Orders before Oct 1 but fulfilled after?

[pez34a]

Hi everyone, sorry if this has been asked already.

Im thinking about buying a 'retro' reciever from Nodak Spud, but they told me they're backordered until likely December. I know SB281 says orders done before Oct 1 are grandfathered in, but does anyone have any insight into how that would be done logistically? Would a Maryland FFL still be able to accept it and transfer it? Would MSP actually process the paperwork and do a ND?

 

[Mark75H]

The law says you have to at least have "a valid purchase order"

 

[pez34a]

So, if I was able to get Nodak Spud to take my money and give me a purchase order, then theoretically I'm good? I wonder if MSP has even thought about this scenario?

 

[Mark75H]

So, if I was able to get Nodak Spud to take my money and give me a purchase order, then theoretically I'm good? I wonder if MSP has even thought about this scenario?

That's exactly what the law says; they have to have some kind of accommodation in their new process ... there is a lot of unknown in the actual process ... even they don't know most of it at this time, so there is no way for us to know either

 

[spclopr8tr]

So, if I was able to get Nodak Spud to take my money and give me a purchase order, then theoretically I'm good? I wonder if MSP has even thought about this scenario?

A purchase order for what exactly? An AK lower? A magazine? A sight? So technically, you are buying from an out of state source requiring an in state FFL to complete the purchase. Nodak Spud says you must provide FFL copy of license prior to placing order, but my understanding of SB281 is the MD FFL must either have placed the order or possess the regulated component or firearm prior to 1 OCT. IMHO, this would not meet the requirements of SB281. Now if you were to go to your local FFL and have them put in the purchase order for presumably a stripped lower assembly, then you'd be GTG.

But it is unclear (to me at least) if your purchase order HAS to be through a MD FFL or if it can be from an out of state source such as Nodak Spud.

 

[Pinecone]

Still no guarantee, as SB281 has some language about already in possession of the FFL.

 

[swinokur]

The firearm must also be in the FFL's possession before Oct 1 in addition to a PO. You can then transfer the firearm after Oct 1 if you choose to.

You need to read two different paragraphs to see this. This according to Erwos' FAQ and Ddeanjohnson who have scrutinized the bill's languauge.

(2) A LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER MAY CONTINUE TO POSSESS, 1
SELL, OFFER FOR SALE, OR TRANSFER AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT 2
WEAPON THAT THE LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER LAWFULLY POSSESSED ON OR 3
BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2013.

 

[flyingblind]

According to Del Mike last night on Seeing Red, if you have the PO for a rifle before October 1 your good to receive it when ever, if you have a PO for a pistol with higher than 10 round mags before October 1 you are good, if you have a PO for magazines of more than 10 rounds before October 1 you are good. /thread

 

[swinokur]

How does he know this?

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

According to Del Mike last night on Seeing Red, if you have the PO for a rifle before October 1 your good to receive it when ever, if you have a PO for a pistol with higher than 10 round mags before October 1 you are good, if you have a PO for magazines of more than 10 rounds before October 1 you are good. /thread

Edit: the bill reads differently. The COMAR implementation will be interesting.

How does the rest reconcile with this section of SB281 - which goes into effect on 10/1? The language reads differently. Maybe Mike is working with the regulations folks... One can hope

4–305.
(a)This section does not apply to:
(1) a .22 caliber rifle with a tubular magazine; OR
(2) A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR A PERSON WHO RETIRED IN GOOD STANDING FROM SERVICE WITH A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES, THE STATE, OR ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY IN THE STATE.
(b) A person may not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, purchase, receive, or transfer a detachable magazine that has a capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition for a firearm.

 

[flyingblind]

How does he know this?

Hes a Lawyer, who helped write it (knows the legislative intent), Hes in contact with MSP, and the AG all the time regarding all issues related to firearms in the State of Maryland.

 

[flyingblind]

Agreed on point 1.

How does the rest reconcile with this section of SB281 - which goes into effect on 10/1? The language reads differently. Maybe Mike is working with the regulations folks... One can hope

4–305.
(a)This section does not apply to:
(1) a .22 caliber rifle with a tubular magazine; OR
(2) A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR A PERSON WHO RETIRED IN GOOD STANDING FROM SERVICE WITH A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES, THE STATE, OR ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY IN THE STATE.
(b) A person may not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, purchase, receive, or transfer a detachable magazine that has a capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition for a firearm.

This is why I asked the question, but according to him, if you have a PO, but due to demand they arent delivered, you can still receive them.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

This is why I asked the question, but according to him, if you have a PO, but due to demand they arent delivered, you can still receive them.

Thanks for getting his clarification on that. This is good news. Did anyone ask about the purchases of firearms spanning the 10/1 date (purchase before and pick up after) and the necessity for the HQL for transfer/receipt after 10/1?

 

[swinokur]

According to the part I quoted, the FFL can only transfer the firearm after Oct 1 if he possessed it before Oct. 1. The law says may, so it is up to the FFL, but I don't see an exception to possession prior to Oct. 1, meaning if the FFL receives the firearm after Oct 1, he cannot transfer it even if a PO was issued before Oct. 1

 

[Pinecone]

According to the part I quoted, the FFL can only transfer the firearm after Oct 1 if he possessed it before Oct. 1. The law says may, so it is up to the FFL, but I don't see an exception to possession prior to Oct. 1, meaning if the FFL receives the firearm after Oct 1, he cannot transfer it even if a PO was issued before Oct. 1

It doesn't say ONLY.

 

[swinokur]

Ok it says MAY, but it doesn't make an exception for firearms possessed after Oct 1 . It says FFL can transfer it if possessed prior to Oct 1, but no allowance after Oct 1. I read that as not allowed.

 

[MagnumFarce]

Ok it says MAY, but it doesn't make an exception for firearms possessed after Oct 1 . It says you can transfer it if you possessed prior to Oct 1, but no allowance after Oct 1. I read that as not allowed.

I'll forward this question on to Delegate Mike (who is also on this forum as well). You can also send your questions to andimorony on this forum (who is Del. Mike's Chief of Staff and my wife).

 

[swinokur]

thanks

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

I'll forward this question on to Delegate Mike (who is also on this forum as well). You can also send your questions to andimorony on this forum (who is Del. Mike's Chief of Staff and my wife).

Can you also ask him about the question posted about HQL and 10/1? There are A LOT of people inquiring about that. The speculation and reading of the law may start a severe drop off in handgun sales very soon (given the current wait times near 100 days) if the answer isn't clear.

 

[erwos]

FWIW, I agree with swinokur's interpretation. The legislation is written this way to close a huge, obvious loophole: submit a huge standing purchase order to your FFL for every gun under the sun, and then write yourself a bunch of clauses that essentially amount to "I'll buy what I want when I want". The MSP can interpret it how they want, I guess, but the law is not unclear.

Also, I sent Delegate Mike some questions regarding SBRs and SBSs that I'd like a formal AG opinion on...