Questions about NR 410(c)(1) (Loaded guns in vehicles)

NR 10-410(c)(1) prohibits possessing in or on a automobile or other vehicle, a loaded handgun, shotgun, or rifle. Unless the conduct falls under CR 4-203 or PS Title 5, there are no other exceptions. Both CR 4-203 and PS title 5 apply to handguns only. CR 4-203 allows possessing a loaded handgun, whether in a vehicle or not, on property that you own or lease, amongst other things.

If I interpret this correctly, and there is no limitation on the scope of NR laws, possessing a loaded shotgun or rifle in a vehicle on your own property is illegal under NR 10-410(c)(1), even if it is parked in your own garage.

I believe somebody here (can't remember who) argued that there is some kind of limitation on the scope of NR 10-410(c)(1). There is no scope-limiting statute in the Natural Resources Article that I could find. The Transportation Article, for example, has a scope-limiting article regarding Title 21 (Rules of the Road), generally limiting most traffic offenses to highways only.

The only exception I saw was if the person possessed a permit under NR 10-307, which is below. Has anybody tried to get this permit? It would seem to give one carte blanche to carry loaded rifles and shotguns in vehicles. Although the permit is for hunting from vehicles only, the part about carrying loaded guns is in the same subsection, and it is stated the entire subsection does not apply if one has this permit:

§ 10-307. Special permit for disabled persons to hunt from vehicles.

The Department may issue a special permit to a disabled person who has a hunting license authorizing the person to hunt from a stopped vehicle which is not on a public highway. The Department shall prescribe regulations requiring applicants to submit reasons for granting this permit, and shall require every licensee to carry this permit while hunting.

Click to expand...

As an aside, violation of NR 10-410(c)(1) can be charged by citation for a first offense. If the defendant does not wish to go to court, a fine of $250.00 can be mailed in, very similar to a traffic ticket. See page 22 of this: Schedule of pre-set fines for Natural Resources violations. Mailing in the fine, however, precludes you from getting a PBJ, which means you won't get your gun back. See below.

What do you all think of this part? The fine pales in comparison to having your gun(s) (i.e. equipment) or even your car (i.e. conveyance) forfeited. Am I interpreting this right? Notice the bolded part, though. Even being found guilty with a PBJ entitles you to your stuff back. (A PBJ is not a conviction for any purpose in Maryland)

§ 10-1106. Seizure, forfeiture, and disposition of devices, equipment, or property.

(a) In general.- A Natural Resources police officer or any law enforcement officer, upon arresting any person for violating any provision of this title or any regulation adopted pursuant to this title, may seize any device, equipment, conveyance, or property unlawfully used. If the owner or person in charge of the seized device, equipment, conveyance, or property is convicted, the court may declare the device, equipment, conveyance, or property forfeited, in addition to any other penalty provided in this title. Any forfeiture becomes the property of the Department for disposition at the Department's discretion. If the owner is not known, the court may proceed ex parte to hear and determine any question of forfeiture. If the owner or person charged with the violation is not convicted, the device, equipment, conveyance, or property seized shall be released and returned to the owner or person.

(b) Exceptions.- The device, conveyance, or property may not be forfeited if the owner was not a consenting party or privy to a violation.

Click to expand...

it's a statute directed at hunting

I'm the one who has argued that this provision of law, read in context, is directed at hunting from vehicles, and that the state would have great difficulty employing this statute successfully in a context that was urban and clearly not related to hunting. Be warned that I am not a lawyer and that a couple of lawyers have disagreed with my thesis. They may be right. However, there are no decisions from appeals courts to support either side in this discussion. Nor has anyone produced a single example of the statute actually being employed to win a conviction in an urban, non-hunting context. If the couple of lawyers are right and in fact this statute is to be read as applicable in contexts unrelated to hunting, then numerous police and sheriff personnel are operating in violation of the statute when they carry loaded long guns, because this statute (unlike many other gun laws) contains no exception for law enforcement officers. My full presentation is in this thread:
http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?p=504437#post504437

ThatIsAFact said:

I'm the one who has argued that this provision of law, read in context, is directed at hunting from vehicles, and that the state would have great difficulty employing this statute successfully in a context that was urban and clearly not related to hunting. Be warned that I am not a lawyer and that a couple of lawyers have disagreed with my thesis. They may be right. However, there are no decisions from appeals courts to support either side in this discussion. Nor has anyone produced a single example of the statute actually being employed to win a conviction in an urban, non-hunting context. If the couple of lawyers are right and in fact this statute is to be read as applicable in contexts unrelated to hunting, then numerous police and sheriff personnel are operating in violation of the statute when they carry loaded long guns, because this statute (unlike many other gun laws) contains no exception for law enforcement officers. My full presentation is in this thread:
http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?p=504437#post504437

Click to expand...

