Long Gun Purchases and the October 1 Deadline

[IMBLITZVT]

Well, looks good to me!!! I was wrong about the Dealer transfers of remain inventory but I was right about the PO! I am very happy about that!

I have to read the AR part again as I am not exactly sure what they are getting at. I don't think they are saying it must be a Colt.

 

[fabsroman]

And the MSP clears up the issue somewhat on pre Oct 1 Purchase order sales with the following bulletin:

Tried to order my last AR-15 receiver last week, but ran into a hiccup with the presentation grade finish. Going to order it on Tuesday though and be done with this mess before October 1, 2013 just in case somebody changes his/her mind or somebody does not agree with the MSP position.

We really should think about compiling a list of dealers that are willing to take purchase orders for unique or hard to obtain firearms (e.g., Les Baer) that will not be delivered until after October 1, 2013.

 

[Brooklyn]

From SB 281:
This allows FFL's to sell existing stock but not order or receive new stock.

Look It dies not say 'only', it clarifies the status of stock held, particularly for out of state sale, LE and other exempted persons. Moreover maryland does not not have the jurisdiction to prevent the import of such items intended only for out of state sale by federally licensed FFLs.

They can only ban delivery to MD residents that are subject to the ban. They have said they do not intend to do that because the PO creates a temporary exception in the ban.

You may need an HQL you may have your PO chanced by skidish dealers , ans thats trouble enough.

Import is still possible because the lt does not say 'only', and import for lawful purposes can not be banned as its done by federal licence.


Now if the court says otherwise then we can see what a federal court thinks of the jurisdictional question.

 

[swinokur]

agree.

 

[fabsroman]

Look It dies not say 'only', it clarifies the status of stock held, particularly for out of state sale, LE and other exempted persons. Moreover maryland does not not have the jurisdiction to prevent the import of such items intended only for out of state sale by federally licensed FFLs.

They can only ban delivery to MD residents that are subject to the ban. They have said they do not intend to do that because the PO creates a temporary exception in the ban.

You may need an HQL you may have your PO chanced by skidish dealers , ans thats trouble enough.

Import is still possible because the lt does not say 'only', and import for lawful purposes can not be banned as its done by federal licence.

Now if the court says otherwise then we can see what a federal court thinks of the jurisdictional question.

That is correct. However, the MSP has issued a pretty poorly written position just recently that says licensed dealers can take possession of an "assault weapon" after October 1, 2013 and transfer it to a customer after October 1, 2013 IF said customer has a purchase order dated on or before October 1, 2013 for said "assault weapon".

If I was a licensed dealer, I don't know if I would rely too much on that position, but I tend to shy away from risk.

 

[IMBLITZVT]

...
If I was a licensed dealer, I don't know if I would rely too much on that position, but I tend to shy away from risk.

Well if a letter from the AG is not enough to stop being shy, maybe you need to sell all those guns! I am not shy and will buy them all so you can have nothing to worry about!

Serious guys, few things in life are 100% sure. Take the AG letter and go with it!

I just want to know, did you not buy your house until the inspector signed off that is was 100% sound?

 

[fabsroman]

Well if a letter from the AG is not enough to stop being shy, maybe you need to sell all those guns! I am not shy and will buy them all so you can have nothing to worry about!

Serious guys, few things in life are 100% sure. Take the AG letter and go with it!

I just want to know, did you not buy your house until the inspector signed off that is was 100% sound?

Yeah, apples to oranges. I can fix almost everything in the house and did not even use an inspector. I did the inspection myself and after 2 1/2 years, the problem areas are exactly what I thought they were going to be.

Plus, if you read the fine print on most contracts by inspectors, they limit their liability to the amount you pay for the inspection.

Screw up as a dealer on selling a firearm and you lose your ability to make money and possibly end up in prison. Last I checked, that does not happen if you miss a defect on a house before buying it.

Me, if I screw up purchasing a firearm, my licenses to practice law and CPA license will be gone. Hard for me to make a living in those professions once I am kicked out of them. Quite a different thing for a lot of other people. Get a guilty verdict for a gun purchase, get PBJ, be prohibited for life most likely, but you can still go to work on Monday. I have 3 young kids. I'll err on the side of caution.

And no, I will not be selling you any of my guns because they will ALL be bought and in my possession before October 1, 2013. Everything will be just fine.

Now, how I advise my dealer clients is another thing. I usually tell clients about the risk and potential costs and let them make the decision.

 

[LexTalionis926]

Anyone found a shop yet that is 100% on board with handling my umbrella corp lower that I pre ordered? They can't assure me it will be here before October 1st but per the law it shouldn't matter.

 

[IMBLITZVT]

Y....
Screw up as a dealer on selling a firearm and you lose your ability to make money and possibly end up in prison. Last I checked, that does not happen if you miss a defect on a house before buying it.

Me, if I screw up purchasing a firearm, my licenses to practice law and CPA license will be gone. .... I'll err on the side of caution.

And no, I will not be selling you any of my guns because they will ALL be bought and in my possession before October 1, 2013. Everything will be just fine.

Now, how I advise my dealer clients is another thing. I usually tell clients about the risk and potential costs and let them make the decision.

First off, I have never heard of a individual who walked into an FFL and bought a gun the dealer told him he could legally buy (assuming you did not lie on any of the forms) get charged. Never. I have heard of several cases where dealers messed up and police came and took the guns but buyer has never even been arrested. Yes you may be technically breaking the law but the FFL is going to be the person that gets in trouble, not the unsuspecting buyer. I am not saying you should not learn the law but seriously, that case is just not going to hold up in court and they are never going to pursue it. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse but when dealing with someone who had be certified by the ATF, its expected that he is the one responsible for knowing the law.

Next if you start reading court cases involving guns, especially related to illegal possession of MGs and constructive possession, you quickly see that just like the IRS, if the ATF wants to arrest a gun owner, they can find a way! In several cases they have done it... example being the M1A owner with a broken firing pin slam firing on soft commercial primers. I have 3 young kids too and if I really wanted to make sure I was legal in every possible way, to the point of not taking a written AG clarification letter... I would sell all my guns!

I agree as an FFL's lawyer, its your job to show your client all the facts and let them decide. However if you are not taking a AG letter, siding with you, as enough... I mean what would it take, your name written in the law with specific permission?

It seems to me that many of you were wrong about the way this legislation was going to be viewed and now are just gun shy of good news. The AG told us how its going to be as he is the ultimate decision maker (before a court) of what is and is not legal in state as he interprets the law. If the AG gives good news, you take it. If he gives bad news, you think about suing if he is incorrect. How about this... has anyone ever been prosecuted for following an current, non-superseded AG letter?

 

[fabsroman]

First off, I have never heard of a individual who walked into an FFL and bought a gun the dealer told him he could legally buy (assuming you did not lie on any of the forms) get charged. Never. I have heard of several cases where dealers messed up and police came and took the guns but buyer has never even been arrested. Yes you may be technically breaking the law but the FFL is going to be the person that gets in trouble, not the unsuspecting buyer. I am not saying you should not learn the law but seriously, that case is just not going to hold up in court and they are never going to pursue it. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse but when dealing with someone who had be certified by the ATF, its expected that he is the one responsible for knowing the law.

Next if you start reading court cases involving guns, especially related to illegal possession of MGs and constructive possession, you quickly see that just like the IRS, if the ATF wants to arrest a gun owner, they can find a way! In several cases they have done it... example being the M1A owner with a broken firing pin slam firing on soft commercial primers. I have 3 young kids too and if I really wanted to make sure I was legal in every possible way, to the point of not taking a written AG clarification letter... I would sell all my guns!

I agree as an FFL's lawyer, its your job to show your client all the facts and let them decide. However if you are not taking a AG letter, siding with you, as enough... I mean what would it take, your name written in the law with specific permission?

It seems to me that many of you were wrong about the way this legislation was going to be viewed and now are just gun shy of good news. The AG told us how its going to be as he is the ultimate decision maker (before a court) of what is and is not legal in state as he interprets the law. If the AG gives good news, you take it. If he gives bad news, you think about suing if he is incorrect. How about this... has anyone ever been prosecuted for following an current, non-superseded AG letter?

You have to be gun shy of the "good news" when the law is written like it is and the ultimate provider of good/bad news (i.e., the Maryland Court of Appeals) has yet to speak on a lot of these matters. If these weren't criminal violations that cause a person to be prohibited for life, that would be one thing. As an attorney, it is tough for me to push a gray area of a criminal law because if I come out on the losing end, the stakes are a lot higher than just the prison time and fine. Now, pushing the gray area for a client is a different thing.

When it comes to FFL clients of mine, they will be advised of the AG letter, the MSP advisory, the exact wording of the law, and that the Maryland Court of Appeals does not always comport to the AG's interpretation of the law or the MSP's. Heck, sometimes the Maryland Court of Appeals comes out with a holding that is not what the legislature intended, and then the legislature goes back to the drawing board the next session to fix the issue.

The way I read the law is that a FFL cannot transfer an assault weapon after October 1, 2013 unless it is already in his possession beforehand. Now, the MSP and this administration might be willing to look the other way on this, but what happens if somebody puts in an order for 1,440 lowers to be delivered 1 per month over the next 10 years? Going to be at least one more administration during that time period.

Next, what is the definition of "verifiable purchase order"?

Another huge thing that you gloss over is the fact that the AG has said a person that purchases an assault weapon prior to October 1, 2013 may receive it and continue to possess it after October 1, 2013. However, it is NOT the AG that says a dealer may transfer the assault weapon when the assault weapon gets to the dealer AFTER October 1, 2013. That is a MSP advisory which both the AG and the Maryland Court of Appeals could end up disagreeing with.

The advisory is so poorly written, especially regarding the HBAR, that I am somewhat skeptical of the entire thing. However, it too will be shown to clients. End of the day, it is the individual person's choice on how much risk they want to take.

Like I have already said, get what you want before October 1, 2013 and sleep soundly. The current administration might be willing to look the other way to prevent a massive outcry, but local law enforcement, the AG, future AG's and/or the Maryland Court of Appeals might not.

None of us are really wrong until the Maryland Court of Appeals or SCOTUS speaks on the matter. There is also no certainty until either of those Courts issues an opinion on the matter. Thing is, will there be a test case, and if so, who is it going to be.

 

[Brooklyn]

That is correct. However, the MSP has issued a pretty poorly written position just recently that says licensed dealers can take possession of an "assault weapon" after October 1, 2013 and transfer it to a customer after October 1, 2013 IF said customer has a purchase order dated on or before October 1, 2013 for said "assault weapon".

If I was a licensed dealer, I don't know if I would rely too much on that position, but I tend to shy away from risk.

Yes as I said that really is a concern.
Of course we can start educating dealers now... with our money if needed.

Not to be to pessimistic, but i think it possible and even likely that not all dealers will survive this shake up. For my part I wish to ensure that those that do survive have our interests, as well as theirs, in mind. I prefer to think of rewarding some dealers, rather than punishing the others.. It will not be the only factor I use, but it must be considered.


Even if I am not personally affected, and that is far from clear at this point, I will consider how a dealer responds in this situation.

 

[Lonewulf]

You have to be gun shy of the "good news" when the law is written like it is and the ultimate provider of good/bad news (i.e., the Maryland Court of Appeals) has yet to speak on a lot of these matters. If these weren't criminal violations that cause a person to be prohibited for life, that would be one thing. As an attorney, it is tough for me to push a gray area of a criminal law because if I come out on the losing end, the stakes are a lot higher than just the prison time and fine. Now, pushing the gray area for a client is a different thing.

When it comes to FFL clients of mine, they will be advised of the AG letter, the MSP advisory, the exact wording of the law, and that the Maryland Court of Appeals does not always comport to the AG's interpretation of the law or the MSP's. Heck, sometimes the Maryland Court of Appeals comes out with a holding that is not what the legislature intended, and then the legislature goes back to the drawing board the next session to fix the issue.

The way I read the law is that a FFL cannot transfer an assault weapon after October 1, 2013 unless it is already in his possession beforehand. Now, the MSP and this administration might be willing to look the other way on this, but what happens if somebody puts in an order for 1,440 lowers to be delivered 1 per month over the next 10 years? Going to be at least one more administration during that time period.

Next, what is the definition of "verifiable purchase order"?

Another huge thing that you gloss over is the fact that the AG has said a person that purchases an assault weapon prior to October 1, 2013 may receive it and continue to possess it after October 1, 2013. However, it is NOT the AG that says a dealer may transfer the assault weapon when the assault weapon gets to the dealer AFTER October 1, 2013. That is a MSP advisory which both the AG and the Maryland Court of Appeals could end up disagreeing with.

The advisory is so poorly written, especially regarding the HBAR, that I am somewhat skeptical of the entire thing. However, it too will be shown to clients. End of the day, it is the individual person's choice on how much risk they want to take.

Like I have already said, get what you want before October 1, 2013 and sleep soundly. The current administration might be willing to look the other way to prevent a massive outcry, but local law enforcement, the AG, future AG's and/or the Maryland Court of Appeals might not.

None of us are really wrong until the Maryland Court of Appeals or SCOTUS speaks on the matter. There is also no certainty until either of those Courts issues an opinion on the matter. Thing is, will there be a test case, and if so, who is it going to be.

Scary stuff here but I would hope that MSP Licensing would have consulted with the AG before writing the advisory letter stating that pre October PO would be enough to conduct a transfer. I do see where your coming from though. Everyone would be better off to get what they want before October. However, I have PO for firearms I have been waiting on for over a year. I know that you are siding on the cautious side which is not a bad thing but it is impossible to get some firearms before October.

 

[fabsroman]

Scary stuff here but I would hope that MSP Licensing would have consulted with the AG before writing the advisory letter stating that pre October PO would be enough to conduct a transfer. I do see where your coming from though. Everyone would be better off to get what they want before October. However, I have PO for firearms I have been waiting on for over a year. I know that you are siding on the cautious side which is not a bad thing but it is impossible to get some firearms before October.

The MSP took the position that a .22 rimfire that looks like an AR-15 is a copycat weapon. It used to be that such a gun was regulated and a Form 77r needed to be completed based upon the MSP position on the matter. Then, the AG issued a letter opinion stating that the function of the .22 rimfire that looked like an AR-15 did not function in the same manner and therefore it was not regulated (i.e., it was not a copy of the AR-15). I would rely on the AG's opinion/position a lot more than MSP.

Granted, if law enforcement never arrests anybody over anything in SB281, this is ALL a moot point.

 

[Lonewulf]

The MSP took the position that a .22 rimfire that looks like an AR-15 is a copycat weapon. It used to be that such a gun was regulated and a Form 77r needed to be completed based upon the MSP position on the matter. Then, the AG issued a letter opinion stating that the function of the .22 rimfire that looked like an AR-15 did not function in the same manner and therefore it was not regulated (i.e., it was not a copy of the AR-15). I would rely on the AG's opinion/position a lot more than MSP.

Granted, if law enforcement never arrests anybody over anything in SB281, this is ALL a moot point.

Good point I would love to hear the AG write what MSP wrote in the advisory letter. No argument with that.

 

[IndispensableDestiny]

And the MSP clears up the issue somewhat on pre Oct 1 Purchase order sales with the following bulletin:

That bulletin does not address the more common situation where an individual orders a receiver or firearm for delivery to an FFL. It only covers an FFL placing a purchase order on behalf of an individual.

 

[fabsroman]

That bulletin does not address the more common situation where an individual orders a receiver or firearm for delivery to an FFL. It only covers an FFL placing a purchase order on behalf of an individual.

That is a rather good point. If I place an order with JP Rifle for a rifle to be delivered next year to my FFL and do not go through my FFL so he can place the order for me, I might be on the short end of it.

 

[dblas]

That bulletin does not address the more common situation where an individual orders a receiver or firearm for delivery to an FFL. It only covers an FFL placing a purchase order on behalf of an individual.

It makes no mention of the FFL placing the PO on behalf of the individual. If so, please show me where.

Per SB281, an individual with a valid PO (I know, what is a valid PO) for a current regulated/future banned firearm is considered a grandfathered firearm. The issue was, could FFLs sell a firearm after Oct 1 to a MD Customer with a PO, which they did not have in inventory prior to OCt 1? MSP responded in the memo, that yes, FFLs may sell a firearm purchased by an individual on PO after Oct 1, even if that firearm is not in inventory prior to Oct 1.

Now the question of the day is, what constitutes a valid PO?

 

[dblas]

That is a rather good point. If I place an order with JP Rifle for a rifle to be delivered next year to my FFL and do not go through my FFL so he can place the order for me, I might be on the short end of it.

Ah, I see now, how is the transfer handles after Oct 1?

Interesting question, don't you have to provide an FFL when ordering from a Manufacturer (i.e. JP Rifle)? If so, then the FFL is made aware of the pending transfer. So would it be treated as a delayed order by the FFL?

 

[LexTalionis926]

Has anyone found a FFL that can read and will allow us to use them for pre ordered firearms that may not arrive before October 1st?

 

[fabsroman]

It makes no mention of the FFL placing the PO on behalf of the individual. If so, please show me where.

Per SB281, an individual with a valid PO (I know, what is a valid PO) for a current regulated/future banned firearm is considered a grandfathered firearm. The issue was, could FFLs sell a firearm after Oct 1 to a MD Customer with a PO, which they did not have in inventory prior to OCt 1? MSP responded in the memo, that yes, FFLs may sell a firearm purchased by an individual on PO after Oct 1, even if that firearm is not in inventory prior to Oct 1.

Now the question of the day is, what constitutes a valid PO?

Can I sell an assault weapon to a Maryland resident if the firearm is ordered from a distributor/manufacturer prior to October 1, 2013?

Yes, CR 4-303(b)(3) provides that, “A person who . . . has a purchase order for that resident , or completed an application to purchase an assault long gun or a copycat weapon before October 1, 2013 may: (i) possess and transport the assault long gun or copycat weapon . . . “ Accordingly, a
firearms dealer may sell, and a citizen may purchase and possess, an assault long gun or copycat weapon if a purchase order was issued on behalf of that citizen for the weapon before October 1, 2013, even where the dealer receives the weapon after October 1, 2013.

What you have to pay attention to is the wording of the question. "Sell" is the key here. Essentially, the sale has to be done by the FFL. So, if I order something direct from say JP Rifle, where does it say the FFL can transfer that to me? In essence, I would have to get my FFL to order it from JP Rifle with his PO and then put a PO in place with my FFL.

Also note that the question is not completely clear as to who is doing the ordering from the distributor/manufacturer. Is it the dealer doing the ordering, or the "resident"?

The water is still pretty muddy, but at least we can see a few fish through it. Forget being able to see the bottom 2 feet below and it will never be Caribbean blue.