Are you allowed to lend a gun to a friend?

[daggo66]

Not sure why you're deliberately misinterpreting both the law and the intentions and moral compasses of your fellow members, here.

Sure, it says, "does not constitute" a transfer ... IF the borrowing party meets the qualifications needed to obtain a handgun. Which means having an HQL, until some fine day when that law gets scrapped. Pointing out the language and what it means isn't the same as defending the concept. Asserting otherwise is just picking a fight with people for no good reason at all.

Transfer has been defined here many times. In reference to the law it means ownership, not moving from one place to another or one person to another. If I handed you my gun to use I did not transfer it to you.

 

[daggo66]

How did I take it out of context? In Maryland, a person is not permitted to obtain a regulated handgun without an HQL or some other criteria that supersedes the HQL, such as being an LEO or member of the military in some capacity.

One could make the argument that a person who legally owned a gun prior to FSA 2013 is good to go to loan a gun to regardless of the fact that they don't have an HQL, but that's a slippery slope, and it doesn't comply with what's stated in the statute: "... permitted to own and obtain a regulated handgun." It's the "and obtain" that's the sticking point.

But hey, you do you - if you loan out a gun and it goes south, don't say you were never warned or that you didn't know.

Because highlighting a portion of the sentence changes the entire meaning. Similar to how liberals try to separate the 2A to make it sound like only a militia can own guns.

 

[trickg]

Because highlighting a portion of the sentence changes the entire meaning. Similar to how liberals try to separate the 2A to make it sound like only a militia can own guns.

You'll have to do better than that - highlighting it doesn't change the context, It simply points out the relevance of the statement as a whole by highlighting the operative parts of it.

(Example: I legally owned handguns prior to FSA2013, but it took an HQL, and then later my military ID, in order for me to obtain a handgun after the fact.)

If you specifically know of an official interpretation that runs contrary to the idea that an HQL or similar (LEO/military) is required to obtain a handgun in Maryland, I'm totally open to hearing it.

I'll wait.

 

[Occam]

Transfer has been defined here many times. In reference to the law it means ownership, not moving from one place to another or one person to another. If I handed you my gun to use I did not transfer it to you.

And the law covers that. Gratuitous loaning to someone without an HQL isn't legal, even if it's not a transfer. Don't deflect by making it sound like I'm a fan of the law. I'm not being a fan, I'm pointing out the legal jeopardy. Some people have a lot at stake - personally, professionally - when it comes to something like that going sideways and the cop who's handling the situation is in a bad mood.

 

[daggo66]

And the law covers that. Gratuitous loaning to someone without an HQL isn't legal, even if it's not a transfer. Don't deflect by making it sound like I'm a fan of the law. I'm not being a fan, I'm pointing out the legal jeopardy. Some people have a lot at stake - personally, professionally - when it comes to something like that going sideways and the cop who's handling the situation is in a bad mood.

Loaning a firearm to someone without an HQL is not illegal.

 

[Occam]

Loaning a firearm to someone without an HQL is not illegal.

As mentioned above in the finding, the temporary loan of a handgun is fine, if the person taking possession of it is legally able to obtain a handgun. As we sit right now, do you or do you not need an HQL in order to obtain a handgun? Yes or no.

 

[daggo66]

You'll have to do better than that - highlighting it doesn't change the context, It simply points out the relevance of the statement as a whole by highlighting the operative parts of it.

(Example: I legally owned handguns prior to FSA2013, but it took an HQL, and then later my military ID, in order for me to obtain a handgun after the fact.)

If you specifically know of an official interpretation that runs contrary to the idea that an HQL or similar (LEO/military) is required to obtain a handgun in Maryland, I'm totally open to hearing it.

I'll wait.

It took the HQL to PURCHASE. Not “obtain.”

Actually the operative part of the statement is that which you did not highlight.


We find that the temporary gratuitous exchange or loan of a regulated handgun between two adult individuals, who are otherwise permitted to own and obtain a regulated handgun, does not constitute an illegal “transfer” of a firearm... ..."

DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ILLEGAL TRANSFER OF A FIREARM. I don’t know what could be more clear.

 

[trickg]

Loaning a firearm to someone without an HQL is not illegal.

It took the HQL to PURCHASE. Not “obtain.”

Actually the operative part of the statement is that which you did not highlight.


We find that the temporary gratuitous exchange or loan of a regulated handgun between two adult individuals, who are otherwise permitted to own and obtain a regulated handgun, does not constitute an illegal “transfer” of a firearm... ..."

DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ILLEGAL TRANSFER OF A FIREARM. I don’t know what could be more clear.

If you can quote the law that states this, great. I'm pretty sure you can't though. Part of why the HQL Mandate is in FSA2013 is to prevent that very thing. The only gray area you could possibly quote would be for someone who was already a handgun owner in good standing prior to FSA2013.

Let's say it's a 27 year old kid now, and they have never owned a handgun in Maryland, and they do not have an HQL. I would not lend a gun to that kid. In fact, I'm in that exact situation right now with my son.

If you can present me with some kind of documentation - a real quote from a real statute - that refutes the idea that it's a bad idea for me to loan him a handgun, I'm all ears. (or eyes - as the case may be.)

Please enlighten me as to how someone legally obtains a handgun in the state of Maryland (outside of an inheritance - that's an extenuating circumstance) where it doesn't have to be transferred and an HQL is not a necessary part of that.

 

[daggo66]

As mentioned above in the finding, the temporary loan of a handgun is fine, if the person taking possession of it is legally able to obtain a handgun. As we sit right now, do you or do you not need an HQL in order to obtain a handgun? Yes or no.

If you came to my house and I loaned you a gun and you took it to the range to shoot and then returned it to me would be perfectly legal if you don’t have an HQL. This assumes that I have no reason to believe you are a prohibited person. There is no law stating that you must first show me your HQL.

 

[daggo66]

If you can quote the law that states this, great. I'm pretty sure you can't though. Part of why the HQL Mandate is in FSA2013 is to prevent that very thing. The only gray area you could possibly quote would be for someone who was already a handgun owner in good standing prior to FSA2013.

Let's say it's a 27 year old kid now, and they have never owned a handgun in Maryland, and they do not have an HQL. I would not lend a gun to that kid. In fact, I'm in that exact situation right now with my son.

If you can present me with some kind of documentation - a real quote from a real statute - that refutes the idea that it's a bad idea for me to loan him a handgun, I'm all ears. (or eyes - as the case may be.)

Laws state what you can’t do. Laws also do not state what someone may think is a good or bad idea.

 

[trickg]

If you came to my house and I loaned you a gun and you took it to the range to shoot and then returned it to me would be perfectly legal if you don’t have an HQL. This assumes that I have no reason to believe you are a prohibited person. There is no law stating that you must first show me your HQL.

I don't think the law supports that assertion, and you have yet to quote me anything from a statute or law that would support it.

 

[trickg]

Laws state what you can’t do. Laws also do not state what someone may think is a good or bad idea.

Maybe I should define what I meant when I said "bad idea."

In this case bad idea=illegal.

Change my mind.

Again, I am not defending the HQL. I think it's stupid, but that is the law in Maryland and there's no getting around it.

 

[Occam]

If you came to my house and I loaned you a gun and you took it to the range to shoot and then returned it to me would be perfectly legal if you don’t have an HQL. This assumes that I have no reason to believe you are a prohibited person. There is no law stating that you must first show me your HQL.

Straw man. Nobody here has said that I have to produce my HQL to show you that I'm allowed to take possession before you can loan me a handgun. The point is that if I'm on my way to that range with your handgun in my possession and have some crazy unrelated police interaction, I'm fine ... unless I don't meet the standards of what's been quoted here multiple times: legally able to obtain a handgun. No HQL in Maryland (and we're not talking C&R FFLs, blah blah), not allowed to obtain a handgun. Not allowed to obtain a handgun? Right out of the language you keep cherry picking from and presenting completely out of context: not legal possession.

