Elk Neck arrest for "transfer" of high capacity magazine: Fact or Fiction?

[NateTheShake]

Hey guys, it has been a while since I've really posted here. I've had a lot of stuff going on with work/military/personal so "free" time hasn't really existed. That being said I wanted to check here as I could not find anything other than an empty ARFCOM thread about a disturbing story I heard today.

So I was calling a local gun shop about doing a handgun transfer for Glock-A-Day (won this year) and see about the specific details of what I needed to do to get my HQL. During the course of the conversation the subject of "MD gun laws" sparked the employee into telling me that "three people were arrested at Elk Neck for 'transferring' high capacity magazines by letting someone other than the owner shoot a firearm with a magazine over ten rounds and they will be going to jail for three years." Sounds fishy to me, which I told the employee. Then I tried searching Google, MDS, and ARFCOM for any info and came up with very little.

So other than third party scare stories is this a real thing? Did law enforcement interpret "transfer" to mean even temporarily letting another person use a weapon with a magazine in excess of ten rounds and then arrest someone for doing so?

It certainly sounded like your typical gun store lore, but I wanted to see if anyone else had heard about this and could confirm or deny.

Nate

 

[PMD354]

I don't know anything about this, but I will be following the thread to ensure that if it is true I will be very careful when going to the range.

 

[ground chuck]

Doesn't pass the eyeball test. 3 years for shooting someone else's rifle seems rather ridonkulous.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

They just got confused about the idiots that load magazines, chamber rounds, and handle firearms while people are down range and the even bigger idiots who muzzle sweep people with loaded firearms while people are not down range.

Reading is not fundamental in Rising Sun/Elk Neck.

 

[Robert1955]

I am calling BS on this story. Letting someone shoot your pistol or rifle with a legal to own 17 or 30 round mag is not transferring the firearm to them. Otherwise you would need your HQL to rent a gun to shoot at a range.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

Renting 10 round firearms at a private range and handing someone a 30 round magazine at a public range is mixing apples and oranges.

It's a fine line, but handing someone a 30 rounder is transferring a 30 rounder.

I don't agree with it, but it is what it is.

 

[NateTheShake]

Doesn't pass the eyeball test. 3 years for shooting someone else's rifle seems rather ridonkulous.

Exactly what I said. In fact my immediate response was "so they have been arrested, charged, tried, and are now serving three years just for loaning a magazine at a range?"

I have very limited patience for the fear-mongering gun shop lore, far less than I used to. When I hear stuff like this it sets off my ******** alarm pretty quick. Furthermore this was a phone call to a gun shop to whom I was trying to give my business. That's worse than standing in the shop having a "I hate Maryland politics" conversation.

We, as the gun-owning community, need to do our best not only to stay on top of the laws and attempted infringements on our rights, but also to stop self-regulation and third-party-stories. We are just as bad as the people trying to take our rights when we spread lies and disinformation to each other.

 

[NateTheShake]

It's a fine line, but handing someone a 30 rounder is transferring a 30 rounder.

I don't agree with it, but it is what it is.

Is it? Is there a precedence set that handing someone a magazine for temporary use can be interpreted the same way as giving someone a magazine as a permanent transfer of ownership?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but that sounds to me like a very questionable interpretation of the law and one I would not expect to hold up in court if so charged.

 

[Name Taken]

Isn't there an appeal case saying you can "loan" a firearm (the loan was for months if not years) and that did not count as a "transfer" in regards to the firearm.

While firearm and magazine is apple to oranges I'd think the state would have a hard time proving "transfer of a magazine" via borrowing it at the range when the courts have ruled a loan isn't a transfer of the actual gun.

But you never know I guess.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

Is it? Is there a precedence set that handing someone a magazine for temporary use can be interpreted the same way as giving someone a magazine as a permanent transfer of ownership?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but that sounds to me like a very questionable interpretation of the law and one I would not expect to hold up in court if so charged.

The horse dun ben beated on this subject in other threads.

Not doing it here too.

trans·fer [v. trans-fur, trans-fer; n., adj. trans-fer] Show IPA

verb (used with object), trans·ferred, trans·fer·ring.

1. to convey or remove from one place, person, etc., to another: He transferred the package from one hand to the other.


2. to cause to pass from one person to another, as thought, qualities, or power; transmit.


3. Law. to make over the possession or control of: to transfer a title to land.


4. to imprint, impress, or otherwise convey (a drawing, design, pattern, etc.) from one surface to another.

verb (used without object), trans·ferred, trans·fer·ring.


5. to remove oneself from one place to another: to transfer from the New York office to London.


6. to withdraw from one school, college, or the like, and enter another: I transferred from Rutgers to Tulane.


7. to be moved from one place to another: to transfer to overseas duty.


8. to change by means of a transfer from one bus, train, or the like, to another.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

Isn't there an appeal case saying you can "loan" a firearm (the loan was for months if not years) and that did not count as a "transfer" in regards to the firearm.

While firearm and magazine is apple to oranges I'd think the state would have a hard time proving "transfer of a magazine" via borrowing it at the range when the courts have ruled a loan isn't a transfer of the actual gun.

But you never know I guess.

Does "loan" have an expiration date?

Again, the law is crap, but it is the law.

 

[Inigoes]

Isn't there an appeal case saying you can "loan" a firearm (the loan was for months if not years) and that did not count as a "transfer" in regards to the firearm.

While firearm and magazine is apple to oranges I'd think the state would have a hard time proving "transfer of a magazine" via borrowing it at the range when the courts have ruled a loan isn't a transfer of the actual gun.

But you never know I guess.

Yes, there is case law. Chow v. State

The legal definition of transfer is changing ownership. As long as ownership does not change, no transfer has been made.

 

[clandestine]

I was the one who got the people arrested. I wrote the MSP a letter and told them where I was going to be letting people shoot banana clips.

 

[danb]

Urban legend.

If there were any actual details on the time/person, you could look it up in MD Judiciary case search and see, along with case dispensation.

I am calling BS on this story. Letting someone shoot your pistol or rifle with a legal to own 17 or 30 round mag is not transferring the firearm to them. Otherwise you would need your HQL to rent a gun to shoot at a range.

^ this.

 

[Straightshooter]

I was the one who got the people arrested. I wrote the MSP a letter and told them where I was going to be letting people shoot banana clips.

Thank goodness once you shoot them up you can't get any more.

 

[moojersey]

I'll chime in. I've been shooting at Elk Neck pretty regular the past 2 years and I've never seen a LEO there.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

I'll chime in. I've been shooting at Elk Neck pretty regular the past 2 years and I've never seen a LEO there.

X10

If you exclude Baltimore County counter sniper qualifications.

It really is a nice range for fidy dolla a year.

You just gotta wear body armor when your down range.

Still waiting on the First Annual Pumpkin Shoot.

 

[Name Taken]

Does "loan" have an expiration date?

Again, the law is crap, but it is the law.

I'm certainly not going to waste my time looking up case law nor am I a lawyer or offering legal advice.

But I seem to recall there being a recent case which affirmed the "loan" is not a transfer and that "loan" was for a year or MORE.

I believe the legal opinion on the word "transfer" in this case is to prevent me from giving you the item for free or as part of the sale of a firearm.

 

[pitpawten]

Yes, there is case law. Chow v. State

The legal definition of transfer is changing ownership. As long as ownership does not change, no transfer has been made.

Yeah, this is it, you beat me to the punch. The brief from the case:

Headnote: 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 in violation of Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl. Vol., 2002 Supp.), Art. 27, § 442, in particular, subsection (d). The plain language of § 442(d), when construed in harmony with the rest of the subheading, reveals that “transfer” refers to a gratuitous permanent exchange of title or possession and does not include temporary exchanges or loans.

 

[Half-cocked]

Was this "gun shop guy" the same person who told me that his uncle knows a guy who went to school with a guy whose grandfather invented a carburetor that made cars get 200MPG, but the Humongous Oil Company Conspiracy forced him to sell them their patent, to stop the car companies from building energy-efficient cars?