Maryland local firearms laws that existed before 1/1/1985

Elliotte · May 7, 2012

esqappellate said:
Frederick

(e)

Dangerous Weapons. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, a person may not carry a dangerous weapon on any public way, sidewalk, or other public property within five hundred (500) feet of an event [parade, etc] permitted pursuant to this Chapter. Law enforcement officers, members of the Armed Forces and National Guard, and uniformed members of an honor guard of a recognized civic or fraternal organization may carry dangerous weapons provided that such persons are acting lawfully.

(Ord. No. G-10-06, § I, 5-6-10)

Esqappellate, is that the City or the County?

And, do you read that as "...may not carry...on any public way within 500ft of an event, sidewalk within 500ft of an event, or other public property within 500ft of an event..."?
Or does that read as "...may not carry...on any public way or sidewalk or other public property within 500ft of an event..."?

esqappellate · May 7, 2012

Elliotte said:
Esqappellate, is that the City or the County?

And, do you read that as "...may not carry...on any public way within 500ft of an event, sidewalk within 500ft of an event, or other public property within 500ft of an event..."?
Or does that read as "...may not carry...on any public way or sidewalk or other public property within 500ft of an event..."?

City, IIRC. Best to double check. I read it as banning carrying within 500 feet of the event itself.

Elliotte · May 8, 2012

esqappellate said:
City, IIRC. Best to double check. I read it as banning carrying within 500 feet of the event itself.

Thanks, my neighborhood is just inside city limits so I'm affected either way, but I was just curious.

LeadSled1 · May 8, 2012

esqappellate said:
Cecil doesn't appear on this link: http://www.municode.com/library/MD

That doesn't mean squat. You will need to go to the county seat and check the paper copy or otherwise find it on line.

Looks like it is not linked in the main library, but it is there.

http://www.ecode360.com/CE0748

esqappellate · May 9, 2012

LeadSled1 said:
Looks like it is not linked in the main library, but it is there.

http://www.ecode360.com/CE0748

Bingo! You're hired.

Broadside · May 10, 2012

I'm sorry. I'm coming late to the party here. But it appears by my read that Montgomery County prohibits concealed carry for self defense purposes. Am I correct in my understanding of this?

esqappellate · May 11, 2012

Broadside said:
I'm sorry. I'm coming late to the party here. But it appears by my read that Montgomery County prohibits concealed carry for self defense purposes. Am I correct in my understanding of this?

cite?

swinokur · May 11, 2012

Only part of Mo Co. I know of that has any firearms law is Rockville. It's in the municode but I don't feel like finding it. Not sure when it was enacted.

Maybe Broasdside can look it up.

Broadside · May 11, 2012

Inigoes said:
Montgomery County:
Sec. 57-10. Keeping guns on person or in vehicles.
It shall be unlawful for any person to have upon his person, concealed or exposed, or in a motor vehicle where it is readily available for use, any gun designed to use explosive ammunition unless:

(a) Lawful mission. Such person is then engaged upon a lawful mission for which it is necessary to carry a gun upon his person; or

(b) Special guard, special police, etc. Such person is employed as a special guard, special police officer or special detective and has been lawfully deputized by the sheriff for the county, or has been appointed a constable in the county, or has been licensed under the laws of the state, should such a law be enacted, to carry such gun and then is on or in the immediate vicinity of the premises of any employer whose occupation lawfully requires the employment of a person carrying a gun while in the discharge of the duties of such employment; or

(c) Military service. Such person is then lawfully engaged in military service or as a duly authorized peace officer; or

(d) Hunting, target practice, etc. Such person is engaged in lawful hunting, drill, training or target practice on property of which he is the owner or lessee or on property with the prior permission of the owner or lessee thereof; or

(e) Going to or returning from hunting, target practice, etc. Such person is engaged in going to or from lawful hunting, drill training or target practice, or in delivering such gun to or carrying it from a gunsmith or repairman, or is engaged in any other lawful transfer of possession; provided, that such person shall be on or traveling upon a public highway or property of which he is the owner or lessee or on property with the prior permission of the owner or lessee thereof; provided further, that such gun shall not be loaded with explosive ammunition. (1981 L.M.C., ch. 42, § 1; 2001 L.M.C., ch.11, § 1.)

I took this from the first page of this thread.

It could just be my reading, but I do not see an exception for someone with a permit for self-defense purposes.

Inigoes · May 12, 2012

Broadside said:
I took this from the first page of this thread.

It could just be my reading, but I do not see an exception for someone with a permit for self-defense purposes.

Always check the source, just in case the law/ordinance has been updated.

I can't remember where I found the county code...

swinokur · May 12, 2012

Anyone know the date of the code issuance?

Broadside · May 12, 2012

If that is the current code and it is preempted, I guess we need to know the definition of "lawful purpose".

Can municipal laws override state laws in Maryland?

I think you could make an argument (not that I want to be the test case) that with Judge Legg's ruling self defense now qualifies as a "lawful mission".

So if the MoCo code does override state law (which I really doubt is true), then one could make the argument that it is legal to carry open or concealed in MoCo without a permit.

Could you imagine the look on Frosch's face when a hundred people start to walk around his district while open carrying? :lol2:

Remember, I am not a lawyer. none of the above should be taken as legal advice.

swinokur · May 12, 2012

MD has preemption. Statute 4-209. But there is the exception for laws in force before 1-1-85. That's why the date is important

Inigoes · May 12, 2012

swinokur said:
MD has preemption. Statute 4-209. But there is the exception for laws existed before 1-1-85. That's why the date is important

FIFY

If an antigun law existed before 1/1/1985. The local municipality can keep changing/amending it in present time, which 4-209 would still grandfather it. :mad54:

esqappellate · May 13, 2012

Inigoes said:
Always check the source, just in case the law/ordinance has been updated.

I can't remember where I found the county code...

Here is the whole section. Note the reference to has been licensed by the state in 57-10 and 57-11 which expressly exempts from its coverage permit holders. Note as well that the bar in 57-10 applies to "any gun designed to use explosive
ammunition' Now, I assume that most handguns are not designed to use "explosive ammunition" But please correct me if I am wrong...

swinokur · May 13, 2012

Excellent. That's what I wanted to see.

I assume lawful mission includes carry with a permit?

Inigoes · May 13, 2012

esqappellate said:
Here is the whole section. Note the reference to has been licensed by the state in 57-10 and 57-11 which expressly exempts from its coverage permit holders. Note as well that the bar in 57-10 applies to "any gun designed to use explosive
ammunition' Now, I assume that most handguns are not designed to use "explosive ammunition" But please correct me if I am wrong...

Incendiary tracer rounds are available in handgun calibers.

Jim Sr · May 13, 2012

esqappellate said:
Here is the whole section. Note the reference to has been licensed by the state in 57-10 and 57-11 which expressly exempts from its coverage permit holders. Note as well that the bar in 57-10 applies to "any gun designed to use explosive ammunition' Now, I assume that most handguns are not designed to use "explosive ammunition" But please correct me if I am wrong...

explosives

propellent

:innocent0

esqappellate · May 13, 2012

Jim Sr said:
explosives

propellent

Which would include all ammo thus rendering the modifier "explosive" superfluous indeed since any handgun is designed to use ammunition the whole phrase "explosive ammunition" is rendered superfluous unless the phrase refers to a particular type of ammo that has an exploding projectile. Consult your lawyer.

esqappellate · May 13, 2012

swinokur said:
Excellent. That's what I wanted to see.

I assume lawful mission includes carry with a permit?

I would not assume that. Don't carry a gun using explosive ammo -- put that howitzer away!

Maryland local firearms laws that existed before 1/1/1985

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

Active Member

President, MSI

In a State of Bliss

Active Member

Head'n for the hills

In a State of Bliss

Active Member

In a State of Bliss

Head'n for the hills

President, MSI

Attachments

In a State of Bliss

Head'n for the hills

R.I.P.

President, MSI

President, MSI

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics