any word on dealer policy for non handgun reg purchases going into the deadline.

[ShallNotInfringe]

I've seen this for quite a while. Nothing new to me. I had the discussion with my FFL about me taking possession of all my handguns BEFORE the 8 day release litigation was completed. He and I were discussing on-time release prior to that litigation being "concluded". I knew about the HQL requirement since May and advised MSI about it and to try to carve some sort of agreement into the litigation with MSP to take into account the people that will get screwed because of the Form 77r delays. That did not happen.

I have been saying since at least June that people had better have everything wrapped up before October 1, 2013. I am picking up the last of my stuff on the 28th.

Does the new COMAR shed any light on what a PO is, or how that entire process will be handled?

Prior to this legislation, I have NEVER worried about what firearms I own. Since February, I have spent way too much time worrying about it. October 1, 2013 will be a welcome relief for me. No more searching for guns I might want. No more trying to get stuff here and done before October 1, 2013. No more advising people regarding what the law is going to be. More time for hunting, shooting, reloading, etc.

No, the new COMAR drags the same sentence word for word down.

Re read the AG memo on his opinion on the HQL. (Which we sounded the call on months ago, btw.)He was also careful to recite the same words there.

They made a mistake in the law. They propagated it into the regulations. The way it is written in both, receive is an illegal act.

If anyone can come up with another contorted way to reconcile these (believe me I have tried) and not end up in trouble... By all means.

What if they decide to enforce it?
4–304.
A law enforcement unit may seize as contraband and dispose of according to regulation an assault WEAPON transported, sold, transferred, purchased, received, or possessed in violation of this subtitle.


I worry every day for this community. I have received everything I purchased. I have no risk, I am sounding a clarion call for others. Argue if you will, take your chances. There is no exception for receive.

 

[Brooklyn]

If Maryland wanted to, it could straight up say NO MORE ASSAULT WEAPONS ALLOWED IN MARYLAND, PERIOD. No exceptions. Interstate trade would not matter at that point. Maryland wanted to keep Beretta and other manufacturers of assault weapons in the state, so it had to carve out some exceptions to allow them to continue to manufacturer these weapons.

Here is the general ban:

4–303.
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person may not:
(1) transport an assault WEAPON into the State; or
(2) possess, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, or receive an assault WEAPON.

That says what people CANNOT do. After that, you need to look for exceptions that will allow you to get around that rather broad net. As we already know, there is an exception for persons to continue to possess an assault weapon if 1) they possessed it prior to October 1, 2013, 2) have a PO for it dated prior to October 1, 2013, or 3) submitted a Form 77r for it prior to October 1, 2013.

Now, where is the exception for a MD resident to RECEIVE an assault weapon after October 1, 2013, even if they have a purchase order or Form 77r submitted prior to October 1, 2013? Where is the exception for a dealer to transfer an assault weapon to a MD Resident where the assault weapon is not in the dealer's possession prior to October 1, 2013?

The more I read this new law, the worse it gets. I've said this before and I will say it again. Get your stuff before October 1, 2013.

Yes but only to MD residents. This is not in dispute. The definition of PO is not infinitely plastic. They can ban any PO that is not immediately satiable from dealer stock. They could have said a verifiable PO must contain The Serno. They did not.

They said PO which has a common definition. No PO I ever heard of said void if not in stock. Nor can I get out of the contract if it is not in stock.

We know about the receive problem. We know that the court must read in 'receive' or give no weight to PO as commonly understood . We agree that they can do either, but reading in 'receive as a concretion to a drafting error is a easier sell than striking PO, as that seams to a deliberate act.

Custom rifles are never in stock .. PO are intended for that purpose particularity.So do you think we should cancel custom orders knowing this is perhaps the last chance --or should we leave them as is an see what a court does ?

What harm is there in not canceling a custom order?

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

Yes but only to MD residents. This is not in dispute. The definition of PO is not infinitely plastic. They can ban any PO that is not immediately satiable from dealer stock. They could have said a verifiable PO must contain The Serno. They did not.

They said PO which has a common definition. No PO I ever heard of said void if not in stock. Nor can I get out of the contract if it is not in stock.

We know about the receive problem. We know that the court must read in 'receive' or give no weight to PO as commonly understood . We agree that they can do either, but reading in 'receive as a concretion to a drafting error is a easier sell than striking PO, as that seams to a deliberate act.

Custom rifles are never in stock .. PO are intended for that purpose particularity.So do you think we should cancel custom orders knowing this is perhaps the last chance --or should we leave them as is an see what a court does ?

What harm is there in not canceling a custom order?

This is why we need to get an answer Monday on this. Bad.

What paperwork does one have for a non-regulated firearm gone banned? How do you prove you owned it before the ban?

 

[Brooklyn]

No, the new COMAR drags the same sentence word for word down.

Re read the AG memo on his opinion on the HQL. (Which we sounded the call on months ago, btw.)He was also careful to recite the same words there.

They made a mistake in the law. They propagated it into the regulations. The way it is written in both, receive is an illegal act.

If anyone can come up with another contorted way to reconcile these (believe me I have tried) and not end up in trouble... By all means.

What if they decide to enforce it?
4–304.
A law enforcement unit may seize as contraband and dispose of according to regulation an assault WEAPON transported, sold, transferred, purchased, received, or possessed in violation of this subtitle.


I worry every day for this community. I have received everything I purchased. I have no risk, I am sounding a clarion call for others. Argue if you will, take your chances. There is no exception for receive.

Bad news --they can seize and destroy as contraband any weapon that you can not prove is not ' possessed in violation of this subtitle'.
Nor do they need to accept any proof offered. They will seize as evidence, and hold until accidentally misplaced, any weapon they do not like, esp if in the possession of someone they do not like, and will decline to prosecute for a felony, if you agree to waive all claims. This is sop in NYC so I know.

Unless you surrender all of your firearms you will never have' no risk.' The time to litigate these questions is now.

Now understand how this may work. When it is time to 'receive ' a firearm according to a PO, we as a group with a carefully selected test case will ask a court to litigate the question. The rest of us will be in limbo until this is resolved.

No one, I hope is fool enough to think-- just do it and then figure it out.

That is stupid and we are not stupid ...

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

Bad news --they can seize and destroy as contraband any weapon that you can not prove is not ' possessed in violation of this subtitle'.
Nor do they need to accept any proof offered. They will seize as evidence, and hold until accidentally misplaced, any weapon they do not like, esp if in the possession of someone they do not like, and will decline to prosecute for a felony, if you agree to waive all claims. This is sop in NYC so I know.

Unless you surrender all of your firearms you will never have' no risk.' The time to litigate these questions is now.

Now understand how this may work. When it is time to 'receive ' a firearm according to a PO, we as a group with a carefully selected test case will ask a court to litigate the question. The rest of us will be in limbo until this is resolved.

No one, I hope is fool enough to think-- just do it and then figure it out.

That is stupid and we are not stupid ...

I am a law abiding citizen and have no reason to believe that will be happening.

The point I was trying to make is that I don't want my fellow law abiding citizens to have trouble.

Find out Monday and report back. I have submitted my comments (more than once and to as many points as possible) to get an answer on this in assistance to this community.

 

[Brooklyn]

If Maryland wanted to, it could straight up say NO MORE ASSAULT WEAPONS ALLOWED IN MARYLAND, PERIOD. No exceptions. Interstate trade would not matter at that point. Maryland wanted to keep Beretta and other manufacturers of assault weapons in the state, so it had to carve out some exceptions to allow them to continue to manufacturer these weapons.

Here is the general ban:

4–303.
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person may not:
(1) transport an assault WEAPON into the State; or
(2) possess, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, or receive an assault WEAPON.

That says what people CANNOT do. After that, you need to look for exceptions that will allow you to get around that rather broad net. As we already know, there is an exception for persons to continue to possess an assault weapon if 1) they possessed it prior to October 1, 2013, 2) have a PO for it dated prior to October 1, 2013, or 3) submitted a Form 77r for it prior to October 1, 2013.

Now, where is the exception for a MD resident to RECEIVE an assault weapon after October 1, 2013, even if they have a purchase order or Form 77r submitted prior to October 1, 2013? Where is the exception for a dealer to transfer an assault weapon to a MD Resident where the assault weapon is not in the dealer's possession prior to October 1, 2013?

The more I read this new law, the worse it gets. I've said this before and I will say it again. Get your stuff before October 1, 2013.

I am not in a position to challenge that claim directly. I have doubts that MD could ban a federally licensed business engaged exclusively with interstate commerce. But its a bit off the point anyway.

