Post 1 October receive issue

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.
    section .02 of the proposed regulations Continues to ban transfer and receipt

    of now banned "assault weapons" regardless of the PO language.





    C. Except as provided in §D or E of this regulation, a person may
    not:
    (1) Possess, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, or receive an
    assault weapon in the State; or
    (2) Transport an assault weapon into the State.


    §D of .02
    (10) Possession or transport by individual who lawfully
    possessed, had a purchase order for, or completed an application to
    purchase the assault long gun or copycat weapon before October 1,
    2013;



    I believe this is a drafting error but should be raised in comments.


    SNI, Fabs, and many others have been discussing this for months so I assume it was covered in the comments already drafted.

    I
     

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    Since no one else thinks this is still an issue I am include to let it be.

    I do not claim to understand the regs-- its way out of my professional experience.


    If anyone thinks otherwise speak up.

    I do not want to open a can of worms unnecessarily...
     

    erwos

    The Hebrew Hammer
    MDS Supporter
    Mar 25, 2009
    13,866
    Rockville, MD
    I believe this mismatch was discussed at length months ago. The AG seems content to allow transfers using possession as the excuse, so no one really wants to bother revisiting it.
     

    Pinecone

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 4, 2013
    28,175
    No mismatch.

    First on prevents one from doing any of the following: Possess, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, or receive

    Second one exempts possession and transport if the firearm was legally possessed prior to Oct 1.

    But you still cannot sell, offer to sell, purchase, transfer, or receive a banned firearm, even if it was legally possessed prior to Oct 1.
     

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    No mismatch.

    First on prevents one from doing any of the following: Possess, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, or receive

    Second one exempts possession and transport if the firearm was legally possessed prior to Oct 1.

    But you still cannot sell, offer to sell, purchase, transfer, or receive a banned firearm, even if it was legally possessed prior to Oct 1.


    I would have suggested cleaner draftsmanship.

    Explicly excepting revice and transfers pursuant to a po dated pre 1 Oct . But if that's what they mean I am OK..

    I know I would never get away with this kind of drsfmanship in my work..:)
     

    ShallNotInfringe

    Lil Firecracker
    Feb 17, 2013
    8,554
    I would have suggested cleaner draftsmanship.

    Explicly excepting revice and transfers pursuant to a po dated pre 1 Oct . But if that's what they mean I am OK..

    I know I would never get away with this kind of drsfmanship in my work..:)

    This reminds me of arguing over statements of work early on in a project life. Everyone belittles the folks that nitpick language then. Later on, when it comes down to brass tacks, those "mistakes" are used to gain advantage, which explains why half of the group originally tried to "overlook" those errors....

    Perhaps that's why I am such a stickler for getting this cleared up. My experiences have taught me to remain skeptical that there was a reason they did not word it clearly...

    They were careful on other matters, so there was an intent. Paging Mr h to post the half full glass. :D
     

    daggo66

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 31, 2013
    1,992
    Glen Burnie
    Let's say that I just wanted you to have a banned rifle. I'm not going to loan it to you or sell it or transfer it to you (with legal paperwork). I'm just giving it to you. Or let's say I'm just going to leave it somewhere for you. IMO you would then be "receiving" it.
     

    ShallNotInfringe

    Lil Firecracker
    Feb 17, 2013
    8,554
    Let's say that I just wanted you to have a banned rifle. I'm not going to loan it to you or sell it or transfer it to you (with legal paperwork). I'm just giving it to you. Or let's say I'm just going to leave it somewhere for you. IMO you would then be "receiving" it.

    Can you loan someone a banned rifle?

    This is why it is important to get a definition of "receive" as it pertains to chapter 427.
     

    daggo66

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 31, 2013
    1,992
    Glen Burnie
    Can you loan someone a banned rifle?

    This is why it is important to get a definition of "receive" as it pertains to chapter 427.

    Regardless, would you seriously "loan" someone one of your banned rifles outside of your direct supervision? Letting some shoot my rifle is not loaning it to him. Letting him take it to the range without me is loaning it and that ain't happening with any of mine. (If I had any that is :innocent0)
     

    JettaRed

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 13, 2013
    1,138
    Middletown
    Let's say that I just wanted you to have a banned rifle. I'm not going to loan it to you or sell it or transfer it to you (with legal paperwork). I'm just giving it to you. Or let's say I'm just going to leave it somewhere for you. IMO you would then be "receiving" it.

    1. "...I just wanted you to have a banned rifle..." That would probably be considered a gift and would have the same restrictions applied.

    2. "...I'm just going to leave it somewhere for you..." You better report it missing within 72 hours.
     

    daggo66

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 31, 2013
    1,992
    Glen Burnie
    My daughter is in the Army. When she returns I would gladly loan her any rifle that is not currently on the banned list. If I were to let her shoot a rifle on the banned list it would be with me present in some capacity. Not because I don't trust her, but because if something happened to it, you can't get another one.
     

    HT4

    Dum spiro spero.
    Jan 24, 2012
    2,728
    Bethesda
    Regardless, would you seriously "loan" someone one of your banned rifles outside of your direct supervision? Letting some shoot my rifle is not loaning it to him. Letting him take it to the range without me is loaning it and that ain't happening with any of mine. (If I had any that is :innocent0)

    Why not? I have a few friends who I would loan anything (non NFA) in my collection without a second thought...
     

    Pinecone

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 4, 2013
    28,175
    Gift is still a transfer.

    Gift of a regulated firearm requires 77R processing.

    IMO, IANAL, loan is OK.

    The wording has to do with how regulations and laws are read. You have to be very specific. Or things can get out of hand. BOTH ways.
     

    fabsroman

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 14, 2009
    35,852
    Winfield/Taylorsville in Carroll
    Gift is still a transfer.

    Gift of a regulated firearm requires 77R processing.

    IMO, IANAL, loan is OK.

    The wording has to do with how regulations and laws are read. You have to be very specific. Or things can get out of hand. BOTH ways.

    Loan is covered under Chow v. State of Maryland (2006) and it is pretty clear that a loan is not a transfer. Thing is, you can still be charged with transferring a firearm unless the "loan" is extremely clear. If the guy that possesses the banned assault weapon says "I got it from Joe Smith", I am willing to bet that Joe Smith is going to be arrested and then the facts determined in Court.

    Now, I don't remember seeing the definition of "receive" covered in Chow v. State of Maryland, but it has been months since I read it all the way through. End of the day, I think the Courts would use the regular meaning of "receive".

    I am not willing to take any risk on this issue, so I "received" the remainder of my stuff on September 28th.

    Being a test case is expensive, and extremely expensive in my case when it puts my livelihood at risk.
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    Loan is covered under Chow v. State of Maryland (2006) and it is pretty clear that a loan is not a transfer. Thing is, you can still be charged with transferring a firearm unless the "loan" is extremely clear. If the guy that possesses the banned assault weapon says "I got it from Joe Smith", I am willing to bet that Joe Smith is going to be arrested and then the facts determined in Court.

    Now, I don't remember seeing the definition of "receive" covered in Chow v. State of Maryland, but it has been months since I read it all the way through. End of the day, I think the Courts would use the regular meaning of "receive".

    I am not willing to take any risk on this issue, so I "received" the remainder of my stuff on September 28th.

    Being a test case is expensive, and extremely expensive in my case when it puts my livelihood at risk.

    Amen
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,931
    Messages
    7,259,512
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom