WARNING! FIREARM PURCHASE WITHOUT HQL AFTER OCT. 1st VIOLATES THE LAW

[EHS1976]

No, not one bit.

If that was their real intent, they could have written it in the law, similar to what they did for rifles. The fact that they (general assembly) did one and not the other is not to be disregarded.

More importantly, just because the MSP says they won't enforce it, does not mean it is not a crime.

Quite the opposite...

It was never the legislature's intent to grandfather handguns purchased before 10/1 but picked up after 9/30. See the following thread which references a failed amendment: http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=123920.

 

[Vile Shadow]

Seems to me, since the current form (77r) has nothing on it regarding HQL's, that any firearms papered on the current forms shouldn't need the HQL for pickup.

The new forms, which do contain HQL info, wouldn't start to be used until Oct. 1.

 

[Alan3413]

Darn! Just when I thought I could squeeze another purchase in.

 

[Wiley]

"Just because you're paranoid doe not mean they are not out to get you." Joseph Heller, Catch 22. Sound familiar!

 

[a1Fitz]

Just in case, what kind of cake would you like us to bake a file into?

Lol, sorry but it is just a great response!

 

[pilotguy299]

Whether or not the MSP will enforce this or not; or whether or not a State's Attorney would prosecute; or whether any sort of political/public/media fallout happens is irrelevant.

The only thing that matters is whether or not you have the personal integrity to follow the law, despite the fact that the government says they will turn a blind eye.

 

[a1Fitz]

I am always amazed at how quickly people confuse inability with ill will. MSP can't handle the workload because they were given an impossible task. So, they say they are refusing to enforce the law, and saying it publicly. This isn't a trap, they just are trying to give themselves a little breathing room. I have spoken personally with almost every trooper in the leadership of the lic division. Trust me, there are no black helicopters and they are only interested in doing their jobs.

I agree I've never gotten the impression that MSP is anti gun ownership.

 

[TxAggie]

My $.02:

I think they (the administration, MSP and the AG collectively) realized how exposed they are after Monday's hearing. They tried a knee jerk reaction first to try and postpone/reduce the lawsuit they now fully expect to be filed next Tuesday. They then pulled the statement and have gone radio silent since, which tells me they are waiting for our next move. I think AGC just did a LOT of people a big favor. I don't think "entrapment" was the intent, but I do think they realized they just set a big trap for anyone willing for a bit of cheese.

 

[pilotguy299]

It was never the legislature's intent to grandfather handguns purchased before 10/1 but picked up after 9/30. See the following thread which references a failed amendment: http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=123920.

Great catch!

This supports that it was not their intent.

 

[Boom Boom]

It was never the legislature's intent to grandfather handguns purchased before 10/1 but picked up after 9/30. See the following thread which references a failed amendment: http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=123920.

Live fire was not intended for the HQL. It was struck from SB281 but just got added back (illegally) as a regulation. The frosh is getting deep.

I think AGC just did a LOT of people a big favor. I don't think "entrapment" was the intent, but I do think they realized they just set a big trap for anyone willing for a bit of cheese.

Agreed. I very much appreciate AGC's advice and plan to follow it. The risks are way too high for the sake of a handgun purchase now. Might as well just wait for an injunction and/or apply for the HQL. We can pursue immediate relief from the courts if/when it becomes clear that MSP is not sending out HQLs within 30 days.

 

[16tons]

I did not read every page so forgive me. This is why I do not trust the government. They tell us it is OK to break the law and can change their minds after they say it is OK. I have seen it before and it sounds like a police set up to me.

 

[EHS1976]

Live fire was not intended for the HQL. It was struck from SB281 but just got added back (illegally) as a regulation. The frosh is getting deep.

In my opinion, there is a distinction. The legislature did not forbid the MSP from inserting a live fire requirement into the regulations. The legislature forbid the receipt of a handgun after September 30 by defeating the amendment I referenced. Typically, if something is not forbidden, it is permitted. Therefore, the MSP has latitude to require live fire. The courts may have a different opinion, however.

There are many agencies that promulgate regulations that go above and beyond the enabling statute. This happens all the time. I've been saying it for a bit, but go read up on "The Rise of the Fourth Branch" by Jonathan Turley. Administrative agencies have immense power and can be considered a "fourth branch" of government.

Don't take my explanation above as defending any of this.

 

[rseymorejr]

Regardless of any intentions, anyone who goes through with this has broken the law and signed and dated all the evidence that the state would need to prosecute them. If they decided to prosecute it would be like shooting fish in a barrel

 

[Boom Boom]

I did not read every page so forgive me. This is why I do not trust the government. They tell us it is OK to break the law and can change their minds after they say it is OK. I have seen it before and it sounds like a police set up to me.

In which case you could sue MSP and the AG in civil court for major moolah. You only need to prove it's more likely than not that they violated your enumerated fundamental civil rights. It's a goal well within reach for a good lawyer.

 

[daggo66]

Seems to me, since the current form (77r) has nothing on it regarding HQL's, that any firearms papered on the current forms shouldn't need the HQL for pickup.

The new forms, which do contain HQL info, wouldn't start to be used until Oct. 1.

 

[JettaRed]

I really don't think it's a trap, unless they are really, really stupid, which I don't think they are. The elected ones may be arrogant and overconfident, riding on the coattails of an Obama reelection and believing that it was a referendum that they could do whatever the hell they wanted, but no one going through law school would be so stupid to use this tactic to trap someone.

Entrapment comes to mind and one could make a clear case for it. Entrapment is conduct by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit. So, the Advisory is the conduct that induces someone to unwittingly break the law. I doubt it would make it to the court--it would be so embarrassing for a prosecutor to try to try such a case.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

In my opinion, there is a distinction. The legislature did not forbid the MSP from inserting a live fire requirement into the regulations. The legislature forbid the receipt of a handgun after September 30 by defeating the amendment I referenced. Typically, if something is not forbidden, it is permitted. Therefore, the MSP has latitude to require live fire. The courts may have a different opinion, however.

There are many agencies that promulgate regulations that go above and beyond the enabling statute. This happens all the time. I've been saying it for a bit, but go read up on "The Rise of the Fourth Branch" by Jonathan Turley. Administrative agencies have immense power and can be considered a "fourth branch" of government.

Don't take my explanation above as defending any of this.

Yes they did. There was an amendment to the bill to remove the live fire by using a different term. mcDermott fought tooth and nail for that.

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

I really don't think it's a trap, unless they are really, really stupid, which I don't think they are. The elected ones may be arrogant and overconfident, riding on the coattails of an Obama reelection and believing that it was a referendum that they could do whatever the hell they wanted, but no one going through law school would be so stupid to use this tactic to trap someone.

Entrapment comes to mind and one could make a clear case for it. Entrapment is conduct by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit. So, the Advisory is the conduct that induces someone to unwittingly break the law.

They did not explicitly instruct buyers to break the law. They sent the advisory to FFL's. Seemed strange at the time.

I have always assumed they would issue an addendum to apps for transfers of span purchases.

 

[Mark75H]

I really don't think it's a trap, unless they are really, really stupid, which I don't think they are. The elected ones may be arrogant and overconfident, riding on the coattails of an Obama reelection and believing that it was a referendum that they could do whatever the hell they wanted, but no one going through law school would be so stupid to use this tactic to trap someone.

Entrapment comes to mind and one could make a clear case for it. Entrapment is conduct by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit. So, the Advisory is the conduct that induces someone to unwittingly break the law. I doubt it would make it to the court--it would be so embarrassing for a prosecutor to try to try such a case.

Its not an intentional trap ... its their legal out to claim they are not stopping anyone from picking up next week and being sued on those grounds. (They will still be sued on other grounds, but not on that.) Its the most intelligent thing to come out of MSP in months ... must have come from an outside consultant.

 

[clandestine]

I don't believe its a Trap. I think people are too wound up over SB281 and are getting kooky.

If I am wrong Ill admit it.