 

[babalou]

So if I only do Internet purchases that send to my FFL, these will not be legal? suppose I order a lower from JBO the end of the month and they email me my receipt, can they not ship to my FFL? Can I not be allowed to fill out the paperwork once it arrives after 10/1? Some on these threads say yes and others say no. Damn I hate these assclowns running MD. Sorry if I seem like a rube.

 

[Brooklyn]

This entire thing is so wrong on so many levels. Just starting with NO sales on non-hunting guns. Please, have you ever seen some of the long range rifles out there. Just the action on the one I want to build is $1,500. There are plenty of guns out there that can still be sold after October 1, 2013. The dealers just need to figure out what they are and start stocking them. Plus, who the heck needs anymore AR's or handguns after the past 9 months. I bought more of them than I probably would have during my lifetime. Figured I had to buy them for the 3 kids now or they would never get one sans a move.

As far as the Court reading something into the law, I seriously doubt that is going to happen. This entire thing is fixated on the PO language, and there are more ways to make sense of that language than the General Assembly wanted people to get their Larues, Wilson Combats, etc. If I am not mistaken, the main reason for the language was because of the issue with the Form 77r backlog at the time. Well, it very well might have been put in to allow people to pay for an assault weapon that is at a dealer before October 1, 2013 without having to submit the Form 77r, worry about the MSP not receiving the Form 77r before October 1, 2013 (e.g., they have lost plenty of forms already and Clandestine reports that the fax machine is already busy all the time), worrying about the MSP returning an ND on the Form 77r, etc. I was not present at the hearings and I have asked for the legislative intent behind the PO matter but have yet to receive anything. Without the legislative intent, it is really tough to figure out what the General Assembly wanted to accomplish.

The law is also rather clear on the dealer's side that a sale/transfer to a Maryland resident can only be finalized after September 30, 2013 IF the firearm was in the dealer's possession before October 1, 2013. I am sure there are several dealers that have already agreed to transfer a Larue or what have you after October 1, 2013 even though the firearm is not in their possession. Question is, is either party really willing to foot the legal fees required to determine what the law is. If not, who is footing the legal fees for them to determine what the law is? Hopefully, MSI, NRA, et al. have something along these lines set up as a test case via a breach of contract claim before a dealer actually transfers one of these firearms and ends up possibly being a for criminal test case. Of course, if the MSP, AG, and other law enforcement agencies decide to look the other way on it, it is all good.

SB281 is going to be litigation galore and it started back in May. It really is sad that it has come down to this.

Good for you. Guess why the ar is popular? Because the actions do not cost 1500 a piece.. You will be buying your fancy gun from one of the few FFLs that remain. The rest are smart enough to know the difference between a small market and a large one. They will move to a large market.



Now I am almost positive that there are ways to test this law without risking jail. I know it and you know it and MSI knows it and it more people knew it they might be more willing to be patient. But you like to talk only about what we can't do.. fine. Noted jail bad..

I am also noting that the law is 'allays clear but also a mess ' --- fine we will let the court tell us and no one will go to jail. Unless of course they think its the only way to challenge the law... where would they get that idea?

 

[Brooklyn]

I am a law abiding citizen and have no reason to believe that will be happening.

The point I was trying to make is that I don't want my fellow law abiding citizens to have trouble.

Find out Monday and report back. I have submitted my comments (more than once and to as many points as possible) to get an answer on this in assistance to this community.

I have seen this in NY. We need the court to rule. I will be helping out with the crowds monday -- hope to get info but my role will be out side.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

So if I only do Internet purchases that send to my FFL, these will not be legal? suppose I order a lower from JBO the end of the month and they email me my receipt, can they not ship to my FFL? Can I not be allowed to fill out the paperwork once it arrives after 10/1? Some on these threads say yes and others say no. Damn I hate these assclowns running MD. Sorry if I seem like a rube.

We don't know.

I think I know what they agreed to incorporate into the law. That a PO or PPW would be sufficient.

I also know what it says.

So does intent override the words? Or was their intent to have it as it is.

Hopefully we get something definitive Monday. We must.

 

[Brooklyn]

So if I only do Internet purchases that send to my FFL, these will not be legal? suppose I order a lower from JBO the end of the month and they email me my receipt, can they not ship to my FFL? Can I not be allowed to fill out the paperwork once it arrives after 10/1? Some on these threads say yes and others say no. Damn I hate these assclowns running MD. Sorry if I seem like a rube.

There is no certainty. Safe bet buy only what you can hold in your hand by say the 29 th or 30th.

The rest is not clear, and will not be till after a court rules. That is the truth.

Some say no way. I am only saying that it is not clear.. so its possible.

Buy what you need now and get it in your hands asap. There is no dispute on that. The rest is theory we do not know.

 

[babalou]

Thanks for the quick replies.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

I have seen this in NY. We need the court to rule. I will be helping out with the crowds monday -- hope to get info but my role will be out side.

With the current "rulers" anything CAN happen, agreed. But there are steps we can take to minimize the possibility. One of them is to read and familiarize your own self with the laws and follow them, however absurd they may be. We had 6 months to finish up.

We shall see what happens Monday.

 

[Brooklyn]

With the current "rulers" anything CAN happen, agreed. But there are steps we can take to minimize the possibility. One of them is to read and familiarize your own self with the laws and follow them, however absurd they may be. We had 6 months to finish up.

We shall see what happens Monday.

Agree.

Only custom orders should really be an issue in practice.

And if they court says no its no, until another court says yes, or we leave the Gulag ..

or both...

 

[fabsroman]

Thanks for the quick replies.

I believe today (i.e., Saturday) or tomorrow is the last day that you can actually complete the Form 77r and have the item transferred to you by September 30th on an 8th day release. So, spend the weekend shopping.

FFL's are going to have a busy week ahead of them. Then it will be real quiet on October 1, 2013.

 

[Bolts Rock]

I worry every day for this community. I have received everything I purchased. I have no risk, I am sounding a clarion call for others. Argue if you will, take your chances. There is no exception for receive.

I deliberately set up a PO test case.

 

[swinokur]

Per SB281, FFL's are required to have the banned item in stock on 10/1 to be able to transfer it post 10/1. The law does in fact allow the transfer side of the equation...

So... why would a FFL agree to a purchase order to hold an in-stock item for 2 years? Did they indicate they intend to charge storage for the period?

MSP said even if not in stock a pre Oct 1 PO would allow delivery., regardless of wheteher it's in stoc or not.Their words, noit mine.

 

[swinokur]

So if I only do Internet purchases that send to my FFL, these will not be legal? suppose I order a lower from JBO the end of the month and they email me my receipt, can they not ship to my FFL? Can I not be allowed to fill out the paperwork once it arrives after 10/1? Some on these threads say yes and others say no. Damn I hate these assclowns running MD. Sorry if I seem like a rube.

MSP said you would need a PO pre dated before Oct 1 Buying on line and then asking your FFL to transfer it post Oct 1 would not be allowed as I read 281.

 

[Bolts Rock]

MSP said you would need a PO pre dated before Oct 1 Butying on line and then asking your FFL to transfer it post Oct 1 would not be allowed as I read 281.

And therein lies the test case. Ordered online in time for it to be in stock by 10/01, with receipt from online vendor printed. As long as I get to the FFL before 10/01 and pay the transfer fee and fill out the 77R it should be legal. FFL of course makes the call on their end of things.

COMAR hearing Monday may just negate the need for the test.

 

[fabsroman]

And therein lies the test case. Ordered online in time for it to be in stock by 10/01, with receipt from online vendor printed. As long as I get to the FFL before 10/01 and pay the transfer fee and fill out the 77R it should be legal. FFL of course makes the call on their end of things.

COMAR hearing Monday may just negate the need for the test.

The only thing that will test is whether a person can receive an assault weapon after September 30th.

Your method does not test the validity of a PO because you will have completed and submitted a Form 77r before October 1, 2013 and the gun will be at the FFL before October 1, 2013.

The issues to test with a PO is:
1) What is a PO?
2) Does the firearm have to be at the dealer before October 1, 2013 for the dealer to transfer it?
3) Can a person receive an assault weapon from an FFL after September 30th ?

Those are the questions I can see with the entire PO process. With the Form 77r method, the only question is whether a person can receive the assault weapon from an FFL after September 30th. We all know what a Form 77r is and it pretty cut and dry whether it is submitted before October 1, 2013. The firearm also has to be at the dealer before October 1, 2013 for the Form 77r to be submitted prior to October 1, 2013. So, not many questions with the Form 77r process.