Victory in MSI HQL suit

[RoKKboXXer]

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

Thanks, I was curious after reading an article where the NRA was touting the victory with no accolades to Msi. The narrative was made to seem that the NRA was solely responsible.

 

[Alutacon]

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?

Calendar

 

[Uncle Duke]

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. "

It is no small feat to keep up with the volumes of crap generated annually by the MGA. Enjoy the comparative lull, because the circus will be back in town here shortly.

 

[Occam]

Yeah, no.

I’m truly curious why you think NY allowed it to get that far, then.

 

[Boxcab]

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. "

Nah, I've heard worse from experts behind the counter at gun shops and firing ranges. This is why everyone needs to know about MSI and its repository of GOOD information. Let's encourage these people to use the MSI resources and become a member. It's important to get the truth and facts out there.


.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

 

[swinokur]

In the Federal Court System, the are only calendar days

 

[GBMaryland]

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

Actually, I put a Beretta 1301 aside for her to use... Which is a better weapon for home defense for her, but the what if was always a concern.

Anyway, back on topic.

 

[scottyfz6]

Actually, I put a Beretta 1301 aside for her to use... Which is a better weapon for home defense for her, but the what if was always a concern.

Anyway, back on topic.

I disagree a semi auto shotgun is better for her to use. but that is a discussion for another day.

Again as was said the the hql rule only covers the purchase and/or permanent transfer of a regulated firearm.

 

[RFBfromDE]

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

I will continue to do so, simply to keep grimey mitts off my stuff!

 

[rickyp]

I would have thought the state would have already filed the appeal by now I am hoping the state will not file as if this goes any higher it will affect the entire county then.

 

[Boxcab]

It takes time to write an appeal. One must iterate why an appeal is warranted and why you are likely to prevail. 2 weeks is not very much time to write such.


.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

 

[Apd09]

It takes time to write an appeal. One must iterate why an appeal is warranted and why you are likely to prevail. 2 weeks is not very much time to write such.


.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

Based on the way around the country some opinions or decisions are written “because we want it” would seem to be all that is needed from the state.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mac1_131]

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?

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.

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.

Etc…

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

MSP will have to modify the online 77R to no longer require it, just like they did with the W&C permit. I suspect it will still be there and become voluntary that way they can switch it right back on if things change in the future. Simple business rule change to the web form flow.

 

[rickyp]

I would suspect that md has something sneaky up their sleeve. Like drop the hql but now require a maryland w&C permit to be able to purchase a regulated gun. The w&c permit does the exact same thing as the hql but gives the holder permission to carry .

 

[Apd09]

I would suspect that md has something sneaky up their sleeve. Like drop the hql but now require a maryland w&C permit to be able to purchase a regulated gun. The w&c permit does the exact same thing as the hql but gives the holder permission to carry .

That would be struck down immediately as the opinion says you can’t require a permit to purchase. It wouldn’t be like Bruen and sensitive places.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[fredthe]

I would suspect that md has something sneaky up their sleeve. Like drop the hql but now require a maryland w&C permit to be able to purchase a regulated gun. The w&c permit does the exact same thing as the hql but gives the holder permission to carry .

That is functionally the same as HQL (requiring some sort of licence to purchase) so I would expect that to get thrown out if it even got that far.

What does worry me is that they will say: we don't have prints from the HQL, now we need it for every 77R. Or 77R takes 30 days.

 

[rickyp]

That would be struck down immediately as the opinion says you can’t require a permit to purchase. It wouldn’t be like Bruen and sensitive places.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

they would just change the wording around, do you think md would care because it would take time to work it its way back trough the courts

 

[fredthe]

they would just change the wording around, do you think md would care because it would take time to work it its way back trough the courts

Doesn't matter, it would likely result in an almost immediate and permanent injunction so would never take effect.
IANAL, YMMV, etc.

 

[Apd09]

they would just change the wording around, do you think md would care because it would take time to work it its way back trough the courts

They couldn’t change wording that required anything prior to purchase. That’s the entire lawsuit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[emerald]

I think the issue of the HQL and defense regarding transfer was a gray area. Post #199 in this thread references testimony regarding this. Sounds like the State would not commit to no prosecution in that scenario:

Victory in MSI HQL suit

... Is the NRA the NRA again? Did Mr $4000 suits resign?

www.mdshooters.com

I'm always proud of my wife, but even more so tonight in light of today's ruling.

My wife is one of the HQL plaintiffs. At issue during her deposition was would she be prosecuted if she used one of my handguns to defend herself should someone break into our house while I was not there? Is that an illegal transfer?

The Assistant State Attorney for MD showed her an opinion letter from the MD Chief of Police stating that a spouse would not be charged in those situations. He then asked her if she still felt she might be charged?

Knowing that an opinion is just that, an opinion with no force of law, and that the law is what it says it is and not what anyone else's opinions are on the matter, she answered "Yes!"

At that point the attorney representing MSI et al (Cary Hansel) spoke up and asked the ASA if he would "stipulate" that she would not be charged. "Noooo" he answered, waving his hands in defense.

And thus our side has, on the record, The Crown refusing to stipulate that spouses would not be charged for the "crime" of self defense, in the home, without individually possessing an HQL.