While I have a great deal of respect for him, the CRS throws enough doubt on the matter that I would want to have a state opinion - such as the MD AG's - before relying on it in any particular origin/destination state.
Proposed adjustment to the transport law
- Thread starter ras_oscar
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
If I remember, I think it was slightly different. I believe he said that if your origin and destination are both in Maryland then only Maryland law applies, meaning you can't claim FOPA protection. But it doesn't mean that Maryland law doesn't apply if your origin or destination is outside Maryland. For example, I can transport according to Maryland law between my house and the PA border if I'm heading to a range in PA. I'm not required to use FOPA.
Well since the MD transport law does not provide an exception for interstate travel, how could you legally transport a firearm out of state without FOPA? 4-203 makes no allowance for out of state travel.
You don't need a separate exception. If you're traveling in MD under one of the existing exceptions it doesn't matter if you're going across state lines.
A guy driving from Virginia through MD to a range in PA doesn't need FOPA while in MD because he's following state law (assuming he's complying with the transport restrictions).
A guy driving from Virginia to PA to OC at the York mall would have to use FOPA and the more restrictive transport rules because he's not using one of Maryland's exceptions.
My point is what if as a MD resident you're not going to a range or one of the allowed exceptions while still in MD. 4-203 provides no allowance for that activity.
I'm not going to tell LE I'm going to a range in PA if I'm not actually going to a range or an allowed activity, but simply traveling out of state. MD law makes no allo9wance for that.
All I have at that point is FOPA protection.
I'm not going to tell LE I'm going to a range in PA if I'm not actually going to a range or an allowed activity, but simply traveling out of state. MD law makes no allo9wance for that.
All I have at that point is FOPA protection.
And that's why the AG needed to issue that opinion.
Agreed, but as a practical option for us, what is currently available?
I'm going to follow 926A. There really isn't an alternative without an AG opinion or a court ruling.
I'm going to follow 926A. There really isn't an alternative without an AG opinion or a court ruling.
I agree with you on using FOPA if you're not under another exception. I was referring to the bolded part below. Maryland law has no dependence on where your origin or destination are. It's a slight difference, but an important one.
I believe the AG stated the second rather than the first. It gives FOPA as an optional protection if you're going out of state for a non MD exception, but doesn't mean MD law is suspended if you're crossing state lines.
- MD law only applies if your origin and destination are both in MD
- If your origin and destination are both in MD then only MD law applies
I believe the AG stated the second rather than the first. It gives FOPA as an optional protection if you're going out of state for a non MD exception, but doesn't mean MD law is suspended if you're crossing state lines.
i'll buy that
If FOPA law supersedes Maryland transport law than a good reason for travel would always be to transport to a state where you are legally license to carry. Then you are always covered under FOPA. If this is a case than such a proposal as Ras propose might benefit the state to close such a loophole and make it clear that FOPA law does supersede.
Not sure what you mean from a practical point of view. Can you give an example?
The proposed law change wouldn't clarify that FOPA supersedes MD law in certain circumstances, rather make FOPA unnecessary for Marylanders travelling out of state for any reason including legal carry. Which would be even better I think!
My point is that it is not clear under current Maryland law that you can transport a firearm between your home and another state simply for the reason to conceal carry in that state (Virginia for example- under a recognized Utah CCW) but if the law states that you can transport for that reason as RAS suggest than it should also mention the FOPA law as a point of reference.
IMO it would be preferred that MD just add legal interstate transport to the list of approved exceptions listed in 4-203 .
That removes any ambiguity from the origin / destination confusion in FOPA that Erwos provided.
That removes any ambiguity from the origin / destination confusion in FOPA that Erwos provided.
Yes. Great point.
Unfortunately many police agencies are now teaching officers 'tactics' that presume everyone is guilty of something, and to be especially wary of people with stickers or any indication they may have a firearm. Your next traffic stop could go like this:
B: Do you have any drugs, guns, or hand grenades in your vehicle?
A: There is nothing illegal in this vehicle officer.
B: If your not doing anything illegal, then you don't mind if I look...
A: Officer, we are both very reasonable and busy people; I've kept you from your duties too long already.
B: I could call for a dog or get a warrant...
A: there are many ways you could circumvent the law to violate my rights, but I refuse to consent to wave them.
B: have a nice day, here's your ticket.
A: stay safe out there.
I guess this is the last day for the MDS sticker on my truck ?
Thank You for all your input. I see I am not the only prson with concerns regarding this issue. What would be my best option for submitting this to the legislature for consideration next session? I believe it serves to clarify, not enlarge, existing rights.
You could contact your rep in the GA and discuss. he / she could also submit it to the AG for an official opion, which would help clarify the issue.
IANAL.
IANAL.
- Feb 4, 2013
- 28,175
You have to be legal to possess in both ends of the journey.
But never heard ANYONE ever say that FOPA does not apply in the end states.
Sorry, I ran out of time before I took a stab at answering your question.
I have learned that the easiest way to have a bill changed, is to simply ask for specific words, sentences or portions of an existing law be deleted.
I personally feel that merely transporting a firearm should not be illegal in any way. If the person transporting the firearm is a criminal and does something like... let's say rob a bank, then they should be charged with bank robbery, and other crimes specifically related to the robbery.
If you look closely at the law, I think it would be easier to just ask for a bill that deletes any of the restrictions regarding mere transport of a firearm. Transporting in and of itself should not be a crime; whereas felony possession is. So if an officer arrests someone (lets say outstanding warrants), and they arrest the person and discover they are a felon in possession of a firearm, that's the crime. Not 'Joe citizen' driving around with a 'truck gun' or on his way to the range, etc.
It will have to be written so as to prevent someone just riding around with a firearm in your vehicle. Some kind of travel allowance or exception will be needed.
This is MD after all.
My .02
This is MD after all.
My .02
