WARNING! FIREARM PURCHASE WITHOUT HQL AFTER OCT. 1st VIOLATES THE LAW

[Beemerguy]

Not even close to a legitimate comparison. Traffic violations are not in the same realm as intentional firearms violation.

You can't enforce something that isn't a crime to begin with.

So deciding that you won't enforce something, means that it is a crime. They are just choosing to ignore it.

Much different.

But do as you wish...

The police have discretion, whether it is in the realm of traffic laws or the realm of firearms laws. That was my point, to make an analogy, not to compare the two different types of laws. Analogy...comparison...two different things...

 

[Beemerguy]

I wish those with blind faith in government understood that the AG has the final say and not the MSP.....oh well.

I wish those who think the AG and MSP are not on the same page here would understand how government works and how politicians think...oh well.

 

[BigToe]

The AG should have issued the statement, not the MSP, then there wouldn't be any confusion.

 

[vector03]

I wish those who think the AG and MSP are not on the same page here would understand how government works and how politicians think...oh well.

So there's no way the AG....who's running for Governor, might deviate from "the plan"?

 

[Beemerguy]

The AG should have issued the statement, not the MSP, then there wouldn't be any confusion.

The AG issued an opinion on what the law means. The agency responsible for enforcing that law issued a statement on how they intend to do that. There is no confusion among those who understand how government works.

 

[Beemerguy]

So there's no way the AG....who's running for Governor, might deviate from "the plan"?

This isn't a novel or a movie, nor is it even a major issue in the grand scheme of things. There is no benefit to Gansler if he were to decide to try to charge people with breaking this law.

As I said previously, it is inconceivable to me that the Governor, the AG, and the MSP are not all on the same page about this.

 

[rickabt]

I wish those with faith in government understood that the AG has the final say and not the MSP.....oh well.

I brought this up when speaking with Sen. Klausmeier's office and was told that AG office cannot bring charges or prosecute, but would only render a legal opinion. I was further told that the June letter from the AG office was not to be considered as an official position, but was an opinion written by a staff member upon them being asked for one and that it has no legal teeth.....And I would add that it is from back in June before a lot of this insanity had gone as far as it has.
.
I do not have much faith in our government, but I am of the opinion that we may be OK with this one thing.

 

[vinjet700]

My last one for Chad...

My chill pills ran out........

 

[pilotguy299]

The Governor, the General Assembly, the AG, and the MSP all had the opportunity to do this properly and have it written in the law, similar to what they did for receiving assault long guns after Sept 30. The fact that they didn't, and that the MSP didn't include it in their proposed COMAR changes, and that they said in the hearing on monday that a HQL would be required, shows that it was not the intent all along.

I am well aware of how politicians and government administrations work. That is exactly why this is wrong. Just because they won't hold themselves accountable to what the law says, doesn't mean that we should enable their inappropriate behavior by violating a law, even if we don't agree with the law itself.

The more you accept "how government works", the more oppressive it can become.

Read the plain text of the law; figure out what it actually says - independent of how people say they are going to enforce it or not; and then do as you see fit.

YMMV...

 

[Beemerguy]

I brought this up when speaking with Sen. Klausmeier's office and was told that AG office cannot bring charges or prosecute, but would only render a legal opinion.

For the life of me, I can't understand why some folks on here don't get this. The Maryland Attorney General is the legal advisor for the state government, not a prosecutor.

I was further told that the June letter from the AG office was not to be considered as an official position, but was an opinion written by a staff member upon them being asked for one and that it has no legal teeth.....And I would add that it is from back in June before a lot of this insanity had gone as far as it has.

Exactly! That letter was not from Gansler.
.

I do not have much faith in our government, but I am of the opinion that we may be OK with this one thing.

No one is more cynical than I about our state government, especially under MOM, but I cannot imagine our state officials would be so duplicitous as to lure Marylanders into breaking the law, as has been suggested on here by some.

 

[pilotguy299]

...

No one is more cynical than I about our state government, especially under MOM, but I cannot imagine our state officials would be so duplicitous as to lure Marylanders into breaking the law, as has been suggested on here by some.

I don't believe that they are trying to lure people either.

But I do not think we should be enabling or supporting them doing things the wrong way.

Not only does it bring us down to their level, it emboldens them to cut corners and do things improperly in the future.

 

[Mark75H]

I wonder how fast the calls were made from the AG , Frosh and O'Malley to MSP asking WTH they were thinking?

I would bet $100 to a dozen donuts those parties all collaborated on MSP's change of position.

Do you really think the MSP decided on its own to make that announcement???

My source at the AG's office says MSP makes their own decisions ... causes them headaches to no end ...

 

[Beemerguy]

I don't believe that they are trying to lure people either.

But I do not think we should be enabling or supporting them doing things the wrong way.

Not only does it bring us down to their level, it emboldens them to cut corners and do things improperly in the future.

So even though MSP says we don't need an HQL after 10/1 to pick up guns bought before then, we shouldn't do it because we should strictly obey what posters on here say the law says?

I'm sorry, but that really is cutting off your nose to spite your face...

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

This has devolved into a chicken and egg debate. Can we declare this hunk of red meat tossed in sufficiently chewed up?

 

[Beemerguy]

My source at the AG's office says MSP makes their own decisions ... causes them headaches to no end ...

Well, MSP answers to the Governor...so if the AG has a problem with them, he should head over to State Circle and talk to MOM...

 

[Beemerguy]

This has devolved into a chicken and egg debate. Can we declare this hunk of red meat tossed in sufficiently chewed up?

 

[TxAggie]

This has devolved into a chicken and egg debate. Can we declare this hunk of red meat tossed in sufficiently chewed up?

Yes, please!!

The Wes? Thread now has more relevant information.

 

[pilotguy299]

So even though MSP says we don't need an HQL after 10/1 to pick up guns bought before then, we shouldn't do it because we should strictly obey what posters on here say the law says?

I'm sorry, but that really is cutting off your nose to spite your face...

Actually it shows that you have the moral courage to do things properly, even though you disagree with the underlying requirement.

Go look at the actual text of the law, and read for yourself what it says. See where they wrote-in the post Sept 30 pickup for assault long guns being ok; and see where it isn't even alluded to anywhere in the section of the law concerning handguns.

Then figure out for yourself if there really is any legitimate basis for what is in the MSP Advisory.

 

[Bolts Rock]

I seriously doubt that anyone will be charged without a permit to purchase a weapon applied for prior to Oct 1. Some of this is really paranoia. With so much press about it they would be foolharly to try it.

Are you willing to take the risk and lose your 2A Rights forever?

No, the MSP is the Licensing Authority. If they say it its allowed then they cant go after Dealers.

But IIRC ATF can during an audit should they decide the FFL violated the law of the state as written. That worries me on behalf of the dealers.

Situational/discretionary enforcement is what the MSP is doing in this case, to the benefit of those being regulated. Regulating agencies at all level of government have used that process to facilitate implementation of new regulations sense the beginning of our country’s existence.

Get a "letter of the law" judge and see how that plays out for you. The mere fact you posted in this thread proves you are cognizant of the law and if you break it you did so willfully.

Oh, and I'm still nervous about the statute of limitations in this. If Frosh gets elected AG, all bets are off.

THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

There is nothing cavalier or trivial in my assertion. Look at Obama-moma care; “The president has exempted, for another year, the implementation of the employer participation phase of the singed legislation/law”. That decision is an administrative executive branch decision, based on, “we need another year to get there from here”. Where is the outrage, especially from the democratic libtard croud?
Like I said before, “it happens during the implementation of new regulatory law and has been happening from the beginnings of our government’s existence. It is one of the practical realities of our system of government, legal to the letter of the law or not.

Apples/oranges and any decent prosecutor can make this stick. See above comment re: cognizance and willfullness.

I don't believe so since it is their authority to issue the HQL to begin with.

Do you also believe in the tooth fairy?

It wouldn't go very far since the defense would be that the issuing authority stated that it would not be necessary to issue the HQL, therefore if anyone is in violation of the law it would be MSP, not the person who picked up their handgun.

Now can we please put down all the tinfoil?

Wrong, the law, COMAR as accepted, an AG opinion from June, another from 08/01/13 and statements made by MSP on the record Monday are very clear. It is not legal.

Sorry you are ready to give up. We are still on the first of 4 boxes...

I would submit we are on box 3 with suits either finished or in process.

I'm reading allot about the AG and MSP but isn't it accurate that in order to be prosecuted by the AG you first have to be arrested and charged of a crime by the MSP and if your not arrested by the MSP then how could the AG prosecute you for a violation. The AG cannot arrest you only prosecute a charge placed against you by the arresting officer citing a violation. If MSP said they will not per sue arrest of individuals with pending purchases (77r's not purchase orders with no gun serial on record) rprior to Oct 1 then how will the AG come after you.

Nope. Any OTHER police agency with jurisdiction in MD can charge, AG or State's Attorney can convene a grand jury, ATF can go after a dealer during an audit, non-government groups can sue (see the California case SNI linked in several threads).

Jane Doe from MOM's Gun activist group files charges against MSP with the AG for failure to follow the law as written. They have a very strong case as even the MSP states that the law exists, they just are not going to enforce it. Now a judge comes in and says, the law is there and you have to enforce it and everyone that picked up after 10/1/13 without an HQL must have their handguns retrieved and is potentially charged with a misdemeanor for violating the law that is punishable up to 3 years in prison. You now have lost your rights to own a firearm forever.

Want to take that chance? I certainly don't!

THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^ Has already happened in California.

This info wasn't available during business hours yesterday. People who purchased Handguns from Scotts YESTERDAY will get a refund if we don't receive clarification from the A.G.. Yesterday is the ONLY day we sold Handguns that can't be transferred by Sept 30th and that was based SOLELY on the MSPs Press Release. Until that Press Release came out our LAST day to process handguns was Sept 23rd. I ran the store till midnight to allow as many purchasers to get paperwork in.

What were YOU doing to help gun buyers smart ass?

We are working with our customers who purchased handguns yesterday to see how they want to proceed (full refund, or wait for a HQL).

I'll freely admit I'm not overly fond of you at times but you sir deserve a hearty thanks for your efforts to help customers this week.

And on what legal grounds would local/county police be able to check any guns I'm using at a private range?

How about ambitious Rockville City cop parks near one of the dealers in Rockville after 10/01 and sees you leave said dealer with a brand new Glock case? He does have reason to detain you because MSP has flat out said HQL won't be in anyone's hands until well after 10/01 and you have just given him adequate PC. He can arrest and charge you.

You make a good point, but I would ask you to consider this:

The various anti-gun groups in Maryland are all aligned with the Administration. They do not see OweMalley and the MSP under him as adversaries but allies. Furthermore, MSP would not act alone on something as momentous as this.

On WBAL Radio the other morning, on the C4 Show, even that slug Vinnie DeMarco admitted it was unfair to make people get an HQL to pick up guns they had bought and paid for before 10/1. You can bet that the MSP policy shift on this was run past the Guv's office for his approval before they sent out that press release.

For all those reasons, I don't see anti-gunners rising up to sue the State and demand the MSP go seize guns from citizens who believed, in good faith, that what they did was permissible. Could it happen? Yes. Is it likely to happen? I doubt it very much.

You have obviously never met Vinnie the Schlime.

 

[vinjet700]

This has devolved into a chicken and egg debate. Can we declare this hunk of red meat tossed in sufficiently chewed up?