WBAL Radio interview w/MSP Sgt.

[Mark75H]

The new Law allows them to make as many "checks" as they want. Its not harassment when the Law allows it.

Exactly ... the new law specifically allows these "checks" ... morally it may be harassment, but legally, its simply "following the law"

 

[rockstarr]

Exactly ... the new law specifically allows these "checks" ... morally it may be harassment, but legally, its simply "following the law"[/QUOTE]

this seems to be the new law of the land in many shapes and forms

 

[vector03]

The new Law allows them to make as many "checks" as they want. Its not harassment when the Law allows it.

Respectfully, just because it's the law doesn't mean it's not harassment. Plenty of laws are challenged, overturned, or upheld around the country.


Let's all hope SB281 ends up in the "overturned" category.

 

[FWPhoto]

This is strictly anecdotal, but one FFL told me that in all the years he's been processing NICS and 77Rs, he has only had ONE come back as denied. His opinion was that criminals simply aren't going to FFLs to purchase weapons when they can buy them cheaper off the street without ANY permissions COD. Anyone with even a hint of grounds for denial simply stay away. Or at the very least they aren't trying to purchase from him.

Granted this is a random sampling of one, but it is based on thousands of transactions over the years.

I agree 100% with the FFL. When you remove subjective emotion (fear) and apply objective logic, it's easy to understand and see the situation more clear. I posted this the other night in a different thread. It's just the way I see it. It's only an opinion...take it or leave it.

Bottom line...the crux...criminals won't waste time and don't want a paper trail that would tie them to the firearm. In addition, even legally approved owners can snap and behave badly. There's no way to see into the future. Them holding is no different than Owe'Malley wanting guns banned because a kid might get shot. It's a subjective reaction to an issue that requires objective logic.

Real world scenario for you to consider ----

I am a criminal and want a gun. I know I cannot pass a background check. I know that some dealers are releasing after 8 days without an approval. I go in and purchase a gun, fill out paperwork. I come back in 8 days and pick up my gun. I walk out with it. I rob or shoot someone later that evening with that gun because I am a criminal.

Is this possible? It is for those dealers releasing early without an approval. So why would you blame any dealer for taking extra precautions and not releasing without an approval? It is NOT your license on the line or your name, business, etc. if something bad happens.

Caution...long-winded, well intentioned, opinion below. The question is at the end if you want to skip the soapbox.

I understand your point and it's very relevant for current purchases. However, what about the purchases from March and April. No criminal would've wasted their time waiting on a MSP check. Assuming that dealers are checking ID's and such when the app is filled out, think about all the info we have to give up to the dealer and MSP. In reality, the criminals from March and April ducked into the alleys way back in March and April and got their guns. Fast forward to 5/31/13 after the MSP update and the news spread that they gave instructions on how to be compliant during an early release. Now I can see the undesirables dealer shopping. By all means, dealers should not 8th day release on those new apps. I still don't feel that a criminal or someone that obviously knows they can't pass a check is going to waste time with a legal purchase. They will 'acquire' their firearm through other means such as the black market or good old thievery lol.

As far as them being worried about being sued, anyone can sue anyone at any time for any reason. That doesn't mean they'd win. In most cases they'd have to show gross negligence as well as intent and the COMAR rule pretty much nixes that and pushes the burden back on the MSP. In addition, just because they got an ND from MSP doesn't seal the deal and grant them immunity from litigation. I learned that much when I was with EMS. The public will go after anyone to get a dime. Even with all that being said, a person that gets an ND can still behave badly. The dealer is just as open to litigation in that case as well. I know it's a taboo subject but has anyone thought about the other side of the coin when a gun owner uses that COMAR rule to sue the dealer for not releasing. That could very well happen depending on what happens with the current lawsuit. That dirty word 'may' can be used on both sides of the argument. Just as easily as a family member that sues a dealer for the release of a gun, a gun owner could use the opposite side of that argument for holding the gun. I know it's a touchy subject but we all know there are sue happy folks in all crowds.

I guess we can all thank the ambulance chasers for that. They are the ones that go through the whole line of folks that were involved all the way from the defendant to the maker of their tool of choice. If they think they can squeeze a dime, they will put their name on the lawsuit. The bottom line is that dealers are screwed either way. That's the risk of being in business, so to speak. Lastly, if it's not intended to be a remedy for such situations as this, why bother putting the language in the law to begin with? What other purpose does it serve? To me, that's what makes the least amount of sense.

I have no other choice but to respect the choice of my FFL. I'm one of the unlucky ones that bought two firearms at Big Dogs so mine are in endless purgatory at All Pawn. I wish I had known then what we know now. I would've paid the extra money and had it shipped to Bob's Sunoco. At the time, no one knew what was coming (as far as 8th day release fiasco) and BD's had a deal with AP. I wonder if Big Dogs is warning the MD customers that are buying now.

I have a question for those that owned regulated firearms prior to the Sandy Hook incident. Has anyone had or known anyone that had a BG check take longer than 7 days before SH? If yes, how did the FFL's handle it then? Nothing has changed other than the gun control climate. The law is still the same as it was prior to that. I have two from several years ago but they were both released on the 8th and I assume the check was complete. All I remember is getting a call from the dealer telling us we could come get them.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

Prior to Sandy Hook, I never had an FFL release prior to receiveing word back from the MSP. If the 7 "business days" had a holiday or two attached to it and the check took longer, the FFL would not release. But who gave a crap about an extra 2 days or so.

This current BS is BS.

P.S. That was one hell of a segway to get to your question.

 

[cantstop]

My issue is that the MSP should not be in the loop at all. They should not be tying MVA checks to gun purchases. If someone owes $10,000 in child support or parking tickets, it does not make them a "prohibited person".

Seriously, the MSP is in the loop because our government representatives want to make gun ownership as difficult as possible. The MSP is just doing their job, but this shouldn't be their job. This should just be a NICS call and release.

 

[Slimster22]

The new Law allows them to make as many "checks" as they want. Its not harassment when the Law allows it.

Bingo, your previous comment and this follow up are dead on. Marylander, shooting sports enthusiast my entire life. From the way you post, it is obvious you've been here for at least as long and have an accurate view of how business is done.

My view, personally, is that this is a crucial time for anyone who uses a firearm, for fun, matches, backyard cans, home defense, whatever, to ban together with no ill will toward what a certain dealer chooses to do. We need to keep all of these guys/gals going. I've been watching them close their shops for too long. Eventually, the aggravation of being an FFL in MD wears them out. It is a labor of love in this state, from what I've seen. Not many out there making boatloads of money. When the strong arm comes back around after Oct. 1, I don't want to see any of them losing their FFL's. More shingles up in MD, the better for more folks to get involved, educated and enjoy what we've all loved for so long.

 

[FWPhoto]

Prior to Sandy Hook, I never had an FFL release prior to receiveing word back from the MSP. If the 7 "business days" had a holiday or two attached to it and the check took longer, the FFL would not release. But who gave a crap about an extra 2 days or so.

This current BS is BS.

P.S. That was one hell of a segway to get to your question.

I'm sorry...I had a lot of logical opination to get off my chest. I gave a warning lol.

When I look at the situation logically and objectively, them holding because of the potential for bad behavior is really no different than Owe'Malley banning because of the potential for bad behavior. I'm not an FFL but know that docs have malpractice insurance to cover them when sue happy folks have a party or they make a mistake so I assume that's similar to why FFL's have insurance too.

The law makes allowances for holidays too so that makes sense. I think the wording talks about 7 days unless the days fall on weekends and/or holidays. Yeah...I wish my delay was only due to holidays or weekends lol.