Long Gun Purchases and the October 1 Deadline

[Robert1955]

Whoa there nelly, bessy, and the entire team of horses.

The PO exception applies to "assault weapons" and only "assault weapons". Handguns are an entirely different beast and the vast consensus is that a Handgun qualification license will be needed by anybody taking possession of a handgun after October 1, 2013.

There is a list of 8 day release dealers already. Why not buy the handguns on September 20 and have them transfer them to you on September 30th. Guessing there is going to be a line a mile long out of dealer's doors on September 30th.

HeHe, you misunderstood me. with the 30 day regulated clock I want to get 2 more pistols prior to needing a licence to buy them. Two AR lowers will not need the licence after Oct 1st but do need to meet the Purchase order before the 1st to be legal to pick up after D-Day.

 

[Mr H]

HeHe, you misunderstood me. with the 30 day regulated clock I want to get 2 more pistols prior to needing a licence to buy them. Two AR lowers will not need the licence after Oct 1st but do need to meet the Purchase order before the 1st to be legal to pick up after D-Day.

Doogie-Day???

 

[dblas]

The easiest way to accomplish this might be to get a list started in the IP section. Just start the thread and add to the initial post as suggestions for clarification come up. Then maybe ask the AG for an answer to them specifically or send the issues to MSP for them to attempt to address them via COMAR. Keep in mind that MSP cannot adopt regulations that do not comport with the legislation that was passed.

Heck, I already have two issues with the new Form 77r.

To an extent MSP can where authority was given to them by the GA to do so.

 

[LexTalionis926]

The easiest way to accomplish this might be to get a list started in the IP section. Just start the thread and add to the initial post as suggestions for clarification come up. Then maybe ask the AG for an answer to them specifically or send the issues to MSP for them to attempt to address them via COMAR. Keep in mind that MSP cannot adopt regulations that do not comport with the legislation that was passed.

Heck, I already have two issues with the new Form 77r.

I agree. We need a specific thread in the IP section where our IP's can post if they are on board to this whole PO thing.

 

[IMBLITZVT]

I agree. We need a specific thread in the IP section where our IP's can post if they are on board to this whole PO thing.

Disagree, because they are all going to do it. They have an AG letter saying its legal.

You guys are running crazy nuts on this issue. I don't get why we just can't go with the flow on this one as its turning our way. Whatever but seriously, you guys are never going to be satisfied with any answer unless the legislature rewrites it to your wording.

 

[fabsroman]

You do realize that there is no risk in creating a test case. Just refuse the transfer and create standing for MSI.

This will happen anyway....so let it happen noone needs to risk anything....

Yes, I do realize that there is no risk to anybody with this method as far as criminal violations, prison time, and/or fines. This is actually the best way to go. Question is whether we are going to be able to put such a contract in place such that a dealer can breach it sometime after October 1, 2013.

Also need to debate whether MSP and/or the AG is going to enforce this and how many dealers will go ahead with the PO method. Once a ruling comes out, it either confirms the process or it puts a complete end to it. Of course, that might take a year anyway.

 

[Robert1955]

Doogie-Day???

Thats as good a term as any, since the State wants to make us their bitchhhheeesssss,

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

I agree. We need a specific thread in the IP section where our IP's can post if they are on board to this whole PO thing.

It'll definitely be interesting to see the FFL reaction to the upcoming "training sessions" on implementation of SB281 later this month.

 

[Mr H]

First session is Tues... looking forward to the reports.

 

[dblas]

Disagree, because they are all going to do it. They have an AG letter saying its legal.

You guys are running crazy nuts on this issue. I don't get why we just can't go with the flow on this one as its turning our way. Whatever but seriously, you guys are never going to be satisfied with any answer unless the legislature rewrites it to your wording.

It's not that we aren't going with the flow, it's trying to figure out what dealers are doing and not doing.

Yes, dealers have a memo from the MSP and a court document from the AG that 8th day releases are fine. They also have codified guidance from BATFE that 8th day release without a check is fine, yet ALL of the dealers are NOT releasing firearms on the 8th day.

If 100% of the dealers aren't releasing on the 8th day with guidance from MSP, the AG, and BTAFE, then what makes you so sure they will because they have a letter from the AG saying its legal?

 

[IMBLITZVT]

...
If 100% of the dealers aren't releasing on the 8th day with guidance from MSP, the AG, and BTAFE, then what makes you so sure they will because they have a letter from the AG saying its legal?

I see your point. However this is different in that its not a "may" release type thing and doing so means no background check...etc.

This is a simple, is it legal question? If so, as the AG as pretty much said, there is no significant reason they would not. In otherwords, it does not push it to "their choice but we really don't want you to" type thing. Its a "yes its legal" type answer from the AG. So its very different.

Look, selling a gun is still the one thing that you can refuse to do for ANY reason! I mean I am pretty sure you could refuse to sell to Blacks and there is nothing they could do! So could some paranoid dealers still refuse to follow the MSP and AG say so... sure. Is it likely, no! Most FFLs are going to follow exactly what MSP says they can do at the training. Its pretty clear that the AG and so MSP will allow it. Thats going to be the end of it!

We could raise the same argument that some dealers will not longer carry and non-colt made HBARs... but I bet they will be few and far between.

 

[fabsroman]

First session is Tues... looking forward to the reports.

Yeah, I was thinking about attending on Tuesday in Sykesville but it is the one Tuesday a month my wife works a 12 hour shift and I cannot find a babysitter. Somebody is going to have to tell me what the "trainers" say.

 

[fabsroman]

To an extent MSP can where authority was given to them by the GA to do so.

Authority is usually granted to executive administrations to promulgate regulations to effectuate the statutes as written. Going to be tough for MSP on this one. How to get these PO assault weapons that arrive at dealers/FFLs after October 1, 2013 to the ultimate consumer. The "sale" side of it will be a lot easier than the FFL transfer side of it, that is for sure. However, there is still the argument that a sale is not completed until the firearm is delivered.

As you already know, it really does piss me off that the General Assembly did not carve out an additional exception for dealers for the PO issue, if that was actually their intent with the PO.

Anybody have the recording or transcript of the General Assembly when they discussed this matter and carved out the PO exception?

 

[fabsroman]

I see your point. However this is different in that its not a "may" release type thing and doing so means no background check...etc.

This is a simple, is it legal question? If so, as the AG as pretty much said, there is no significant reason they would not. In otherwords, it does not push it to "their choice but we really don't want you to" type thing. Its a "yes its legal" type answer from the AG. So its very different.

Look, selling a gun is still the one thing that you can refuse to do for ANY reason! I mean I am pretty sure you could refuse to sell to Blacks and there is nothing they could do! So could some paranoid dealers still refuse to follow the MSP and AG say so... sure. Is it likely, no! Most FFLs are going to follow exactly what MSP says they can do at the training. Its pretty clear that the AG and so MSP will allow it. Thats going to be the end of it!

We could raise the same argument that some dealers will not longer carry and non-colt made HBARs... but I bet they will be few and far between.

The question is what the MSP and AG are going to say at the training session. You do understand that the law does NOT provide for a dealer to transfer an "assault weapon" to a Maryland resident after October 1, 2013 UNLESS the assault weapon was in the dealer's inventory on or before October 1, 2013.

Criminal Law 4–303.

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person may not:
(1) transport an assault WEAPON into the State; or
(2) possess, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, or receive an assault WEAPON.
(b) (1) A person who lawfully possessed an assault pistol before June 1,
1994, and who registered the assault pistol with the Secretary of State Police before August 1, 1994, may:
[(1)] (I) continue to possess AND TRANSPORT the assault pistol; or
[(2)] (II) while carrying a court order requiring the surrender of the
assault pistol, transport the assault pistol directly to the law enforcement unit, barracks, or station if the person has notified the law enforcement unit, barracks, or station that the person is transporting the assault pistol in accordance with a court order and the assault pistol is unloaded.

(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.

Criminal Law 4–302.

This subtitle does not apply to:

(1) if acting within the scope of official business, personnel of the
United States government or a unit of that government, members of the armed forces of the United States or of the National Guard, MEMBERS OF THE MARYLAND DEFENSE FORCE, or law enforcement personnel of the State or a local unit in the State, OR A RAILROAD POLICE OFFICER AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE 3 OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY ARTICLE OR 49 U.S.C. § 28101;

(2) a firearm modified to render it permanently inoperative;

(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 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 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;

I just have not see any exception whatsoever for a dealer to sell or transfer an assault weapon, to a Maryland resident, that is not in the dealer's possession on or before October 1, 2013.

 

[fabsroman]

It'll definitely be interesting to see the FFL reaction to the upcoming "training sessions" on implementation of SB281 later this month.

Think I am going to hold off on posting a thread in the IP forum about this until after a couple of the training sessions have gone by. I'm going to try to compile a list of dealers that will transfer an assault weapon after October 1, 2013 based upon the PO method.

 

[IMBLITZVT]

The question is what the MSP and AG are going to say at the training session. You do understand that the law does NOT provide for a dealer to transfer an "assault weapon" to a Maryland resident after October 1, 2013 UNLESS the assault weapon was in the dealer's inventory on or before October 1, 2013.......
I just have not see any exception whatsoever for a dealer to sell or transfer an assault weapon, to a Maryland resident, that is not in the dealer's possession on or before October 1, 2013.

Again and again... yes I have read the law and reread it and read it again and heard this argument and heard it again...

The fact that the law does not specifically allow the FFL to do the transfer IS NOT IMPORTANT! The law does not always make things super clear.

However the law is clear about one thing. An individual with a PO will be allowed to get a gun that comes in after Oct 1. The law can not create Catch 22s where it allows something to happen but then does not allow it because of regulations they impose. I do not care if my gun goes through a FFL. The state and ATF does. So its not my issue and so even if not spelled out in law, the law implies that the FFL is allowed to transfer by saying I can get the gun. THE AG AGREES. The law also does not exempt USPS from delivering the gun but that is allowed too. I have been saying this from the start. I fully understand it. I fully understand the law, your argument and the AG letter.

OK, so its clear I am wrong... then you explain how the AG can say what was said in that letter using your logic! You can't! You are not correct. Time to accept that its going to be legal and move on!

There is no need to make a list, the training sessions will go over it and say its allowed and that will be the end of it.

 

[fabsroman]

Again and again... yes I have read the law and reread it and read it again and heard this argument and heard it again...

The fact that the law does not specifically allow the FFL to do the transfer IS NOT IMPORTANT! The law does not always make things super clear.

However the law is clear about one thing. An individual with a PO will be allowed to get a gun that comes in after Oct 1. The law can not create Catch 22s where it allows something to happen but then does not allow it because of regulations they impose. I do not care if my gun goes through a FFL. The state and ATF does. So its not my issue and so even if not spelled out in law, the law implies that the FFL is allowed to transfer by saying I can get the gun. THE AG AGREES. The law also does not exempt USPS from delivering the gun but that is allowed too. I have been saying this from the start. I fully understand it. I fully understand the law, your argument and the AG letter.

OK, so its clear I am wrong... then you explain how the AG can say what was said in that letter using your logic! You can't! You are not correct. Time to accept that its going to be legal and move on!

There is no need to make a list, the training sessions will go over it and say its allowed and that will be the end of it.

The law is not clear that somebody can complete a sale or obtain a transfer of an assault weapon after October 1, 2013 just because they happen to have a PO dated on or before October 1, 2013. The law is clear that they may continue to possess an assault weapon after October 1, 2013 IF they have a PO for it dated on or before October 1, 2013.

In statutory interpretation, the Courts try to ensure that one section of a law does not contradict another section of the law. Legislative history might turn out to be very important on this matter. I have asked for the legislative history testimony/discussion on this matter several times on this board, but nobody has given it to me. Without getting paid to do all the research behind it, I cannot justify spending my time looking at the legislative history. Some other attorney will probably have that "pleasure".

 

[Mr H]

I have asked for the legislative history testimony/discussion on this matter several times on this board, but nobody has given it to me.

Considering that the whole "Purchase Order" discussion was done on the Senate floor, and was somewhat off-the-cuff as [what appeared to be] an appeasement, I'm not sure anything can be provided by anyone in the way of history, testimony or discussion... save what can be gleaned from the session record.

 

[fabsroman]

Considering that the whole "Purchase Order" discussion was done on the Senate floor, and was somewhat off-the-cuff as [what appeared to be] an appeasement, I'm not sure anything can be provided by anyone in the way of history, testimony or discussion... save what can be gleaned from the session record.

The session record is what I am looking for, or at least a synopsis of what the actual intent was with this PO exception. I know it was added to the bill later in the process, but I am wondering exactly why it was added to the bill.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

The session record is what I am looking for, or at least a synopsis of what the actual intent was with this PO exception. I know it was added to the bill later in the process, but I am wondering exactly why it was added to the bill.

Delays were increasing. Friendly delegates, MSI, NRA and grassroots constant pressure (phone, personal visits, conferences, emails, etc)down in the Annapolaxis of Evil led to the inclusion of the clause. Now that the regulation makers are playing Wizard of Oz, implementation of it is a mystery.