POSSESSION, IMPORTATION, MANUFACTURE, RECEIPT FOR
6 MANUFACTURE, SHIPMENT FOR MANUFACTURE, STORAGE, purchases, sales, and
7 transport to or by a licensed firearms dealer or manufacturer who is:
8 (i) providing or servicing an assault [pistol] WEAPON or
9 detachable magazine for a law enforcement unit or for personnel exempted under item
10 (1) of this section; or
11 (ii) acting to sell or transfer an assault [pistol] WEAPON or
12 detachable magazine to a licensed firearm dealer in another state OR TO AN
13 INDIVIDUAL PURCHASER IN ANOTHER STATE THROUGH A LICENSED FIREARMS
14 DEALER; OR
15 (III) ACTING TO RETURN TO A CUSTOMER IN ANOTHER STATE
16 AN ASSAULT WEAPON TRANSFERRED TO THE LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER OR
17 MANUFACTURER UNDER THE TERMS OF A WARRANTY OR FOR REPAIR;

 

[MedievalEngineer]

Thye law clearly states if the firearm is not in the possession of the FFL before Oct. 1 then it's is illegal to sell after Oct. 1 You can parse it any way you like. If the FFL didn't possess it before Oct 1, it's not legal to sell even with a pre Oct. 1 PO.

If you order an in stock firearm before Oct 1, it's legal to pick it up after Oct. 1. That's the only legal exception.

Unfortunately, I expect that this is the truth. If you order a firearm and it does not ship until after Oct 1st, the dealer cannot legally receive a banned firearm after Oct 1st. This makes the question of whether they can transfer it to you irrelevant.

Ideally, I would like to believe that once I pay for a firearm, I legally own it. In that scenario, picking up the firearm from the dealer would be no different from picking it up from a gunsmith after a repair. It's not really a transfer since I was already the owner. In this state, I doubt that it'll work that way. I expect that MD will decide that I'm not the legal owner until after they've had a chance to disapprove the transfer which can't happen until the dealer has the firearm in their possession.

 

[Not_an_outlaw]

There is an "or" in that letter.

 

[gabe72]

Just buy them like they do on the streets since the streets are flooded with assault weapons.

 

[zoostation]

Thye law clearly states if the firearm is not in the possession of the FFL before Oct. 1 then it's is illegal to sell after Oct. 1 You can parse it any way you like. If the FFL didn't possess it before Oct 1, it's not legal to sell even with a pre Oct. 1 PO.

If you order an in stock firearm before Oct 1, it's legal to pick it up after Oct. 1. That's the only legal exception.

I don't read that at all. What I read is the dealer needs to put in his own purchase order with his supplier, to match the ordering customer's purchase order, before Oct. 1st. The dealer is still a "person" and entitled to the exemption in the law for "persons" with open purchase orders.

This is how I read it. I may be missing something, and feel free to point that out. I haven't had time to study this horrible bill as closely as I would like to, but here is what I get. I see nothing where there is an "in-stock" type requirement either in intent or functional verbage.

Relating to some other posts, I also see nothing that requires any payment, full or partial, have taken place to validate a purchase order either. In fact, in the firearms business world most purchase orders don't involve any pre-payment, and it would be difficult to stretch the meaning of the term to say they do. While it is nice and reinforces the idea that an order has been placed, I don't see where it is required.

I am not a lawyer but this is how I read it.

from the exemptions on pg. 14 of the bill

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/bills/sb/sb0281e.pdf

(2) A LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER MAY CONTINUE TO POSSESS, SELL, OFFER FOR SALE, OR TRANSFER AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON THAT THE LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER LAWFULLY POSSESSED ON OR BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2013.

(3)A PERSON WHO LAWFULLY POSSESSED OR PLACED A VERIFIABLE PURCHASE ORDER FOR, HAS A PURCHASE ORDER FOR, OR COMPLETED AN APPLICATION TO PURCHASE AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2013

 

[fabsroman]

I don't read that at all. What I read is the dealer needs to put in his own purchase order with his supplier, to match the ordering customer's purchase order, before Oct. 1st. The dealer is still a "person" and entitled to the exemption in the law for "persons" with open purchase orders.

This is how I read it. I may be missing something, and feel free to point that out. I haven't had time to study this horrible bill as closely as I would like to, but here is what I get. I see nothing where there is an "in-stock" type requirement either in intent or functional verbage.

Relating to some other posts, I also see nothing that requires any payment, full or partial, have taken place to validate a purchase order either. In fact, in the firearms business world most purchase orders don't involve any pre-payment, and it would be difficult to stretch the meaning of the term to say they do. While it is nice and reinforces the idea that an order has been placed, I don't see where it is required.

I am not a lawyer but this is how I read it.

from the exemptions on pg. 14 of the bill

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/bills/sb/sb0281e.pdf

(2) A LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER MAY CONTINUE TO POSSESS, SELL, OFFER FOR SALE, OR TRANSFER AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON THAT THE LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER LAWFULLY POSSESSED ON OR BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2013.

(3) A PERSON WHO LAWFULLY POSSESSED, HAS A PURCHASE ORDER FOR, OR COMPLETED AN APPLICATION TO PURCHASE AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2013, MAY:

Now, can we agree that there is a difference between "lawfully possessed" and "has a purchase order for" an assault weapon? If they mean exactly the same thing, then why would the legislature have to put the purchase order verbiage in sub-paragraph 3? It wouldn't. So, since lawfully possess is NOT the same as "has a purchase order for", the dealer can only transfer assault weapons that he lawfully possessed on October 1, 2013. No issue with the dealer taking delivery of an assault weapon for which the dealer has a purchase order in place on or before October 1, 2013. However, there is no exception to transfer said assault weapon to a Maryland Resident. It can only be sold out of state per 4-302

4-302:

This subtitle does not apply to:

(3) POSSESSION, IMPORTATION, MANUFACTURE, RECEIPT FOR MANUFACTURE, SHIPMENT FOR MANUFACTURE, STORAGE, purchases, sales, and transport to or by a licensed firearms dealer or manufacturer who is:

(i) providing or servicing an assault [pistol] WEAPON or detachable magazine for a law enforcement unit or for personnel exempted under item (1) of this section; or

(ii) acting to sell or transfer an assault [pistol] WEAPON or detachable magazine to a licensed firearm dealer in another state OR TO AN INDIVIDUAL PURCHASER IN ANOTHER STATE THROUGH A LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER; OR

(III) ACTING TO RETURN TO A CUSTOMER IN ANOTHER STATE AN ASSAULT WEAPON TRANSFERRED TO THE LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER OR MANUFACTURER UNDER THE TERMS OF A WARRANTY OR FOR REPAIR;

Somebody, show me where there is an exception for a licensed dealer to transfer a "purchase order" firearm to a Maryland resident if that purchase order firearm is not lawfully possessed by the dealer on or before October 1, 2013.

Here is the fact pattern that the AG needs to address:

A licensed firearm dealer, on behalf of its customer, places a purchase order on September 25, 2013 for an assault weapon. The assault weapon is delivered to the licensed firearm dealer on October 15, 2013. Can the licensed firearm dealer transfer or sell this firearm to the customer on October 16, 2013?

I think the only argument for the above to be valid would be if the "sale" took place on September 25, 2013 and the licensed firearm dealer is merely waiting to deliver the goods, not complete the sale.

Yeah, I am getting everything done before October 1, 2013 because this can probably be argued both ways and left up to a Court to determine what the General Assembly actually meant. Who knows how that would go.

Now I have a headache.

 

[swinokur]

I don't think you can claim "ownership" of a weapon until the 77r is submitted and the firearm entered as a sale into the FFL's bound book... The firearm is in the dealers bound book as an acquisition until you take possession of it.

IANAL.

 

[Mr H]

we need to keep in mind that the "purchase order" language was only added after they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, and IIRC Sens. Pipken and Jacobs held them accountable for pending sales.

Otherwise, all transactions would have been terminated 1Oct.

 

[Gbh]

I've read both sides of the "interpretation" of the not-yet-written law and all that matters is what your dealer is willing to do. Much like with the "8 day release" fiasco, the key element in this is the dealer.

Buy now. It may not be reasonable to expect being able to place an order at the end of September.

Those of you that have bought "assault weapons" and have a change of heart and are thinking of selling, your gun will be worth premium $ as a private sale or dealer buy back / consignment in September for the last-minute in-stock, in-hand purchase.

 

[niftyvt]

This could get interesting....I have a LaRue OBR in 5.56 on order. An order placed in March of this year. LaRue isn't taking deposits. Based on their current production rates, I'll be lucky to see the gun a year from now.

