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

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    Handgun we know are an issue with respect to the hql but other regulated should be good to go. up to the last day right?
    And we are still wondering about po but it looks like any paid for order should work and maybe even others... is that right?

    Anyone saying otherwise....
     

    NateIU10

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 6, 2009
    4,587
    Southport, CT
    Joe at Sure Shot in Pasadena said yesterday that if someone came in with a receipt in two years that was dated before 10/1/13 he would do the transfer.
     

    jrumann59

    DILLIGAF
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 17, 2011
    14,024
    just make sure you have a copy of the receipt or PO showing you purchased prior to 10/1 not all FFLs may require this but remember they will be seeing quite a few things from pre-10/1 they may not remember you.
     

    ShallNotInfringe

    Lil Firecracker
    Feb 17, 2013
    8,554
    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?
     

    rwbow1969

    Get Wiffit
    Dec 10, 2011
    4,154
    Clearspring
    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?

    I don't think he meant an in stock item. I think he meant a purchase order placed before 10/1 from another vendor and the firearm is delivered to the FFL sometime after 10/1.

    I know of one person waiting on a Larue since 12/24/12 and still has not received it.
     

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    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?

    Because the law does not say anything about 'only dealer stock may be sold ' it says 'dealer stock may be sold'. On receive or transfer there may be an issue,the court will need to decide if they should read in 'receive or transfer' or read out 'purchase order', since the law makes no sense as written. A purchase order is not typically used when inventory is available. PO tend to be post dated. How much is a question. Also if the court reads out PO we will appeal whereas if they read in 'receive and transfer' the state will call it a day rather than risk federal court. A federal court is IMHO more likely to toss the entire section as unenforceable gibberish, as they don't have a vested interest in not embarrassing the state ( read the gov) as they are in the federal system and their promotions come from elsewhere :)

    Some are thinking that the state means 77r, when they say PO but if they did they could say it as in " firearms application" . They did not.

    If this is going to be tested we need dealers to be willing to issue PO.
    In state would be best, but out of state will do. ( several of us have long standing orders that take time to build ).

    The receive and transfer language( or lack thereof ) may be an issue, but nothing in the bill prevents a dealer from importing new stock. An ffl can do so for any lawful purpose and the state does not have jurisdiction. The state may be able to prevent transfer to MD residents, but never for out of state sales.

    ffl 07 in particular can sell out of state. And will at least until they relocate or close up shop. It looks like there will be no sales on non hunting guns come 1 OCT 2013 so they will need some source of revenue..


    So this is one for the courts that's for sure...

    I think the state will avoid letting this issue get to a federal court.
     

    ShallNotInfringe

    Lil Firecracker
    Feb 17, 2013
    8,554
    4–302.
    This subtitle does not apply to:
    (3) POSSESSION, IMPORTATION, MANUFACTURE, RECEIPT FOR MANUFACTURE, SHIPMENT FOR MANUFACTURE, STORAGE, purchases, sales, and transport to or by a licensed firearms dealer or manufacturer who is:
    (i) providing or servicing an assault WEAPON or detachable magazine for a law enforcement unit or for personnel exempted under item (1) of this section; or
    (ii) acting to sell or transfer an assault WEAPON or detachable magazine to a licensed firearm dealer in another state OR TO AN INDIVIDUAL PURCHASER IN ANOTHER STATE THROUGH A LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER; OR
    (III) ACTING TO RETURN TO A CUSTOMER IN ANOTHER STATE AN ASSAULT WEAPON TRANSFERRED TO THE LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER OR MANUFACTURER UNDER THE TERMS OF A WARRANTY OR FOR REPAIR;

    4–303.
    (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person may not:
    (1) transport an assault [pistol] WEAPON into the State; or
    (2) possess, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, or receive an assault
    [pistol] WEAPON.
    (b)
    (2)A LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER MAY CONTINUE TO POSSESS, SELL, OFFER FOR SALE, OR TRANSFER AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON THAT THE LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER LAWFULLY POSSESSED ON OR BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2013.
     

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    (3) POSSESSION, IMPORTATION, MANUFACTURE, RECEIPT FOR MANUFACTURE, SHIPMENT FOR MANUFACTURE, STORAGE, purchases, sales, and transport to or by a licensed firearms dealer or manufacturer who is:
    (i) providing or servicing an assault WEAPON or detachable magazine for a law enforcement unit or for personnel exempted under item (1) of this section; or
    (ii) acting to sell or transfer an assault WEAPON or detachable magazine to a licensed firearm dealer in another state OR TO AN INDIVIDUAL PURCHASER IN ANOTHER STATE THROUGH A LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER; OR
    (III) ACTING TO RETURN TO A CUSTOMER IN ANOTHER STATE AN ASSAULT WEAPON TRANSFERRED TO THE LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER OR MANUFACTURER UNDER THE TERMS OF A WARRANTY OR FOR REPAIR;

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



    It tells them what they can do. It does not say what they can not do. This was about clarifying the status of current inventory. The ffl is acting under a federal license for interstate commerce.

    It is in fact superfluous as I understand federal law.
    I could be wrong of course but MD only thinks they can do this. Just like a FFL can in fact receive std capacity magazines and sell them out of state. But Many ffls think that they can not ship such mags to a MD based FFL. They are wrong. The FFL can not transfer it to you, but you can still get the GUN.


    BTW the fact that most handgun mags will not be MD compliant will dry up inventory even faster than the HQL ... so they will ffls ship to MD ffls at all, with or without mags and what will we do for mags after 1 OCT 2013?

    Each gun will cost $50-150 ( estimate ) more if we need to buy the mags twice..

    Fun yes?
     

    fabsroman

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 14, 2009
    35,852
    Winfield/Taylorsville in Carroll
    Because the law does not say anything about 'only dealer stock may be sold ' it says 'dealer stock may be sold'. On receive or transfer there may be an issue,the court will need to decide if they should read in 'receive or transfer' or read out 'purchase order', since the law makes no sense as written. A purchase order is not typically used when inventory is available. PO tend to be post dated. How much is a question. Also if the court reads out PO we will appeal whereas if they read in 'receive and transfer' the state will call it a day rather than risk federal court. A federal court is IMHO more likely to toss the entire section as unenforceable gibberish, as they don't have a vested interest in not embarrassing the state ( read the gov) as they are in the federal system and their promotions come from elsewhere :)

    Some are thinking that the state means 77r, when they say PO but if they did they could say it as in " firearms application" . They did not.

    If this is going to be tested we need dealers to be willing to issue PO.
    In state would be best, but out of state will do. ( several of us have long standing orders that take time to build ).

    The receive and transfer language( or lack thereof ) may be an issue, but nothing in the bill prevents a dealer from importing new stock. An ffl can do so for any lawful purpose and the state does not have jurisdiction. The state may be able to prevent transfer to MD residents, but never for out of state sales.

    ffl 07 in particular can sell out of state. And will at least until they relocate or close up shop. It looks like there will be no sales on non hunting guns come 1 OCT 2013 so they will need some source of revenue..


    So this is one for the courts that's for sure...

    I think the state will avoid letting this issue get to a federal court.

    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.
     

    ShallNotInfringe

    Lil Firecracker
    Feb 17, 2013
    8,554
    Because the law does not say anything about 'only dealer stock may be sold ' it says 'dealer stock may be sold'. On receive or transfer there may be an issue,the court will need to decide if they should read in 'receive or transfer' or read out 'purchase order', since the law makes no sense as written. A purchase order is not typically used when inventory is available. PO tend to be post dated. How much is a question. Also if the court reads out PO we will appeal whereas if they read in 'receive and transfer' the state will call it a day rather than risk federal court. A federal court is IMHO more likely to toss the entire section as unenforceable gibberish, as they don't have a vested interest in not embarrassing the state ( read the gov) as they are in the federal system and their promotions come from elsewhere :)

    Some are thinking that the state means 77r, when they say PO but if they did they could say it as in " firearms application" . They did not.
    .
    A PERSON WHO LAWFULLY POSSESSED, HAS A PURCHASE ORDER FOR, OR COMPLETED AN APPLICATION TO PURCHASE AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2013

    Believe me, I have asked myself many questions nearly every day since April on this wording...

    Ok, so this is twisted, but is the best logic I could come up with...

    What if purchase orders pertain only to a non-regulated firearm that becomes banned (for example a Tavor)? There would not be a 77R filed. The only paperwork one may have is a purchase order to record that transaction.

    And the completed application part applies to currently regulated firearms. Which has a serial number on it.

    In either case, the dealer could/has to have it on 10/1.
     

    ShallNotInfringe

    Lil Firecracker
    Feb 17, 2013
    8,554
    It tells them what they can do. It does not say what they can not do. This was about clarifying the status of current inventory. The ffl is acting under a federal license for interstate commerce.
    ?

    Right and they can continue transactions outside of MD...

    Here's what it says cannot be done by any person (which I believe dealers are considered to be):

    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.

    Add "in MD" to the sentence. Just like you have to for all of the may and may nots.
     

    fabsroman

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 14, 2009
    35,852
    Winfield/Taylorsville in Carroll
    [/B]


    It tells them what they can do. It does not say what they can not do. This was about clarifying the status of current inventory. The ffl is acting under a federal license for interstate commerce.

    It is in fact superfluous as I understand federal law.
    I could be wrong of course but MD only thinks they can do this. Just like a FFL can in fact receive std capacity magazines and sell them out of state. But Many ffls think that they can not ship such mags to a MD based FFL. They are wrong. The FFL can not transfer it to you, but you can still get the GUN.


    BTW the fact that most handgun mags will not be MD compliant will dry up inventory even faster than the HQL ... so they will ffls ship to MD ffls at all, with or without mags and what will we do for mags after 1 OCT 2013?

    Each gun will cost $50-150 ( estimate ) more if we need to buy the mags twice..

    Fun yes?

    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.
     

    ShallNotInfringe

    Lil Firecracker
    Feb 17, 2013
    8,554
    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.

    Now you see.
     

    ShallNotInfringe

    Lil Firecracker
    Feb 17, 2013
    8,554
    Ok so let's get really twisted here. Suppose you didn't actually have it in your possession. Don't shops give tickets for repair work? Aren't they logged in? Or you lent it to someone? What do you have then? A PO for a non-regulated firearm gone banned or a completed application for a regulated firearm.
     

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    A PERSON WHO LAWFULLY POSSESSED, HAS A PURCHASE ORDER FOR, OR COMPLETED AN APPLICATION TO PURCHASE AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2013

    Believe me, I have asked myself many questions nearly every day since April on this wording...

    What if purchase orders pertain only to a non-regulated firearm that becomes banned (for example a Tavor)? There would not be a 77R filed. The only paperwork one may have is a purchase order to record that transaction.

    And the completed application part applies to currently regulated firearms. Which has a serial number on it.

    In either case, the dealer could/has to have it on 10/1.

    This can not be. If true then no FFL could ever supply a law enforcement contract in the state of MD. These are all done by purchase order. This would include the FBI and DHS.

    Federal law covers the import and lawful sale. The ban in MD could never never never affect the rights of the FFL to interstate commerce, and MD can not ban the import of firearms intend only for that market. If they did the MSP will never be able to buy another gun. Ever ..

    The only question is' transfer and receive ' , and of course PO. They can risk loosing the whole thing by claiming that PO only means 'in stock'. PO is a long standing term in commerce.

    PO is defined by a staggering amount of case law and the UCC ( uniform commercial code ) there is no judge in the world fool enough to pull on that string, by playing with the definition of PO. And if so the federal court will use the string to hang that judge :)

    I do agree that receive and transfer are an issue. The easiest path IMHO is to read them in as a drafting error. I would be surprised if the AG conceded this as they are more worried about the whole thing getting tossed as gibberish..


    We will see what we will see.

    Now I would not rely on this for my only rifle... buy now if you can, but I would not cancel an order for a custom build due to the drafting errors in the bill.
     

    ShallNotInfringe

    Lil Firecracker
    Feb 17, 2013
    8,554
    This can not be. If true the no FFL could ever supply a law enforcement contract in the state of MD. This would include the FBI and DHS.

    Federal law covers the import and lawful sale. The ban in MD could never never never affect the rights of the FFL to interstate commerce, and MD can not ban the import of firearms intend only for that market. If they did the MSP will never be able to buy another gun. Ever ..

    The only question is' transfer and receive ' , and of course PO. They can risk loosing the whole thing by claiming that PO only means 'in stock'. PO is a long standing term in commerce.

    PO is defined by a staggering amount of case law and the UCC ( uniform commercial code ) there is no judge in the world fool enough to pull on that string, by playing with the definition of PO. And if so the federal court will use the string to hang that judge :)

    I do agree that receive and transfer are an issue. The easiest path IMHO is to read them in as a drafting error. I would be surprised if the AG conceded this as they are more worried about the whole thing getting tossed as gibberish..

    We will see what we will see.

    Now I would not rely on this for my only rifle... buy now if you can, but I would not cancel an order for a custom build due to the drafting errors in the bill.

    Heres the LEO exception... Not talking about this.
    4–302.
    This subtitle does not apply to:
    (1) if acting within the scope of official business, personnel of the United States government or a unit of that government, members of the armed forces of the United States or of the National Guard, or law enforcement personnel of the State or a local unit in the State, OR A RAILROAD POLICE OFFICER AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE 3 OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY ARTICLE OR 49 U.S.C. § 28101;

    (3) POSSESSION, IMPORTATION, MANUFACTURE, RECEIPT FOR
    MANUFACTURE, SHIPMENT FOR MANUFACTURE, STORAGE, purchases, sales, and transport to or by a licensed firearms dealer or manufacturer who is:
    (i) providing or servicing an assault WEAPON or detachable magazine for a law enforcement unit or for personnel exempted under item (1) of this sectio
     

    fabsroman

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 14, 2009
    35,852
    Winfield/Taylorsville in Carroll
    Now you see.

    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.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,930
    Messages
    7,259,467
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom