Victory in MSI HQL suit

[Biggfoot44]

Correct me if I’m wrong…

You're wrong .

 

[Art3]

...and Uncle Duke did the correction.

 

[Art3]

Correct me if I’m wrong… But I was pretty sure that no one could touch or use one of your firearms without you present unless they possessed an HQL.

That includes anyone in your household.

The reason I’m bringing this up is I’m not sure it was just the HQL law, but also specific language written in the current law set related to transfer. Hence my question.

Where did you learn this?

 

[GBMaryland]

Where did you learn this?

I was fairly sure it came up during the S.B. 1 discussions.

 

[GBMaryland]

You're wrong .

Wow. What a useless response.

 

[Ponder_MD]

I am thinking the state will not appeal this, they will not want to take a chance of it going to supreme courts and being ruled in our favor. It will then destroy every other state that has a requirement for a license to buy a gun.

That sort of makes sense until you realize that Maryland is one of the few states that have anything like this, and Maryland's is the most onerous and restrictive. If they appeal, I'm not sure who they're mucking it up for.

So- Dumb question of the day. Is the 14 days to appeal, calendar days or business/working days?

 

[Boondock Saint]

Wow. What a useless response.

It might not have been the most helpful response possible, but the point was quite clear: your understanding of the facts of the situation is not accurate. That's important information for anyone who reads this thread.

To be clear, I'm referring to the fact that that temporary transfers have long been protected under current case law, and the HQL never changed any of that. With its demise hopefully coming sooner rather than later (I won't hold my breath), this will hopefully be little more than a blip in the sad history of gun control in Maryland.

Opinion time: I think the state will absolutely request en banc, and if "our" history in the Fourth Circuit is any guide, the likelihood of it being granted is higher than usual. However, perhaps there are enough honest jurists in that circuit to understand that Bruen positively kills anything that so much as looks like an HQL, and the en banc would be denied. I don't think the state will request cert from SCOTUS if their en banc is denied or fails on that appeal.

 

[coinboy]

I was fairly sure it came up during the S.B. 1 discussions.

Well, the initial version of SB1 was not what it ended up being. SB1 was eventully hacked into two or three bills. I believe one was SB1. Another was the companion bill regarding the price and training requirements. The last was the increase in age and storage requirements.

If I remember correctly, one of the legislators was concerned if the bill had remained the way it was, that it would have prohibited him from keeping his prized collector handgun on the wall of his office in his own house. I believe it was rectified in the early hearings before the bill even went to the floor.

 

[GBMaryland]

Thank you folks, that was much more helpful!

FWIW: I'm pretty sure it's calendar days. I don't recall the judge giving a business day word in the opinion / order.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Wow. What a useless response.

OK.
The longer version : See the Uncle Duke and Mark 75H posts above , they have it correctly.

Added for simultaneous typing - What Dblas commented at length .

 

[dblas]

Meaning, Bruen never would have been before SCOTUS if NY hadn't been so sure they'd win.

Yeah, no.

 

[dblas]

My question, for everybody is: what happens if the HQL is struck down? For example, what constitutes transferred to another person and how do you accomplish that if the language for the HQL is still in the law?

Things go back to exactly how they were on September 30, 2013. No HQL required at ALL for any type of transfer. "The language of the HQL" is entirely null and void per the court. It really is that simple.

For example, your wife likes to go to the range with you and shoot specific firearms… if she has her own HQL then that’s not legally an issue.

She didn't need an HQL before the HQL, and she doesn't need an HQL to take one of your handguns to the range now. The above is considered a loan and an HQL has never been required.

For that matter, say you’re on a business trip and someone breaks in the house… Your wife can’t have access to your firearms because she doesn’t have an HQL.

She doesn't need an HQL now to use ANY of your handguns.

Etc…

So this might be an initial win, but it also opens up additional problems…

Not it doesn't. Things go back to EXACTLY as they were before the HQL. One was never required for any type of transfer.

 

[Allen65]

That sort of makes sense until you realize that Maryland is one of the few states that have anything like this, and Maryland's is the most onerous and restrictive. If they appeal, I'm not sure who they're mucking it up for.

So- Dumb question of the day. Is the 14 days to appeal, calendar days or business/working days?

IIRC Mark P. addressed this earlier. It's 14 calendar days.

 

[dblas]

Correct me if I’m wrong… But I was pretty sure that no one could touch or use one of your firearms without you present unless they possessed an HQL.

You are wrong, short term loans of firearms is perfectly legal to someone without an HQL.

That includes anyone in your household.

The reason I’m bringing this up is I’m not sure it was just the HQL law, but also specific language written in the current law set related to transfer. Hence my question.

Nope, nothing in recent bills, made it illegal for anyone to use any of your firearms without an HQL.

 

[RoKKboXXer]

How much involvement, if any, did the NRA have in this lawsuit?

 

[GBMaryland]

You are wrong, short term loans of firearms is perfectly legal to someone without an HQL.


Nope, nothing in recent bills, made it illegal for anyone to use any of your firearms without an HQL.

Cool! I'm going to assume that this is unless they've previously been convicted of specific crimes. (Not an issue for me...)

 

[dblas]

How much involvement, if any, did the NRA have in this lawsuit?

NRA-ILA did some fairly heavy financial lifting in this case.

 

[dblas]

Cool! I'm going to assume that this is unless they've previously been convicted of specific crimes. (Not an issue for me...)

Unless they are prohibited, correct.

 

[Inigoes]

Cool! I'm going to assume that this is unless they've previously been convicted of specific crimes. (Not an issue for me...)

Prohibited means smoking marijuana or arrested for marijuana for the past year.

A mere arrest for drugs starts the timer of a prohibited person.

 

[Threeband]

Wow.

The HQL only ever applied to transfers of permanent ownership, and if a Form 77r isn't required, it isn't a transfer.

Have some people really spent the last ten years telling everyone that they can't touch one of their handguns without an HQL?


"Please sir... may I have some more restrictions? I'll write them myself, if it please Your Lordship. "