LaRue OBRs are heavy barrel rifles!!

The PredatAR is NOT a HBAR.

The PredatOBR IS a HBAR

Proof:
Download the 'Rifle Brochure' and look on page 3.
http://www.laruetactical.com/larue-brochures

 

[dblas]

Even if you apply that thinking to the situation, that would allow the FFL to continue to possess the assault weapon after October 1, 2013, IF the purchase order was in place before October 1, 2013. Now, what allows the FFL to transfer the assault weapon after October 1, 2013, even IF the FFL has the purchase order in place prior to October 1, 2013 and receives the assault weapon on October 2, 2013.

So, even if you can make a valid argument that the FFL can continue to possess the assault weapon IF a purchase order is in place prior to October 1, 2013, how do you make the leap to transferring/selling it to a customer after October 1, 2013?

We don't need to make the leap to selling/transferring to the customer after October 1, that is already spelled out in SB281.

What I am getting at is this; if a purchase order establishes possession for a gun owner to qualify as grandfathered, then it shouldn't be that much of a leap for a dealer's purchase order to/from his supplier(s), to establish possession of a firearm for sale after October 1.

 

[Gbh]

We don't need to make the leap to selling/transferring to the customer after October 1, that is already spelled out in SB281.

What I am getting at is this; if a purchase order establishes possession for a gun owner to qualify as grandfathered, then it shouldn't be that much of a leap for a dealer's purchase order to/from his supplier(s), to establish possession of a firearm for sale after October 1.

Correct.

The discussion during the writing of SB281 was the long delay in customer orders arriving at dealers due to firearm shortages at the manufacturer level.

 

[kalister1]

(3)A PERSON WHO LAWFULLY POSSESSED OR PLACED A VERIFIABLE PURCHASE ORDER FOR, HAS A PURCHASE ORDER FOR, OR COMPLETED AN APPLICATION TO PURCHASE AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2013

(3) A PERSON WHO LAWFULLY POSSESSED, HAS A PURCHASE ORDER FOR, OR COMPLETED AN APPLICATION TO PURCHASE AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2013, MAY:

Look at the highlighted words, DO you see a difference?

The word "OR" has been left out of the second quoted phrase, which one is the law?

 

[IMBLITZVT]

Man, this really is screwed up!

I see where you guys are coming from. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

The way I see the law is that it deals with scenarios come Oct 1.

So it starts with dealers and guns the dealer has. The law allows him to sell off his remaining inventory. They can't assume he has the ability to sell them out of state. So anything in inventory will likely still be allowed to be sold to MD residents post Oct 1.

Then you have the guns people have on order and are waiting from MSP. Well there is your purchase order and completed application. You will be allowed to get these too!

Here is the thing that you guys don't account for. If FFLs could only sell remaining inventory out of state, they would have put that in the law. As it is, they say you can sell it, so you can sell it in state by my read. Other states have addressed this issue in the past and wrote sell remaining inventory out of state. Note that in section 4-302 it already allows FFLs to continue to do interstate sales in (3)(ii). So are you telling me that they wrote it in twice... no I don't think so.

Next why have purchase order or completed applications if they only meant application into MSP as of Oct 1. I don't buy the out of state person moving in... the law makers were not looking out for them.

Also look at the language that it was changed from. It talks about needing to register the assault rifle before Jan 2014... the intent was clear. That people waiting to get guns on back order would be allowed to get them after Oct 1 no matter what.

You guys are reading the law like a technical readers adding and subtracting so this part plus that part equals this... Thats not how they view law at MSP and the AG.

I will give an example. Then Handgun roster board. It says no new handguns will be allowed to be sold in the state unless on the handgun roster board. No SBRs have ever been on the list. However the law clearly states that the SBR is a handgun! So how does this work!!! Or do all SBR owners have illegal guns approved by MSP?

We can go back and forward on this until we are blue in the face. However MSP is coming out with the info soon. They are going to address the issue. The FFLs will follow whatever MSP says as they are in charge of enforcing it. If MSP says we can get guns on purchase order post Oct1, the FFLs will transfer them.

How certain am I... not very but I have a good feeling I am seeing it how MSP and the AG will see it. For those that blow off the AG letter... I think it at least goes to show you how they are seeing it even if they did not use the exact words you wanted to see. However you have to know that not everyone is use to the Terms we use as its not a standard commercial purchase... For those with tin foil hats... no one wants more work... especially government workers. They don't care if a few hundred more guns get in the state... no one does. They are going to allow this last wave and use time to cut the numbers just like the MG ban!

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

(3)A PERSON WHO LAWFULLY POSSESSED OR PLACED A VERIFIABLE PURCHASE ORDER FOR, HAS A PURCHASE ORDER FOR, OR COMPLETED AN APPLICATION TO PURCHASE AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2013

(3) A PERSON WHO LAWFULLY POSSESSED, HAS A PURCHASE ORDER FOR, OR COMPLETED AN APPLICATION TO PURCHASE AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2013, MAY:

Look at the highlighted words, DO you see a difference?

The word "OR" has been left out of the second quoted phrase, which one is the law?

3

Look above and below the clause.

What's prohibited and what's allowed?

Why isn't the specific word "receive" used below but is prohibited above?

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

Man, this really is screwed up!

I see where you guys are coming from. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

The way I see the law is that it deals with scenarios come Oct 1.

So it starts with dealers and guns the dealer has. The law allows him to sell off his remaining inventory. They can't assume he has the ability to sell them out of state. So anything in inventory will likely still be allowed to be sold to MD residents post Oct 1.

Then you have the guns people have on order and are waiting from MSP. Well there is your purchase order and completed application. You will be allowed to get these too!

Here is the thing that you guys don't account for. If FFLs could only sell remaining inventory out of state, they would have put that in the law. As it is, they say you can sell it, so you can sell it in state by my read. Other states have addressed this issue in the past and wrote sell remaining inventory out of state. Note that in section 4-302 it already allows FFLs to continue to do interstate sales in (3)(ii). So are you telling me that they wrote it in twice... no I don't think so.

Next why have purchase order or completed applications if they only meant application into MSP as of Oct 1. I don't buy the out of state person moving in... the law makers were not looking out for them.

Also look at the language that it was changed from. It talks about needing to register the assault rifle before Jan 2014... the intent was clear. That people waiting to get guns on back order would be allowed to get them after Oct 1 no matter what.

You guys are reading the law like a technical readers adding and subtracting so this part plus that part equals this... Thats not how they view law at MSP and the AG.

I will give an example. Then Handgun roster board. It says no new handguns will be allowed to be sold in the state unless on the handgun roster board. No SBRs have ever been on the list. However the law clearly states that the SBR is a handgun! So how does this work!!! Or do all SBR owners have illegal guns approved by MSP?

We can go back and forward on this until we are blue in the face. However MSP is coming out with the info soon. They are going to address the issue. The FFLs will follow whatever MSP says as they are in charge of enforcing it. If MSP says we can get guns on purchase order post Oct1, the FFLs will transfer them.

How certain am I... not very but I have a good feeling I am seeing it how MSP and the AG will see it. For those that blow off the AG letter... I think it at least goes to show you how they are seeing it even if they did not use the exact words you wanted to see. However you have to know that not everyone is use to the Terms we use as its not a standard commercial purchase... For those with tin foil hats... no one wants more work... especially government workers. They don't care if a few hundred more guns get in the state... no one does. They are going to allow this last wave and use time to cut the numbers just like the MG ban!

Go back and listen to the floor debate.

 

[kalister1]

The real issue here is that Each Individual FFL will do whatever they think is the right thing to do for them, just like now.
How many transfer H-Bars as Cash and Carry.

 

[IMBLITZVT]

(3)A PERSON WHO LAWFULLY POSSESSED OR PLACED A VERIFIABLE PURCHASE ORDER FOR, HAS A PURCHASE ORDER FOR, OR COMPLETED AN APPLICATION TO PURCHASE AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2013

(3) A PERSON WHO LAWFULLY POSSESSED, HAS A PURCHASE ORDER FOR, OR COMPLETED AN APPLICATION TO PURCHASE AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2013, MAY:

Look at the highlighted words, DO you see a difference?

The word "OR" has been left out of the second quoted phrase, which one is the law?

You did not do that correctly.

"OR PLACED A 9 VERIFIABLE PURCHASE ORDER FOR,"
was taken out and this was added:
"HAS A PURCHASE ORDER FOR, OR 10 COMPLETED AN APPLICATION TO PURCHASE"

Its just correcting grammer. The "or" is replaced with a "," because they added an item to the "or" list. Means the same for the most part.