Handgun background checks...

[PsyOps]

Why would this specific law require FFLs to release anything to anyone? That's what someone does when they sell you something, they give it to you, except to the extent they are prevented from doing so by special circumstances. This specific law isn't granting FFL's permission to release firearms, it is prohibiting them from doing so under specific circumstances (e.g. for a specific period of time)

You pay someone money, they give you the merchandise. Sometimes it's on order, so they have to wait until it comes in to give it to you. When it comes to regulated firearms, there's a special law that prohibits them from giving it to you for 7 days (or until a 'not disapproved' application is returned, whichever is shorter). That's all the law prevents (unless a disapproved application is returned within 7 days). After that, you return to the general nature of the ubiquitous merchant-consumer transaction. There's nothing prohibiting the FFL from giving you the merchandise you paid them for, so they should give it to you. They aren't doing anything wrong in giving it to you, even if it turns out later that the MSP disapproves the application (and actually, as the law is written, I don't think the MSP is allowed to disapprove an application after 7 days - if it's going to disapprove the application, it is required to inform the FFL within 7 days; not that the MSP feels bound by a plain reading of the law).

I won't go so far as to say someone could successfully sue an FFL to force them to release a firearm after 7 days, but they should be able to unless the FFL made it clear when the deal was made that they were going to wait however long it took to get a 'not disapproved' back. And I surely wouldn't suggest that people should sue their FFL's over this issue. I understand why FFL's might fear (improper) repercussions from the MSP and thus be overly cautious. But I will go so far as to say that I wouldn't do business with an FFL unless they assured me that they would release my firearm to me when they were allowed to - i.e. after 7 days. That's what I expect from people I buy stuff from. I pay them money, they give me the merchandise, unless there's some reason they can't (e.g. they had to special order it) or some reason I don't want it yet.

I’m not sure why you posted this to me. You are saying the same thing I’m saying, only with a lot more complicated words. I wasn’t implying they were doing anything wrong by handing out the firearm immediately after 7 days.

I do think you have it wrong about the MSP not being allowed to disapprove after 7 days. They are extremely backlogged for months and can’t even get to them within the 7 days. All you have to do is read this thread and see all the people that have had to wait for months for their FFL to release the gun because of the delay in background checks. I don’t know what provision was requiring them to hold firearm in wait of background checks, but that is what was happening, at every FFL up to a certain point (when this provision was released), and what IS still happening at many FFLs.

You can dispute that if you want, but it’s happening; the evidence is right in this thread. :shrug:

 

[Tilted]

I’m not sure why you posted this to me. You are saying the same thing I’m saying, only with a lot more complicated words. I wasn’t implying they were doing anything wrong by handing out the firearm immediately after 7 days.

I was responding to your point about the law (i.e. this specific law) not requiring an FFL to release anything to anyone. Of course it doesn't, it just prohibits them from doing so for a period of time. After that, a seller's obligation to turnover purchased merchandise stems from the basic nature of a buyer-seller transaction and/or the common law principles associated with such transactions.

You assert that they aren't required to release a firearm if they feel it might be more counterproductive to do so. Well, I suppose you can argue that but it kind of flies in the face of the nature of buyer-seller transactions. Someone selling something kind of does have to turn it over to the person buying it once they've been paid for it and unless there's some legitimate reason why they can't or shouldn't. As I suggested in the previous post, perhaps a buyer couldn't make a strong enough legal case that an FFL must turn over the firearm once it is no longer prohibited from doing so (and there's no other legitimate reason why it can't), but it's certainly the right thing to do for the FFL to turn it over once it has no real reason not to. That's what happens when you sell things, you give them to the buyer. There doesn't need to be a specific law telling a seller that.

Not only is it not wrong for an FFL to release a firearm after the 7 days is up, it's wrong for them not to. I get the fear-of-overstepping/abusive government dynamic that might make them reluctant to release firearms when they should, but it's still wrong of them to refuse to do so. They chose the business; if they don't want to stand up to the possibility of improper government behavior, perhaps they should get out of the business - or, at least, not engage in this aspect of it. They shouldn't expect customers to pay the bill (in the form of time) for their insecurity and indulgence of superfluous caution.

I do think you have it wrong about the MSP not being allowed to disapprove after 7 days. They are extremely backlogged for months and can’t even get to them within the 7 days. All you have to do is read this thread and see all the people that have had to wait for months for their FFL to release the gun because of the delay in background checks. I don’t know what provision was requiring them to hold firearm in wait of background checks, but that is what was happening, at every FFL up to a certain point (when this provision was released), and what IS still happening at many FFLs.

You can dispute that if you want, but it’s happening; the evidence is right in this thread. :shrug:

I didn't dispute, and I'm not disputing, that that's happening. My parenthetical suggested that I didn't think the MSP felt that it was bound to enforce the law as written.

My comment was about what the law itself seems to require. Do you disagree on that point - that the law, as written, would seem to require the MSP to notify an FFL within 7 days if it is going to disapprove an application?

 

[PsyOps]

I didn't dispute, and I'm not disputing, that that's happening. My parenthetical suggested that I didn't think the MSP felt that it was bound to enforce the law as written.

My comment was about what the law itself seems to require. Do you disagree on that point - that the law, as written, would seem to require the MSP to notify an FFL within 7 days if it is going to disapprove an application?

I don’t know if there is some sort of amendment to the law or other executive order that initially bound FFLs to hold firearms because of the massive delays. Just from a logical standpoint, how can the MSP notify the FFL within 7 days of any background check when they haven’t had the opportunity to look at it yet? What explains all these cases we’re reading about in this thread of FFLs holding guns for weeks/months? With the backlog, if folks are getting their guns on day 8, it’s my thought FFLs are releasing those guns to people that the MSP hadn’t even seen their background check yet? Is that in compliance with the law?

 

[DEEKAYPEE8569]

Why would this specific law require FFLs to release anything to anyone? That's what someone does when they sell you something, they give it to you, except to the extent they are prevented from doing so by special circumstances. This specific law isn't granting FFL's permission to release firearms, it is prohibiting them from doing so under specific circumstances (e.g. for a specific period of time)

You pay someone money, they give you the merchandise. Sometimes it's on order, so they have to wait until it comes in to give it to you. When it comes to regulated firearms, there's a special law that prohibits them from giving it to you for 7 days (or until a 'not disapproved' application is returned, whichever is shorter). That's all the law prevents (unless a disapproved application is returned within 7 days). After that, you return to the general nature of the ubiquitous merchant-consumer transaction. There's nothing prohibiting the FFL from giving you the merchandise you paid them for, so they should give it to you. They aren't doing anything wrong in giving it to you, even if it turns out later that the MSP disapproves the application (and actually, as the law is written, I don't think the MSP is allowed to disapprove an application after 7 days - if it's going to disapprove the application, it is required to inform the FFL within 7 days; not that the MSP feels bound by a plain reading of the law).

I won't go so far as to say someone could successfully sue an FFL to force them to release a firearm after 7 days, but they should be able to unless the FFL made it clear when the deal was made that they were going to wait however long it took to get a 'not disapproved' back. And I surely wouldn't suggest that people should sue their FFL's over this issue. I understand why FFL's might fear (improper) repercussions from the MSP and thus be overly cautious. But I will go so far as to say that I wouldn't do business with an FFL unless they assured me that they would release my firearm to me when they were allowed to - i.e. after 7 days. That's what I expect from people I buy stuff from. I pay them money, they give me the merchandise, unless there's some reason they can't (e.g. they had to special order it) or some reason I don't want it yet.

Your second paragraph.....It's good to be a LEO. I say that because, as I was told by a friend of mine; a county P.O.; "I can go into any gun store, buy anything I want and walk out with it the same day."

 

[Midnightrider]

I don’t know if there is some sort of amendment to the law or other executive order that initially bound FFLs to hold firearms because of the massive delays. Just from a logical standpoint, how can the MSP notify the FFL within 7 days of any background check when they haven’t had the opportunity to look at it yet? What explains all these cases we’re reading about in this thread of FFLs holding guns for weeks/months? With the backlog, if folks are getting their guns on day 8, it’s my thought FFLs are releasing those guns to people that the MSP hadn’t even seen their background check yet? Is that in compliance with the law?

no ammendments, just coercion from the MSP. talk about an overstepping government......

As for background checks, the MSP runs the NICS immediately upon recieving the applications. generally if you pass that, you pass. The state police then run all the other state mandated checks.

 

[PsyOps]

no ammendments, just coercion from the MSP. talk about an overstepping government......

As for background checks, the MSP runs the NICS immediately upon recieving the applications. generally if you pass that, you pass. The state police then run all the other state mandated checks.

And you know this how? Do you work for the MSP? I have friends that do and they tell me they are backlogged for months. Requests are coming in so fast they can't keep up and don't get to them for over several weeks.

Now how does this translate into the FFLs - all over MD (as you have read in this thread) - refusing to release firearms on day 8 because of BCs? Are you telling me they are all being intimidated by the MSP and the MSP is getting away with overstepping the bounds of the law? IF FFLs are REQUIRED to release after 7 days, as long as nothing comes back, why aren’t they? Certainly the MSP can’t waltz into every FFL and start arresting them for fallaciously handing out firearms, if the FFLs are staying within the bounds of the law. How the MSP would even know the FFL has released the firearm? Something was telling them to hold them.

 

[Tilted]

I don’t know if there is some sort of amendment to the law or other executive order that initially bound FFLs to hold firearms because of the massive delays. Just from a logical standpoint, how can the MSP notify the FFL within 7 days of any background check when they haven’t had the opportunity to look at it yet? What explains all these cases we’re reading about in this thread of FFLs holding guns for weeks/months? With the backlog, if folks are getting their guns on day 8, it’s my thought FFLs are releasing those guns to people that the MSP hadn’t even seen their background check yet? Is that in compliance with the law?

I think it's just a case of the MSP not complying with the law as written because it doesn't think it can (e.g. because it hasn't been given enough resources or the system it's set up isn't particularly efficient and, this being a government bureaucracy rather than a private business, there isn't enough incentive to make it more efficient or devote more resources to it). I suspect that the MSP just thinks it doesn't have to comply with the law as written because, well, it doesn't think it's able to. So it just pretends that what it's doing (i.e disapproving an application after the time limit) is okay. It may even have an outside opinion (e.g. from the state AG) that that is okay.

It is what it is and it will likely continue as such. Entities in power do what they do, and they often get away with it even when they shouldn't - even when the law would seem to require otherwise. The reality that the MSP can't get the checks done quick enough doesn't change what the requirements of the law are. As the law is written, if the MSP can't return a disapproved within the time limit, it would seem to lose its right to return a disapproved. (That's based on my recollection of how the law reads, I haven't looked at it in a while.) Just because someone can't do what they're directed to do in accordance with the law, that doesn't automatically give them the rightful authority to do it in violation of the law.

 

[Shaolin_Raptor]

Your second paragraph.....It's good to be a LEO. I say that because, as I was told by a friend of mine; a county P.O.; "I can go into any gun store, buy anything I want and walk out with it the same day."

No he can't.

 

[PsyOps]

I think it's just a case of the MSP not complying with the law as written because it doesn't think it can (e.g. because it hasn't been given enough resources or the system it's set up isn't particularly efficient and, this being a government bureaucracy rather than a private business, there isn't enough incentive to make it more efficient or devote more resources to it). I suspect that the MSP just thinks it doesn't have to comply with the law as written because, well, it doesn't think it's able to. So it just pretends that what it's doing (i.e disapproving an application after the time limit) is okay. It may even have an outside opinion (e.g. from the state AG) that that is okay.

It is what it is and it will likely continue as such. Entities in power do what they do, and they often get away with it even when they shouldn't - even when the law would seem to require otherwise. The reality that the MSP can't get the checks done quick enough doesn't change what the requirements of the law are. As the law is written, if the MSP can't return a disapproved within the time limit, it would seem to lose its right to return a disapproved. (That's based on my recollection of how the law reads, I haven't looked at it in a while.) Just because someone can't do what they're directed to do in accordance with the law, that doesn't automatically give them the rightful authority to do it in violation of the law.

I think this whole thing comes to an end Oct 1; or sometime thereafter when they’ve caught with the influx of requests. But you and Midnight are in the same boat thinking the MSP is somehow coercing FFLs to hold firearms beyond the authority of the law. First of all, how do I, waiting for my gun, go into my FFL and tell them they are in violation of the law by not releasing it on day 8? Again, who is really telling them they must do this? I’ve gotten the word from a few sources that have told me that the MSP aren’t even getting to see requests within the 7 days; not even within several months. Are we being lied to? Why would they need to lie to us about this? I’d think they’d want them out of their hair. Is there really some higher authority dictating this? Does the MSP really even keep track of what’s been released and what hasn’t? If they have, then do they have the authority to round up FFLs and start arresting them for abiding by the law? Your and Midnight only explain what the law is; you don’t explain by what authority the MSP and FFLs are doing this. Claiming the MSP are violating the law, there would have to be tons of lawsuits all over MD. There are too many gun advocates educated in the law to let something like this go.

 

[Tilted]

I think this whole thing comes to an end Oct 1; or sometime thereafter when they’ve caught with the influx of requests. But you and Midnight are in the same boat thinking the MSP is somehow coercing FFLs to hold firearms beyond the authority of the law. First of all, how do I, waiting for my gun, go into my FFL and tell them they are in violation of the law by not releasing it on day 8? Again, who is really telling them they must do this? I’ve gotten the word from a few sources that have told me that the MSP aren’t even getting to see requests within the 7 days; not even within several months. Are we being lied to? Why would they need to lie to us about this? I’d think they’d want them out of their hair. Is there really some higher authority dictating this? Does the MSP really even keep track of what’s been released and what hasn’t? If they have, then do they have the authority to round up FFLs and start arresting them for abiding by the law? Your and Midnight only explain what the law is; you don’t explain by what authority the MSP and FFLs are doing this. Claiming the MSP are violating the law, there would have to be tons of lawsuits all over MD. There are too many gun advocates educated in the law to let something like this go.

I don't think the MSP (or, at least, I wouldn't assert that the MSP) is actively coercing FFLs to not release firearms. I think it's just a product of the general regulatory environment and the nature of the authority that various parts of government have over FFLs. I think FFLs are generally fearful of incurring the wrath of government powers that have regulatory authority over them, so some of them are overly cautious in a way that harms their customers.

As for what you can do about getting a firearm released, as a practical matter that's something you would probably need to have addressed before you decided which FFL to do business with. You (or whoever we'd be talking about) are probably out of luck at this point. In theory you could file suit and ask that the person who sold you something (or provided a service to you) release to you the merchandise that you paid for, because there's no legitimate reason for them not to. I wouldn't suggest that however; it's probably not worth the effort, it likely wouldn't be successful (at least not timely enough), and for my part I wouldn't want to be the kind of person who sues over every little thing I'm not happy about.

I think there was a lawsuit, btw, regarding the MSP not returning applications in a timely manner. I'm not sure what happened with that, it may no longer be an issue as the MSP made statements to the effect that FFLs could release firearms after the 7-day time limit. As for everyone suing over such things, I think most people understand that it's probably not worth the effort over every little thing, understand that their chances of success (even if they're right) aren't necessarily good, and understand that often the government just gets away with doing things improperly.

All that said, and this is the only thing that's important in so far as my initial point (a parenthetical one as it was) went, do you disagree with my reading of the law? Does it not seem to require the MSP to return disapproved applications within 7 days? If the MSP can't do that, then it can't do that - it isn't supposed to return applications as disapproved then. I understand that it may be doing so anyway, I understood that when I made my initial point. But the point still stands, the law says what it says.


Oh, and we've gone on about this one (not particularly important to me) specific point for far too long at this point.

 

[Midnightrider]

I think this whole thing comes to an end Oct 1; or sometime thereafter when they’ve caught with the influx of requests. But you and Midnight are in the same boat thinking the MSP is somehow coercing FFLs to hold firearms beyond the authority of the law. First of all, how do I, waiting for my gun, go into my FFL and tell them they are in violation of the law by not releasing it on day 8? Again, who is really telling them they must do this? I’ve gotten the word from a few sources that have told me that the MSP aren’t even getting to see requests within the 7 days; not even within several months. Are we being lied to? Why would they need to lie to us about this? I’d think they’d want them out of their hair. Is there really some higher authority dictating this? Does the MSP really even keep track of what’s been released and what hasn’t? If they have, then do they have the authority to round up FFLs and start arresting them for abiding by the law? Your and Midnight only explain what the law is; you don’t explain by what authority the MSP and FFLs are doing this. Claiming the MSP are violating the law, there would have to be tons of lawsuits all over MD. There are too many gun advocates educated in the law to let something like this go.

go over to MDshooters and educate yourself. There was a lawsuit and the MSP settled. There were also several faxes and letters that the MSP put out that coereced FFLs. After the lawsuit there has been nothing but "FFLs can release on day 8 and will not be help liable for BCs not completed in that time frame."


The law is the law. It only gives the MSP limited authority over this and only puts limited restrictions on an FFls ability to release on the 8th day.

No one is saying it is illegal for an FFl to wait for the ND to come back from the MSP, only that the law does not require them to. If you choose an FFL that holds past day 8, thats on you, there are literally hundreds of FFLs in MD who are releasing on time. Again there is a thread on MDshooters on the subject, plenty of info is out there.

 

[Shaolin_Raptor]

FFL's are NOT being coerced into not giving out after 8 days. A responsible FFL will not be giving the weapon to someone that they have reason to believe will not pass the background check. SOME FFLS's will not give out after 8 days for fear and ignorance. The MSP has given written instructions to FFL's on how to handle 8 day releases. The 8 day release is actually taking a considerable amount of weight off the MSP's shoulders.

Thats it. Simple.

 

[Midnightrider]

FFL's are NOT being coerced into not giving out after 8 days. A responsible FFL will not be giving the weapon to someone that they have reason to believe will not pass the background check. SOME FFLS's will not give out after 8 days for fear and ignorance. The MSP has given written instructions to FFL's on how to handle 8 day releases. The 8 day release is actually taking a considerable amount of weight off the MSP's shoulders.

Thats it. Simple.

anymore.....

 

[PsyOps]

FFL's are NOT being coerced into not giving out after 8 days. A responsible FFL will not be giving the weapon to someone that they have reason to believe will not pass the background check.

I’m not buying this either. Just a couple of months prior to me buying my AR, my FFL released my handgun to me, so I already went through the ringer once. Another factor I was told comes into play is being active duty or retired military, as well as having a security clearance. So, in my case there was absolutely no reason for them to believe I wouldn’t pass my BC. They held my AR for over 100 days, even after calling them several times prior to that.

 

[Shaolin_Raptor]

Midnight, it is not anymore. Prior to them saying it was ok, it was not ok. After they said it was ok, it was ok. Ok?

Psy, that is not always the case. Sadly a clearance and prior military or LEO will not get a cut in line. I looked into that as well.

 

[PsyOps]

I don't think the MSP (or, at least, I wouldn't assert that the MSP) is actively coercing FFLs to not release firearms. I think it's just a product of the general regulatory environment and the nature of the authority that various parts of government have over FFLs. I think FFLs are generally fearful of incurring the wrath of government powers that have regulatory authority over them, so some of them are overly cautious in a way that harms their customers.

Now this I’ll agree with. Someone in authority is pulling the strings.

As for what you can do about getting a firearm released, as a practical matter that's something you would probably need to have addressed before you decided which FFL to do business with. You (or whoever we'd be talking about) are probably out of luck at this point. In theory you could file suit and ask that the person who sold you something (or provided a service to you) release to you the merchandise that you paid for, because there's no legitimate reason for them not to. I wouldn't suggest that however; it's probably not worth the effort, it likely wouldn't be successful (at least not timely enough), and for my part I wouldn't want to be the kind of person who sues over every little thing I'm not happy about.

Midnight has pointed this out. My problem was, I had already purchased my AR and selected my FFL by the time this advisory came out. I contacted my FFL as soon as I found out about it and, considering the advisory leaves discretion up to the FFL whether to release, my FFL decided not to release to me. They didn’t give a reason except to say they were reluctant to start the trend for fear they would have to recall firearms in large numbers, which creates an administrative mess for them. I’m thinking because they are a firearms and security services provider and training grounds for virtually all the local police they didn’t want to hand my gun to me if a MSP officer happened to be in the shop. But they eventually released it to me and I’m good to go. I have pretty much everything I want. I’m not the suing part; but the NRA is, and I’m surprised they haven’t stepped in on this one.

 

[Shaolin_Raptor]

I’m not buying this either. Just a couple of months prior to me buying my AR, my FFL released my handgun to me, so I already went through the ringer once. Another factor I was told comes into play is being active duty or retired military, as well as having a security clearance. So, in my case there was absolutely no reason for them to believe I wouldn’t pass my BC. They held my AR for over 100 days, even after calling them several times prior to that.

For clarification, I bought 2 pistols, then 2 more, then an ar, then a lower. I will still need a bgc for all of them like I never have made a purchase before. Prior purchases weigh in on DC permits, but for the bgc everyone is treated like a new person.

 

[PsyOps]

For clarification, I bought 2 pistols, then 2 more, then an ar, then a lower. I will still need a bgc for all of them like I never have made a purchase before. Prior purchases weigh in on DC permits, but for the bgc everyone is treated like a new person.

I completely understand each controlled firearm requires its own BC. But, when discretion is given to the FFL to release after 8 days, and it’s been 75, 80, 100 days, and you’ve had nothing come back rejecting it, and you’ve had a prior BC done, I think they acted a little rash. With this sort of discretion they should consider prior records, as well as other factors they already know about me.

 

[PsyOps]

Psy, that is not always the case. Sadly a clearance and prior military or LEO will not get a cut in line. I looked into that as well.

If we’re talking 75 days, there is no cut in line. The advisory from the MSP gave FFLs discretion; which means they can handle each case as they see fit. Exercise of discretion means they can consider things like prior BCs and security clearance. My FFL even made mention of my clearance as a plus when I picked up my pistol, stating that if you can get a TS you can certainly pass the BC. I’m not implying there is anything in the law giving special consideration to people with clearances; I’m strictly sticking to where they’ve been given the flexibility to exercise ‘discretion’.

 

[Midnightrider]

Midnight, it is not anymore. Prior to them saying it was ok, it was not ok. After they said it was ok, it was ok. Ok?

Psy, that is not always the case. Sadly a clearance and prior military or LEO will not get a cut in line. I looked into that as well.

It was actually OK the entire time. I got several guns on 8th day release prior to the MSP telling dealers they shouldn't release them. Once the MSP put out the clairifcation that it was a dealers perogative a lot more dealers jumped on the release band wagon.