What he said. The no-carrying-loaded-handguns thing is just that - for handguns, not long guns. As I interpret it, and many others have agreed with (and there are also those that disagree), you are totally okay to carry a loaded long gun in your vehicle at any time for any reason (unless actively hunting and shooting from the vehicle, as the statute describes). If nothing else, I don't think anyone disagrees that an unloaded long-gun can be in your vehicle without question, so you could just keep some loose shells or loaded mags or stripper clips near the gun.

HOWEVER, there is always a good chance that an LEO can/will ruin your day by at least arresting you due to their misunderstanding and/or ignorance of the law. Hell, even we who have the most vested interest in these laws can't come to a decisive conclusion. If I had enough money in savings to be able to hire a lawyer in a worst-case scenario, I would gladly carry my HiPoint 995 in the trunk with a loaded mag or two in the glovebox or center console. Unfortunately, lawyers aren't cheap, and I can't afford to spend money on fighting for my rights if it were to come to that.

It is important to note though, that like ThatIsAFact said, if our mutual interpretation of the statute is not correct - that the carrying of loaded long guns is totally unregulated outside of hunting from vehicles - any LEO carrying a loaded shotgun or rifle in their cruiser is also in violation of the law, as there is no LEO exception in the statute, as there is in all the other prohibitive gun laws in MD.

So - I say go for it. But, don't be totally shocked if some LEO wants to give you a hard time and charge you with some BS. As long as you can afford a lawyer though if it were to come to that, I don't doubt for a moment that you'd win in court.

I have asked Mark Bowen about loaded long gun in vehicle. His reply was no you cannot because NR article applies. You can carry loaded long gun in street but you will get attention from policia.

I don't really care how people interpret it. All I care is how AG interprets it unless you want to spend some fortune to get a lawyer or spend some time in jail.

Unless someone wants to get locked up and start a test case, any discussion other than AG's word is senseless.

Ethan83 said:

What he said. The no-carrying-loaded-handguns thing is just that - for handguns, not long guns. As I interpret it, and many others have agreed with (and there are also those that disagree), you are totally okay to carry a loaded long gun in your vehicle at any time for any reason (unless actively hunting and shooting from the vehicle, as the statute describes). If nothing else, I don't think anyone disagrees that an unloaded long-gun can be in your vehicle without question, so you could just keep some loose shells or loaded mags or stripper clips near the gun.

HOWEVER, there is always a good chance that an LEO can/will ruin your day by at least arresting you due to their misunderstanding and/or ignorance of the law. Hell, even we who have the most vested interest in these laws can't come to a decisive conclusion. If I had enough money in savings to be able to hire a lawyer in a worst-case scenario, I would gladly carry my HiPoint 995 in the trunk with a loaded mag or two in the glovebox or center console. Unfortunately, lawyers aren't cheap, and I can't afford to spend money on fighting for my rights if it were to come to that.

It is important to note though, that like ThatIsAFact said, if our mutual interpretation of the statute is not correct - that the carrying of loaded long guns is totally unregulated outside of hunting from vehicles - any LEO carrying a loaded shotgun or rifle in their cruiser is also in violation of the law, as there is no LEO exception in the statute, as there is in all the other prohibitive gun laws in MD.

So - I say go for it. But, don't be totally shocked if some LEO wants to give you a hard time and charge you with some BS. As long as you can afford a lawyer though if it were to come to that, I don't doubt for a moment that you'd win in court.

Click to expand...

it is debatable

eews3 said:

Unless someone wants to get locked up and start a test case, any discussion other than AG's word is senseless.

Click to expand...

That is important and pertinent information, but it certainly does not place the question beyond the realm of sensible discussion. If there is any ruling by any appellate court regarding the reach of the provision in question, that would be highly pertinent -- judges have been known to disagree with the positions taken by AGs and their staffs on occasion. And, next time, be sure to ask him also whether he believes that the purported prohibition also applies to peace officers -- and, if he says that it does not, then ask him to cite the statutory provision that exempts them.

This would actually be a good test case because there isn't much to lose. Even if convicted, it's only punishable by a fine, and forfeiture of the firearm involved (a test case would use a cheap one, naturally). Contrary to what eews3 fears, you can't get locked up. It is like a traffic offense. A conviction will not affect one's right to buy or possess firearms in any way. Since its a citable offense, there shouldn't be any booking or fingerprinting involved, just a citation. Also, since the maximum fine exceeds $500, you should be eligible for a public defender if you meet the financial criteria.

Also, the test defendant should reject a PBJ. Although a PBJ would entitle you to get your gun back, it precludes all appeals. Note that a judge cannot impose a PBJ without your consent.

After a trial in District Court before a judge only (there is no jury in District Court), the first appeal would be to the Circuit Court. It is a de novo appeal, basically meaning a new trial is held without regard to what happened in the original trial. Since jail time is not possible for a first offense, there is no right to a jury trial in Circuit Court either.

If still found guilty, then the next route is the Special Court of Appeals. This is not a de novo appeal; any points of law you bring up, you must have brought up in trial. If a fine-only offense ends up in the Court of Appeals, wow.

I am not a lawyer, nor am I attempting to incite illegal activity. I'm just saying the NR statute makes for a safer test case than risking a conviction for violating CR 4-203 with its mandatory 30 days in jail and a lifelong prohibition against ever possessing a firearm again.

EDIT: With regards to the argument that cops are breaking the NR law if they have a loaded shotgun in the trunk, note the the NR statute is a very minor offense. It's like a slightly more expensive speeding ticket. You don't even have to appear in court, just mail in $250. Cops speed all the time, do they get tickets for that?

further discussion on the scope of 10-410

antiqueOC said:

With regards to the argument that cops are breaking the NR law if they have a loaded shotgun in the trunk, note the the NR statute is a very minor offense. It's like a slightly more expensive speeding ticket. You don't even have to appear in court, just mail in $250. Cops speed all the time, do they get tickets for that?

Click to expand...

Maybe there certain circumstances where police officers should get speeding tickets. But, there are explicit provisions in state law allowing the police to disregard speed limits, stop signs, and parking rules, under rather broadly defined circumstances -- see, for example, Sec. 21-106. It is precisely this sort of exception that is conspicuously lacking in Sec. 10-410. The absence of such an exception is not a problem under my theory -- it just means that the General Assembly did not want anybody, including law enforcement officers, hunting from cars, and the 10-410 prohibition on having a loaded long gun in a vehicle is just a component of the statutory scheme adopted to discourage hunting from cars. But I think the absence of the exception is a problem for those who assert that 10-410 is to be read as a general prohibition on carrying loaded long guns in a vehicle anywhere in the state for any purpose.

I reiterate that I do not advocate carrying a loaded long gun in a vehicle in Maryland. I do not do it. I do not advise others to do it. This is purely an academic discussion about what currently is allowed or prohibited under the laws of our state. It is a discussion of what the current law is, not what the best law would be. For example, I personally have no objection whatever to law enforcement officers carrying loaded long guns in their vehicles, and there are undoubtedly circumstances under which this is prudent and necessary. But strictly as an academic discussion, I think the perfect test case of the scope of the current law would be for a game warden to drive into the heart of downtown Bethesda and issue a 10-410 citation to a Montgomery County police officer for carrying a loaded shotgun in a vehicle.

We should underscore that we are only talking about STATE law. There are some jurisdictions in which carrying a loaded long gun in a vehicle clearly would violate LOCAL law (county ordinances, etc.), with more stringent penalties.

ThatIsAFact

An alternative interpretation could be that "possession" as referred to in the statute means direct possession (as opposed to constructive possession) of the loaded firearm while in a vehicle. So if you are holding the firearm, or it's beside you on the passenger's seat, that could be the possession they're talking about, but if it's locked in the trunk or a gun rack on a pickup, it's not in your direct possession able to be readily used for hunting or any other purpose. This would exempt the cops who keep their shotguns in the trunk.

Just throwing an idea out there. I'm not saying I personally agree or disagree with such an interpretation. I am not a lawyer.

There is actually a somewhat high-profile and relevant case involving an NBA player who was stopped on a motorcycle on I-495 last year with 2 handguns and a shotgun (Rem 870).

The handguns are getting the charges you'd expect, two counts of carrying a handgun, two counts of transporting a handgun and are uninteresting with regards to this thread.

He's also getting charged with two counts of carrying a dangerous weapon, one for the shotgun (which was in a guitar case on his back, maybe not loaded, article only mentioned there were shells in a side-saddle style carrier) and one for the 8.5 inch knife he was carrying.

source (there are many just google delonte west gun charge):

http://www.cleveland.com/cavs/index.ssf/2009/11/post_2.html

So it seems this "carrying a dangerous weapon" misdemeanor is likely what one will run afoul of if found carrying a long gun in a vehicle.

Trey said:

So it seems this "carrying a dangerous weapon" misdemeanor is likely what one will run afoul of if found carrying a long gun in a vehicle.

Click to expand...

Then why not a baseball bat i and get a better grip and do much more damage with it than an unloaded longgun.

concealment was involved

In my old thread on this subject, I made it clear that my theory only applied to NON-concealed long guns, such as on a gun rack, plainly visible.

The "dangerous weapon" statute (4-101) says that "a person may not wear or carry a dangerous weapon of any kind concealed on or about the person." Carrying a shotgun in a guitar case would qualify as concealment, I think. But what if he'd been on the motorcycle and had the shotgun secured to his back with a sling, plainly visible?

The fact that they did NOT charge the fellow under 10-410 provides mild support for my theory that 10-410 really does not fit a case in which no plausible claim can be made that the carrier was engaged in hunting. I suppose, however, that someone might argue that the prosecutor employed 4-101 simply because the penalty is greater.

ThatIsAFact said:

In my old thread on this subject, I made it clear that my theory only applied to NON-concealed long guns, such as on a gun rack, plainly visible.

The "dangerous weapon" statute (4-101) says that "a person may not wear or carry a dangerous weapon of any kind concealed on or about the person." Carrying a shotgun in a guitar case would qualify as concealment, I think. But what if he'd been on the motorcycle and had the shotgun secured to his back with a sling, plainly visible?

The fact that they did NOT charge the fellow under 10-410 provides mild support for my theory that 10-410 really does not fit a case in which no plausible claim can be made that the carrier was engaged in hunting. I suppose, however, that someone might argue that the prosecutor employed 4-101 simply because the penalty is greater.

Click to expand...

I am not too sure about an unloaded long gun being concealed just because it isnt plainly visible on a gun rack.

read this thread about a conversation I had on the the phone with the firearms division about shoutguns in a vehicle
http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=7050


The trooper I spoke to didnt saying anything about it being concealed.

The gist of it was that an unloaded shotgun or rifle with chamber open (not regulated rifle) in a case was ok and probably not grounds fro an arrest. he said ammo had to be separate and I asked him specifically what that meant. He said ammo in a different bag OR in a separate compartment of the same bag. He said like a bag with an outside zippered pocket.

Note: I did nto get his name or a letter from him stating all of this. the troopers at the firearms division are not lawyers but at least we know what they are thinking.

shawn said:

I am not too sure about an unloaded long gun being concealed just because it isnt plainly visible on a gun rack.

Click to expand...

I didn't say that a long gun was concealed unless it is on a gun rack -- I just gave that as one example of a method of carrying a long gun without concealing it.

Concealment is pertinent to whether there is a violation of the "dangerous weapon" statute, 4-101. Concealment is not pertinent to the question of whether the hunting law applies (10-410).

ThatIsAFact said:

I didn't say that a long gun was concealed unless it is on a gun rack -- I just gave that as one example of a method of carrying a long gun without concealing it.

Concealment is pertinent to whether there is a violation of the "dangerous weapon" statute, 4-101. Concealment is not pertinent to the question of whether the hunting law applies (10-410).

Click to expand...

We all know that politics apply. I doubt that if one of us were to be stopped and we had an unloaded long gun in the car behind a seat or something we would be charged with a violation of 4-101. This guy already broke the law with handguns and it looks to me as if they are just throwing any other charges that will stick at him.