 

[daggo66]

Straw man. Nobody here has said that I have to produce my HQL to show you that I'm allowed to take possession before you can loan me a handgun. The point is that if I'm on my way to that range with your handgun in my possession and have some crazy unrelated police interaction, I'm fine ... unless I don't meet the standards of what's been quoted here multiple times: legally able to obtain a handgun. No HQL in Maryland (and we're not talking C&R FFLs, blah blah), not allowed to obtain a handgun. Not allowed to obtain a handgun? Right out of the language you keep cherry picking from and presenting completely out of context: not legal possession.

Not a “straw man”. You asked a question and I gave an example. Since it seems like you’re allowed to use examples and I’m not, I’ll use yours. You keep using the word “obtain”. The question would be if you legally “possessed” the handgun.


The word is “transfer” not “obtain”.

 

[Occam]

Not a “straw man”. You asked a question and I gave an example. Since it seems like you’re allowed to use examples and I’m not, I’ll use yours. You keep using the word “obtain”. The question would be if you legally “possessed” the handgun.


The word is “transfer” not “obtain”.

Oh, man. You're quoting from the legalese that has the word "obtain" IN THE SENTENCE YOU PARTIALLY QUOTE FROM!

One of the conditions of you being able to legally possess the loaned handgun is your existing condition of being legally allowed to OBTAIN a handgun in the first place. Which, in Maryland, right now, means having an HQL. I guess we're going to have to resort to graphical sentence diagram next.

 

[daggo66]

Maybe I should define what I meant when I said "bad idea."

In this case bad idea=illegal.

Change my mind.

Again, I am not defending the HQL. I think it's stupid, but that is the law in Maryland and there's no getting around it.

Not going to waste any more time. I really don’t care anymore. This state is lost and as I stated earlier “we” are our own worst enemy.

Asking me to find a law that says you are allowed to do something is simply ridiculous.

 

[trickg]

Not going to waste any more time. I really don’t care anymore. This state is lost and as I stated earlier “we” are our own worst enemy.

Asking me to find a law that says you are allowed to do something is simply ridiculous.

The law states the clearly defined prohibitions, and we've discussed that ad nauseum already. As defined by law, unless you have an HQL, you are prohibited from obtaining a handgun in Maryland. For the purposes of this discussion obtain=transfer - it doesn't get any more simple than that.

 

[daggo66]

Oh, man. You're quoting from the legalese that has the word "obtain" IN THE SENTENCE YOU PARTIALLY QUOTE FROM!

One of the conditions of you being able to legally possess the loaned handgun is your existing condition of being legally allowed to OBTAIN a handgun in the first place. Which, in Maryland, right now, means having an HQL. I guess we're going to have to resort to graphical sentence diagram next.

I can build a hand gun from a polymer 80 kit without an HQL. When it’s finished I have “obtained” a handgun legally without an HQL. I can legally possess this gun without an HQL. I can loan it without transferring it. Transferring it would require a serial number and an HQL on the part of the transferee.

Being able to “legally obtain” a handgun means the person isn’t prohibited. No one is suggesting loaning anything t a prohibited person.

 

[Occam]

I can build a hand gun from a polymer 80 kit without an HQL. When it’s finished I have “obtained” a handgun legally without an HQL. I can legally possess this gun without an HQL. I can loan it without transferring it. Transferring it would require a serial number and an HQL on the part of the transferee.

Being able to “legally obtain” a handgun means the person isn’t prohibited. No one is suggesting loaning anything t a prohibited person.

Moving the goal posts is a sure sign of knowing you've lost the argument you started. Did you really think this entire conversation was about home-made guns?

 

[Occam]

This isn't really necessary, now that the argument has been abandoned in favor of the special case of home-built guns.

As a separate topic: there is an important difference between obtaining a handgun (which implies the handgun exists, and you obtain it) and creating one.