MSP wait times and a class action

[buzzsaw]

Also just looked at 5-121 through -127 of MD Code - it only speaks about required timing on notification of Disapproval (must notify in writing within 7 days of stamping disapproved). It has nothing about how quickly the "Not Disapproved" must come from the Secretary, nor how quickly notification must be sent to the transferor (although that baffles me now that I think about it considering the 90 day "must complete" clause).

It also uses the word "promptly" - I dont know how well you would be able to argue the definition of "promptly".

 

[fightinbluhen51]

"MAY SELL, RENT, OR TRANSFER"

sorry, they're still abiding by the law. "May" gives them the wiggle room.

You must remember, "may" is arbitrary and capricious...which means it is not concrete.

Rights, within context of enumeration, are concrete.

There is no doubt that this system was designed for a peak volume load many times lower than that of the current situation. With such, that system flaw, is no different that a defacto ban; be it the person buying their first arm, their 5th, or their 100th.

Many around here have said a right delayed is a right denied. The time to seize upon fixing this issue is now, not later, and if a lawsuit is what it takes, then that is what it takes. I'm not sure why there are some members of this forum / community who wish to rule out every available tool in the toolbox, but there are some (and buzzsaw I am not singling you out, for that, and I do understand your opinion and position).

Look...does the licensing division set the rules? No. Should they abide by them? To the letter of the law and the best of their ability. That said, there is someone responsible for the denial / delay in exercise of free commerce and rights execution.

 

[buzzsaw]

Not ruling out a lawsuit, but trying to bring attention to weak areas which would be targeted for cause to drop the suit.

"May" allows the Transferor to choose whether or not to release. As others have said (I believe), aiming the proverbial legal gun over this particular clause leaves you only one legitimate target - your FFL (or your local LEO) who would be the person to release the item in question. IF you want to go that route, go for it. I personally dont think it would be wise - you could be risking alienating your FFL(s).

I like it as much as you do, let me be clear about that. I questioned whether or not we could get away with using "Arbitrary and Capricious" in cases like this - it would be wonderful if we could.

 

[WiseOldMan53]

..just listen to how many people here think it's perfectly acceptable and we should just suck it up and wait things out. When a group of guys on a GUN forum can't even agree this is a really screwed up situation, I'm not thinking there's much of a chance of getting it rectified.

Hear hear !!

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Forum Runner

 

[Ab_Normal]

Not ruling out a lawsuit, but trying to bring attention to weak areas which would be targeted for cause to drop the suit.

"May" allows the Transferor to choose whether or not to release. As others have said (I believe), aiming the proverbial legal gun over this particular clause leaves you only one legitimate target - your FFL (or your local LEO) who would be the person to release the item in question. IF you want to go that route, go for it. I personally dont think it would be wise - you could be risking alienating your FFL(s).

I like it as much as you do, let me be clear about that. I questioned whether or not we could get away with using "Arbitrary and Capricious" in cases like this - it would be wonderful if we could.

You need to look into why these provisions came about.

 

[Ab_Normal]

Hear hear !!

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Forum Runner

There are some outspoken members here who voted for obama. Kind of like closing the gate after the horse is gone.

 

[buzzsaw]

You need to look into why these provisions came about.

I'd certainly be interested in seeing the history of this particular language in the code. I'd venture an extremely uneducated (at this time) guess that someone released a firearm without the "not disapproved" to someone who shouldnt have had one.

Again, if you have information, I'm interested in reading it.

 

[WiseOldMan53]

There are some outspoken members here who voted for obama. Kind of like closing the gate after the horse is gone.

Yeah, I know people like that, but anybody can be redeemed and brought back into the fold. We need everyone.

 

[WiseOldMan53]

I'd certainly be interested in seeing the history of this particular language in the code. I'd venture an extremely uneducated (at this time) guess that someone released a firearm without the "not disapproved" to someone who shouldnt have had one.

Again, if you have information, I'm interested in reading it.

For the life of me I can't find out 'who, what and when' that the brought about the provision to make the MSP the Point Of Contact for NICS and took it away from the dealer.

 

[Ab_Normal]

For the life of me I can't find out 'who, what and when' that the brought about the provision to make the MSP the Point Of Contact for NICS and took it away from the dealer.

OK, I'm going to do this from memory so if anyone has any verifiable corrections I will make them.

Md had their own waiting period/background check for handguns since about 1966 with no extra charge to the purchaser/dealer. Along about 1989 they added 'assault rifles' to require the wp/bc. Somewhere along the way the wp/bc wasn't being completed in the 7 days so they started charging the $10 fee to fund updating the MSP system. At the same time they also added the language that the firearm could be released after 7 days so that they couldn't have a de facto ban by the MSP not doing the paperwork.

Then the brady bill came along. That mandated that FFL's in ALL states had to do some sort of check on ALL firearms purchases. If they had a system in place then they could continue to use that. Md had a system that met the requirements but only for for regulated firearms. Since the implementation of the brady bill the dealers in Md. were never permitted to contact the NICS system for regulated firearms. However they were required to now start doing NICS checks for long gun purchases. I am not sure if the NICS check is now required by law of states that have their own system or if they just do it as a matter of practice. I know the 4473 requests a NTN OR a state issued transaction # if provided.

 

[Billcw]

And now about 4-5 years ago the ATF stated that no firearm can be released without a NICS number on it even if 7 days have passed . this was for Dealers only not for FTF transfers. Which I know nobody wants to hear but its there .

Also remeber an FFL doesnt have to sell you a firearm ... So if you come down hard on whatever FFL you use and they decide to cancel your purchase its within thier rights to do so .

 

[Right2Carry]

Not ruling out a lawsuit, but trying to bring attention to weak areas which would be targeted for cause to drop the suit.

"May" allows the Transferor to choose whether or not to release. As others have said (I believe), aiming the proverbial legal gun over this particular clause leaves you only one legitimate target - your FFL (or your local LEO) who would be the person to release the item in question. IF you want to go that route, go for it. I personally dont think it would be wise - you could be risking alienating your FFL(s).

I like it as much as you do, let me be clear about that. I questioned whether or not we could get away with using "Arbitrary and Capricious" in cases like this - it would be wonderful if we could.

Here’s a good argument:
A person living in Maryland went to purchase a gun, because his/her neighbor was being difficult, confrontational, and creepy. Then, a week later the creepy neighbor killed the person who was seeking a gun for personal protection. If the person was living in another State, where one doesn’t have a stupid waiting law and is able to take the gun home. There is a very good possibility the person would be alive today, and perhaps the creepy neighbor dead or in jail.

Katie Hadel who was 3 months pregnant and “under police protection,” was stabbed to death by her formal boyfriend. Does anyone know if she requested to carry a handgun for personal protection, did the police offer the suggestion to her. Events like this pop up very quickly, and private citizens simply don’t have the “time.”

 

[Ab_Normal]

And now about 4-5 years ago the ATF stated that no firearm can be released without a NICS number on it even if 7 days have passed . this was for Dealers only not for FTF transfers. Which I know nobody wants to hear but its there .

Do you have the documentation? You may be thinking about the MSP.

It has been posted many times that there is no federal requirement for the NTN after 3 days without a denied response and 7 days in Md. without a 'NOT DISAPPROVED' response.

Please stop spreading the BS.

 

[daNattyFatty]

Gigi Barnett who was 3 months pregnant and “under police protection,” was stabbed to death by her formal boyfriend. Does anyone know if she requested to carry a handgun for personal protection, did the police offer the suggestion to her. Events like this pop up very quickly, and private citizens simply don’t have the “time.”

Small fyi.....Gigi Barnett is a reporter, and she wasn't stabbed to death. The victim's name was Katie Hadel.

At any rate, she pled guilty to robbery in 2008, but looks like she ended up with probation......

 

[Mark75H]

Do you have the documentation? You may be thinking about the MSP.

It has been posted many times that there is no federal requirement for the NTN after 3 days without a denied response and 7 days in Md. without a 'NOT DISAPPROVED' response.

Please stop spreading the BS.

How do you know when the the request went to the FBI?

 

[Ab_Normal]

How do you know when the the request went to the FBI?

Doesn't matter. According to the 4473 the date the request was sent to the state POC (MSP) is considered the date the NICS was initiated.

 

[Right2Carry]

Small fyi.....Gigi Barnett is a reporter, and she wasn't stabbed to death. The victim's name was Katie Hadel.

At any rate, she pled guilty to robbery in 2008, but looks like she ended up with probation......

Thanks, I corrected the name.

Perhaps he killed her, becasue they were partners and she didn't want to give up the stolen goods.

 

[Billcw]

Do you have the documentation? You may be thinking about the MSP.

It has been posted many times that there is no federal requirement for the NTN after 3 days without a denied response and 7 days in Md. without a 'NOT DISAPPROVED' response.

Please stop spreading the BS.

No i am not thinking about MSP ..this is from an ATF inspector when the question was asked. The Firearm cannot be released without the NICS if the FFL does release the firearm wihtout it then they are taking thier own risk ..

I am not going to sit here and argue this point .. If you are so inclined to argue then I suggest that you obtain your own FFL and start a store and do whatever you like .

 

[Ab_Normal]

No i am not thinking about MSP ..this is from an ATF inspector when the question was asked. The Firearm cannot be released without the NICS if the FFL does release the firearm wihtout it then they are taking thier own risk ..

I am not going to sit here and argue this point .. If you are so inclined to argue then I suggest that you obtain your own FFL and start a store and do whatever you like .

I don't doubt what you have been told. However it is only that one inspector's opinion and it is not supported by the law as written. There are exceptions when the NICS does not have to be checked before a firearm transaction. The 4473 has the instructions clearly printed on it. The link to the law I posted earlier confirms those instructions. The ATF inspector you spoke with is obviously lacking basic reading comprehension skills.

Don't get me wrong I don't fault the dealers for not wanting to jeopardize their livelihood.

 

[Billcw]

I don't doubt what you have been told. However it is only that one inspector's opinion and it is not supported by the law as written. There are exceptions when the NICS does not have to be checked before a firearm transaction. The 4473 has the instructions clearly printed on it. The link to the law I posted earlier confirms those instructions. The ATF inspector you spoke with is obviously lacking basic reading comprehension skills.

Don't get me wrong I don't fault the dealers for not wanting to jeopardize their livelihood.

YOu really do not understand and you will beleive what you want . Putting down and inspector is just a bs move . If i can I will get the inspectors info and you can discuss your findings with them . Or you cna call the ATF local office and have a chat with an inspector .