Man Charged with" receiving a mag with 20 + capacity"...?

Norton · Jul 30, 2009

K-Romulus said:
4-305 is the magazine law!!

Well, dang. Leave it to MD to lump unrelated things together in a law.

Kharn · Jul 30, 2009

Actually MD has a law stating that amendments to a bill must be related to the original bill, thus shall-issue cant be tacked onto the annual budget or other non-gun bills.

Norton · Jul 30, 2009

Kharn said:
Actually MD has a law stating that amendments to a bill must be related to the original bill, thus shall-issue cant be tacked onto the annual budget or other non-gun bills.

Oh, I know this meets the "single subject" rule, but the two things really aren't related.

It's funny, the single subject rule is so loose that it's basically considered germane if the amendment and bill would go through the same committee. The things you learn at the state house. :sad20:

kohburn · Jul 30, 2009

K-Romulus said:
4-305 is the magazine law!!

§ 4-305. Detachable magazines - Prohibited.

(a) Scope of section.- This section does not apply to a .22 caliber rifle with a tubular magazine.

(b) Prohibited.- A person may not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, purchase, receive, or transfer a detachable magazine that has a capacity of more than 20 rounds of ammunition for a firearm.

Click to expand...

huh, by that short wording it does not say "in maryland", so is it implied that it is prohibited to residents of MD or prohibited to do within MD?

I'll be watching this closely, there are a LOT of people in MD that believe that they legally pocess 20+ round magazines. Lets hope this case proves that they are legal.

Bigfoot21075 · Jul 30, 2009

kohburn said:
huh, by that short wording it does not say "in maryland", so is it implied that it is prohibited to residents of MD or prohibited to do within MD?

I'll be watching this closely, there are a LOT of people in MD that believe that they legally pocess 20+ round magazines. Lets hope this case proves that they are legal.

This also does not say you can not own or posess the magazine.

andyman · Jul 30, 2009

kohburn said:
huh, by that short wording it does not say "in maryland", so is it implied that it is prohibited to residents of MD or prohibited to do within MD?

I'll be watching this closely, there are a LOT of people in MD that believe that they legally posses 20+ round magazines. Lets hope this case proves that they are legal.

Does MD have the authority to govern our actions in another state? If so, I'm moving this week.

andy

HoCoShooter · Jul 30, 2009

I doubt he'll be seeing any of his guns for a looooooooong time, if ever.

kohburn · Jul 30, 2009

I wonder if it really even happend or if the wife got mad at him and simply accused him of it.

novus collectus · Jul 30, 2009

kohburn said:
huh, by that short wording it does not say "in maryland", so is it implied that it is prohibited to residents of MD or prohibited to do within MD?

I'll be watching this closely, there are a LOT of people in MD that believe that they legally pocess 20+ round magazines. Lets hope this case proves that they are legal.

MD laws apply to in MD. THink of it this way, MD has a law against murder and it does not say "in MD", so could MD prosecute a MD resident who kills someone in California?
It is where the act occured and which state it is in for where the laws apply.

Bigfoot21075 said:
This also does not say you can not own or posess the magazine.

COrrect, possession is legal.

Jim Keenan · Jul 30, 2009

The magazine ban, like all MD laws, applies only in MD. It not only does not ban possession of higher capacity magazines in MD, it does not ban buying one out of state and bringing it into MD, or having one in your possession if you move into the state.

And it does include police officers in a personal capacity. A police department can own large cap magazines; individual officers are subject to the law the same as the rest of us. I knew of one cop who got into trouble because he agreed to take a 32 round magazine belonging to another cop out of state to sell it. The transfer, in MD, was illegal even though it was between cops.

As to the murder question, someone who commits a murder in CA can't be tried for the crime in MD; he/she can be arrested in MD and extradited to CA to face trial.

Jim

Jimbob2.0 · Jul 30, 2009

From the sound of it, thats the least of his problems.

OnTarget · Jul 31, 2009

Jim Keenan said:
The magazine ban, like all MD laws, applies only in MD. It not only does not ban possession of higher capacity magazines in MD, it does not ban buying one out of state and bringing it into MD, or having one in your possession if you move into the state.

And it does include police officers in a personal capacity. A police department can own large cap magazines; individual officers are subject to the law the same as the rest of us. I knew of one cop who got into trouble because he agreed to take a 32 round magazine belonging to another cop out of state to sell it. The transfer, in MD, was illegal even though it was between cops.

As to the murder question, someone who commits a murder in CA can't be tried for the crime in MD; he/she can be arrested in MD and extradited to CA to face trial.

Jim

******************************************
Well, the logical question is this: If "...it does not ban buying one out of state and bringing it into MD, or having one in your possession if you move into the state," then can you USE it in MD? What's the sense in buying one, if you can't use it? Right?

3rdRcn · Jul 31, 2009

OnTarget said:
******************************************
Well, the logical question is this: If "...it does not ban buying one out of state and bringing it into MD, or having one in your possession if you move into the state," then can you USE it in MD? What's the sense in buying one, if you can't use it? Right?

Who told you that it was illegal to use a 30 round magazine in Maryland?

novus collectus · Jul 31, 2009

OnTarget said:
******************************************
Well, the logical question is this: If "...it does not ban buying one out of state and bringing it into MD, or having one in your possession if you move into the state," then can you USE it in MD? What's the sense in buying one, if you can't use it? Right?

The only law there is about using a 20+ round magazine is when using it in a violent crime. Other than that there is no law saying you cannot use a 20+ round mag in MD.

squeky · Jul 31, 2009

andyman said:
Does MD have the authority to govern our actions in another state? If so, I'm moving this week.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but say I live in Texas and mail a high capacity magazine to someone in Maryland. Didn't I break the MD law (along with the guy who received it) and subject to being charged under MD law? Or say I live in MD and mail a 20 round magazine or box of ammunition to someone in DC. Did I not just break DC law and subject to persecution.

novus collectus · Jul 31, 2009

squeky said:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but say I live in Texas and mail a high capacity magazine to someone in Maryland. Didn't I break the MD law (along with the guy who received it) and subject to being charged under MD law? Or say I live in MD and mail a 20 round magazine or box of ammunition to someone in DC. Did I not just break DC law and subject to persecution.

First of all, we all gun owners are persecuted here in MD, but if you meant prosecuted then that is a different thing.

Good qustions, it is like if someone with a hunting rifle in WV shot someone over the line in MD, where would the murder be tried?

I found this googling, it is from a bil ten years ago and is about alcohol shipments which might be different.

The proponents of H.R. 2031 point out that illegal direct shipping is a growing problem, including illegal sales to minors using the Internet to order alcohol. Over the last 2-3 years, several states, including Utah, Florida, and Missouri, have brought legal action against companies illegally shipping alcohol into their state. Neither the Twenty-First Amendment nor the Webb-Kenyon Act includes any criminal or civil penalties for violations of its provisions. Thus, states wanting to bring an action against violators in federal court cannot obtain jurisdiction over the violators. For example, the State of Florida brought an action in federal court to enjoin the illegal shipment of alcohol into its borders but it was dismissed because the court held it would not imply a right of access to federal court where one was not explicitly stated in the statute. Florida Department of Business Regulations v. Zachy's Wine and Liquor, Inc., et al., 125 F.3d 1399 (11th Cir. 1997), cert denied, 118 S.C. 1402, 140 L.Ed. 666 (1998).

Additionally, states which attempt to enforce their liquor laws against out-of-state companies in state courts may find that they do not have jurisdiction over the violators there either or have encountered great difficulty in asserting jurisdiction. In 1997, in State of Florida v. Sam's Wines and Liquors, a judge in the Circuit Court for the Second Judicial District in Florida dismissed a case for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction over the out-of-state violators of the state's liquor laws.

Confronted with the difficulty of enforcing their laws in court, several states are beginning to take an alternate route to solve the problem of illegally shipped alcohol. Eight states (Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, Oklahoma and Maryland) have enacted statutes in the last two years making the illegal shipment of alcoholic beverages into their state a felony. These states have taken this hard-line position in an attempt to ensure that they will have jurisdiction over violators of their state liquor transportation laws. For example, the Utah Court of Appeals recently ruled that the state of Utah could assert jurisdiction in a criminal case against an Illinois company allegedly shipping beer to individuals in Utah in violation of Utah law. The court held that the state had personal jurisdiction over a criminal defendant if that defendant is present in court, that civil concepts of minimum contacts are not applicable in criminal cases, and that the Illinois company is subject to prosecution in Utah for conduct committed in Illinois because its conduct caused an unlawful result in Utah. State v. Amoroso, Beer Across America, Case No's 971002970 FS and 1002971 FS, First Amended Criminal Information, Utah Third District Court (Apr. 21, 1997) reversed Case No. 971712-CA (Utah Ct. App. Mar. 4, 1999).

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpque...=&r_n=hr265.106&db_id=106&item=&sel=TOC_9323&

andyman · Jul 31, 2009

Novus this may sound stupid, but what is the functional difference between a misdemeanor and a felony? Why would this change make a difference? How does this apply to the case at hand?

andy

jpk1md · Jul 31, 2009

andyman said:
what is the functional difference between a misdemeanor and a felony?

andy

If you are convicted of committing a Felony = No guns for you
If you are convicted of committing a Misdemeanor that carries a sentence of 2+ years = No Guns for you

novus collectus · Jul 31, 2009

andyman said:
Novus this may sound stupid, but what is the functional difference between a misdemeanor and a felony? Why would this change make a difference? How does this apply to the case at hand?

andy

Not sure and I am intersted in finding out how it would apply to interstate jurisdiction.

andyman · Jul 31, 2009

Understood JPK, I was really wondering about how the difference between them mattered in the shipping matter, and how that would apply here?

Man Charged with" receiving a mag with 20 + capacity"...?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

NRA Endowment Member, Rifleman

Ultimate Member

NRA Endowment Member, Rifleman

Resident MacGyver

Ultimate Member

Former Senior Member

Ultimate Member

Resident MacGyver

Banned

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

RIP

Banned

Ultimate Member

Banned

Former Senior Member

Ultimate Member

Banned

Former Senior Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics