Long Gun Purchases and the October 1 Deadline

[IMBLITZVT]

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".

Yes but how can you possess a gun you only have a PO for after Oct 1 without a transfer???????? You can't! Thats my point. Actually you are wrong anyway. It says you can transfer it too.

4–303. 19
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person may not: 20
(1) transport an assault [pistol] WEAPON into the State; or 21
(2) possess, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, or receive an assault 22 [pistol] WEAPON.

So since you meet subsection (b) you can transfer, purchase or receive and possess. So you are wrong. Its 100% clear the individual can transfer the gun into his possession with a PO. The part where you were correct that it was unclear is the FFL. So again, its clear the individual can take possession of the gun after Oct 1 if he has a PO. Clearly, no doubt. That can't happen without the FFL doing his part and so AS THE AG CONFIRMED, he will be allowed to do so even if not specifically allowed to do so in the law because that is what is needed to make the individual's part of the law legal.

I don't know how to best find the history you are looking for. That is lawyer stuff and you are the lawyer that wants to see it. If its not worth your time looking why would I look? It would take twice as long and if I find talk to back up what I am saying, you will disregard it just as you did the AG letter! Sorry I got better stuff to do. Not trying to be rude in saying it, as I feel it might seem that way.

 

[dblas]

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.

Bad example, as there are already dealers that do not carry ANY Colt AR products let alone the HBAR, but yet they sell other manufacturers HBARs.

Dealers will continue to do what the fell COMFORTABLE with doing, regardless of what they are shown on paper. While I and everyone else would like it to be true, that 100% of dealers will be doing the PO policy. The fact of the matter is that some won't. How many won't still remains to be seen.

I'm not trying to be negative (check most of my posts) and I do see where you are coming from, but reality says otherwise.

 

[dblas]

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?

I believe the PO carve out was done behind doors in the "back room" with both sides going back and forth.

 

[fabsroman]

Yes but how can you possess a gun you only have a PO for after Oct 1 without a transfer???????? You can't! Thats my point. Actually you are wrong anyway. It says you can transfer it too.



So since you meet subsection (b) you can transfer, purchase or receive and possess. So you are wrong. Its 100% clear the individual can transfer the gun into his possession with a PO. The part where you were correct that it was unclear is the FFL. So again, its clear the individual can take possession of the gun after Oct 1 if he has a PO. Clearly, no doubt. That can't happen without the FFL doing his part and so AS THE AG CONFIRMED, he will be allowed to do so even if not specifically allowed to do so in the law because that is what is needed to make the individual's part of the law legal.

I don't know how to best find the history you are looking for. That is lawyer stuff and you are the lawyer that wants to see it. If its not worth your time looking why would I look? It would take twice as long and if I find talk to back up what I am saying, you will disregard it just as you did the AG letter! Sorry I got better stuff to do. Not trying to be rude in saying it, as I feel it might seem that way.

Yeah, giving you a law education is going to take forever.

The issue about the transfer has never been with the individual, but with the dealer. So, find me a sub-section under section (b) that allows a dealer to transfer an assault weapon to an individual after October 1, 2013 if the assault weapon is NOT in the dealer's inventory on or before October 1, 2013.

If I can find a dealer that will do the PO transfer after October 1, 2013, I'll put in a PO for a couple more assault weapons that I can get significant other approval for.

 

[fabsroman]

Anybody have this AG opinion letter in a pdf that they could e-mail to me? I'd appreciate it. Getting tired of looking for this thread every time I want to read this letter.

I think Andi Moroney had it somewhere on the net, but where exactly completely escapes me right now.

 

[swinokur]

this one?

 

[swinokur]

I PDF'ed it for you

Hope this is what you were looking for.

 

[IMBLITZVT]

Bad example, as there are already dealers that do not carry ANY Colt AR products let alone the HBAR, but yet they sell other manufacturers HBARs.

Dealers will continue to do what the fell COMFORTABLE with doing, regardless of what they are shown on paper. While I and everyone else would like it to be true, that 100% of dealers will be doing the PO policy. The fact of the matter is that some won't. How many won't still remains to be seen.

I'm not trying to be negative (check most of my posts) and I do see where you are coming from, but reality says otherwise.

You give it 6 months into the ban. The shops willing to sell non-colt HBARs will be getting by and the others will be going out of business and all the sudden they will all get comfortable! We will see but my bet is that they will be few and far between and quickly going out of business. What they hell are they going to sell? SCARs? I mean with no handgun sales, no assault rifles... I sure hope they sell a lot of shotguns and bolt guns!

Yeah, giving you a law education is going to take forever.

The issue about the transfer has never been with the individual, but with the dealer. So, find me a sub-section under section (b) that allows a dealer to transfer an assault weapon to an individual after October 1, 2013 if the assault weapon is NOT in the dealer's inventory on or before October 1, 2013.

If I can find a dealer that will do the PO transfer after October 1, 2013, I'll put in a PO for a couple more assault weapons that I can get significant other approval for.

Haha... Well I did not need a law education to get it correct as the AG confirmed. Looks like my "internet" education is working better anyway!

Ok, so I am wrong... the please explain what the hell the AG is saying?

 

[Brooklyn]

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.

Yes, I am thinking that the AG will file an amicus brief asking that the court approve the transfers quickly --- they do not want this in court and stalled going into 2014.. They want as many 'I got mines ' to go back to sleep but maybe mom will not care since he is not running. Or maybe he thinks it will encourage the gun culture to abandon Maryland before the 2014 election--- hear that mdshooters you are going to be played --- do you intend to let them do it....

I must say that the more of a CF this is the better for our cause long term, if only because they look like keystone cops And if we are luck a large number of first timers will get caught up in this and will see first hand what we have been saying for some time,


I did not want sb281 to pass, but if the fight is on -- bring it.

 

[fabsroman]

I PDF'ed it for you

Hope this is what you were looking for.

Yes, and thank you.

 

[fabsroman]

You give it 6 months into the ban. The shops willing to sell non-colt HBARs will be getting by and the others will be going out of business and all the sudden they will all get comfortable! We will see but my bet is that they will be few and far between and quickly going out of business. What they hell are they going to sell? SCARs? I mean with no handgun sales, no assault rifles... I sure hope they sell a lot of shotguns and bolt guns!



Haha... Well I did not need a law education to get it correct as the AG confirmed. Looks like my "internet" education is working better anyway!

Ok, so I am wrong... the please explain what the hell the AG is saying?

Look, the AG isn't always right about everything, and you should really be hoping that is the case because the AG has already opined that SB281 is Constitutional in its entirety. If you take the AG's word as gospel, then you might be in for a rude awakening.

At this point, let's just agree to disagree. Me, I think this is a matter that can go either way and go all the way up to the Maryland Court of Appeals since the PO language for an individual does not coincide with the transfer exception for a dealer. There is obviously a disconnect there.

As the law is written, the only way I can think of it taking place is where the buyer has a PO dated on or before October 1, 2013, the dealer receives the assault weapon on or before October 1, 2013, but the buyer does not take possession of the assault weapon until after October 2, 2013. That is, the buyer cannot get into the dealer before then or the buyer purchased from a dealer that will not release pre-ND. So, the buyer could have a PO in place on or before October 1, 2013 wherein the dealer is waiting for the ND and the dealer actually has the assault weapon in the store on or before October 1, 2013. Let's keep in mind that pretty much ZERO dealers were releasing pre ND back in early April when this bill was passed and even more so mid March when this provision was inserted. So, it might very well have been put there ONLY to allow sales initiated before October 1, 2013 for which the dealer already had possession of the firearm but was waiting for a MSP ND on the Form 77r before releasing it.

Based upon the AG's recent HQL opinion, it appears that a sale is NOT complete until the buyer takes possession of the handgun. Guessing that is the same position with the assault weapons and a reason for the PO language that was inserted.

Again, I really want to know the AG's opinion on whether a dealer can complete a sale of an assault weapon after October 1, 2013 if he did not have the assault weapon in his inventory before October 1, 2013 and if an FFL can transfer an assault weapon after October 1, 2013 if he did not have it in his possession on or before October 1, 2013.

Whoever has access to Delegate Smigel should have him submit the following scenario to the AG:

"Can a dealer complete the sale of an assault weapon to a Maryland resident after October 1, 2013 when the Maryland resident has paid for said assault weapon before October 1, 2013, the dealer has issued a PO for said assault weapon before October 1, 2013, but the dealer does not receive said assault weapon until after October 1, 2013?"

"Can a FFL complete the transfer of an assault weapon to a Maryland resident after October 1, 2013 when the Maryland resident has paid for said assault weapon before October 1, 2013, and the Maryland resident has a purchase order dated on or before October 1, 2013 from the manufacturer of said assault weapon, but the dealer does not receive said assault weapon until after October 1, 2013?"

Has anybody really stopped to think that the entire PO issue might have been the result of sales in the MSP log jam prior to 8th day release dealers actually coming along? This came about back in March, when there were NO 8th day releasing dealers.

Again, I would want a much narrower opinion from the AG as it deals specifically with dealers, not buyers/individuals.

And again, I believe this is something that could go all the way to the Maryland Court of Appeals and leave those waiting for their Les Baer without a Les Baer.

 

[fabsroman]

LOL, yeah, I saw your post after I made the first one.

Let me know when you get ready to do the 1911 80%, I have been thinking about doing one as well.

It will be next summer for sure. I am going to do it even if I hack it up and have to buy another 80% frame, and then another, and another. Eventually I will get it right. Hope it is on the first shot, but if not I will eventually get it done. I tend to be persistent. lol

 

[LexTalionis926]

Look, the AG isn't always right about everything, and you should really be hoping that is the case because the AG has already opined that SB281 is Constitutional in its entirety. If you take the AG's word as gospel, then you might be in for a rude awakening.

At this point, let's just agree to disagree. Me, I think this is a matter that can go either way and go all the way up to the Maryland Court of Appeals since the PO language for an individual does not coincide with the transfer exception for a dealer. There is obviously a disconnect there.

As the law is written, the only way I can think of it taking place is where the buyer has a PO dated on or before October 1, 2013, the dealer receives the assault weapon on or before October 1, 2013, but the buyer does not take possession of the assault weapon until after October 2, 2013. That is, the buyer cannot get into the dealer before then or the buyer purchased from a dealer that will not release pre-ND. So, the buyer could have a PO in place on or before October 1, 2013 wherein the dealer is waiting for the ND and the dealer actually has the assault weapon in the store on or before October 1, 2013. Let's keep in mind that pretty much ZERO dealers were releasing pre ND back in early April when this bill was passed and even more so mid March when this provision was inserted. So, it might very well have been put there ONLY to allow sales initiated before October 1, 2013 for which the dealer already had possession of the firearm but was waiting for a MSP ND on the Form 77r before releasing it.

Based upon the AG's recent HQL opinion, it appears that a sale is NOT complete until the buyer takes possession of the handgun. Guessing that is the same position with the assault weapons and a reason for the PO language that was inserted.

Again, I really want to know the AG's opinion on whether a dealer can complete a sale of an assault weapon after October 1, 2013 if he did not have the assault weapon in his inventory before October 1, 2013 and if an FFL can transfer an assault weapon after October 1, 2013 if he did not have it in his possession on or before October 1, 2013.

Whoever has access to Delegate Smigel should have him submit the following scenario to the AG:

"Can a dealer complete the sale of an assault weapon to a Maryland resident after October 1, 2013 when the Maryland resident has paid for said assault weapon before October 1, 2013, the dealer has issued a PO for said assault weapon before October 1, 2013, but the dealer does not receive said assault weapon until after October 1, 2013?"

"Can a FFL complete the transfer of an assault weapon to a Maryland resident after October 1, 2013 when the Maryland resident has paid for said assault weapon before October 1, 2013, and the Maryland resident has a purchase order dated on or before October 1, 2013 from the manufacturer of said assault weapon, but the dealer does not receive said assault weapon until after October 1, 2013?"

Has anybody really stopped to think that the entire PO issue might have been the result of sales in the MSP log jam prior to 8th day release dealers actually coming along? This came about back in March, when there were NO 8th day releasing dealers.

Again, I would want a much narrower opinion from the AG as it deals specifically with dealers, not buyers/individuals.

And again, I believe this is something that could go all the way to the Maryland Court of Appeals and leave those waiting for their Les Baer without a Les Baer.

If you email him you will get a timely response.

 

[fabsroman]

If you email him you will get a timely response.

Found his website and sent an e-mail. Now, we shall see what happens.

I am really starting to get a headache from all this and it really is not going to affect me because all my purchases will be done well before October 1, 2013. I am about to take a break from this board so I can relax, and leave the rest to fend for themselves.

 

[HiballHiside]

Look, the AG isn't always right about everything, and you should really be hoping that is the case because the AG has already opined that SB281 is Constitutional in its entirety. If you take the AG's word as gospel, then you might be in for a rude awakening.

At this point, let's just agree to disagree. Me, I think this is a matter that can go either way and go all the way up to the Maryland Court of Appeals since the PO language for an individual does not coincide with the transfer exception for a dealer. There is obviously a disconnect there.

As the law is written, the only way I can think of it taking place is where the buyer has a PO dated on or before October 1, 2013, the dealer receives the assault weapon on or before October 1, 2013, but the buyer does not take possession of the assault weapon until after October 2, 2013. That is, the buyer cannot get into the dealer before then or the buyer purchased from a dealer that will not release pre-ND. So, the buyer could have a PO in place on or before October 1, 2013 wherein the dealer is waiting for the ND and the dealer actually has the assault weapon in the store on or before October 1, 2013. Let's keep in mind that pretty much ZERO dealers were releasing pre ND back in early April when this bill was passed and even more so mid March when this provision was inserted. So, it might very well have been put there ONLY to allow sales initiated before October 1, 2013 for which the dealer already had possession of the firearm but was waiting for a MSP ND on the Form 77r before releasing it.

Based upon the AG's recent HQL opinion, it appears that a sale is NOT complete until the buyer takes possession of the handgun. Guessing that is the same position with the assault weapons and a reason for the PO language that was inserted.

Again, I really want to know the AG's opinion on whether a dealer can complete a sale of an assault weapon after October 1, 2013 if he did not have the assault weapon in his inventory before October 1, 2013 and if an FFL can transfer an assault weapon after October 1, 2013 if he did not have it in his possession on or before October 1, 2013.

Whoever has access to Delegate Smigel should have him submit the following scenario to the AG:

"Can a dealer complete the sale of an assault weapon to a Maryland resident after October 1, 2013 when the Maryland resident has paid (OR GIVEN A DEPOSIT) for said assault weapon before October 1, 2013, the dealer has issued a PO for said assault weapon before October 1, 2013, but the dealer does not receive said assault weapon until after October 1, 2013?"

"Can a FFL complete the transfer of an assault weapon to a Maryland resident after October 1, 2013 when the Maryland resident has paid (OR GIVEN A DEPOSIT) for said assault weapon before October 1, 2013, and the Maryland resident has a purchase order dated on or before October 1, 2013 from the manufacturer of said assault weapon, but the dealer does not receive said assault weapon until after October 1, 2013?"

Has anybody really stopped to think that the entire PO issue might have been the result of sales in the MSP log jam prior to 8th day release dealers actually coming along? This came about back in March, when there were NO 8th day releasing dealers.

Again, I would want a much narrower opinion from the AG as it deals specifically with dealers, not buyers/individuals.

And again, I believe this is something that could go all the way to the Maryland Court of Appeals and leave those waiting for their Les Baer without a Les Baer.

I think it would be important to add this into the question given that not all dealers require payment in full up front.

 

[fabsroman]

I think it would be important to add this into the question given that not all dealers require payment in full up front.

Good point. Problem is I already sent an e-mail to Delegate Smigiel with my two questions above.

What about where a customer gets a PO in place on or before October 1, 2013 and does not pay anything for the assault weapon until it actually comes into the dealer. Maybe I should have left any mention of payment off of the question. DAMN

I need some Advil or something and I usually do not get headaches.

Good news though, just placed my order for my JP Rifle receiver and it is shipping the middle of next week.

 

[erwos]

If you email him you will get a timely response.

He blew me off entirely when I asked him to get an AG opinion about SBRs and SBSs. No response whatsoever.

 

[IMBLITZVT]

Good point. Problem is I already sent an e-mail to Delegate Smigiel with my two questions above.

What about where a customer gets a PO in place on or before October 1, 2013 and does not pay anything for the assault weapon until it actually comes into the dealer. Maybe I should have left any mention of payment off of the question. DAMN

I need some Advil or something and I usually do not get headaches.

Good news though, just placed my order for my JP Rifle receiver and it is shipping the middle of next week.

Yeah, you have basically come down to the questions I had. I mailed off a letter to MSP in mid june asking what needs to be on the PO to make sure its recognized post Oct 1. With no reply.

Don't beat yourself to much on the deposit. I will send a 1 cent deposit... I can deal with a $1 deposit on 100 guns if a deposit is actually required, which it will not be...

I left my questions open ended on purpose. I asked what was required, I did not ask if certain things were required. Isn't that a lawyer type way to write it? That way if they mess up and leave something off the list it goes to my favor. However if you bring up something they did not think of (deposit in this case), you can add to the requirements...

Its also really pissing me off that us common people can't get answers but law makers are getting quick turn around....

 

[IMBLITZVT]

He blew me off entirely when I asked him to get an AG opinion about SBRs and SBSs. No response whatsoever.

Thats because we all know they are allowed...why rock the boat.

 

[fabsroman]

Thats because we all know they are allowed...why rock the boat.

That was going to be my response. SB281 has not changed anything regarding SBR unless they are under 29" in overall length. Then that might be an issue. However, that seems pretty clear of an issue to me.