Here is the AG Opinion on Loaded Magazines

Les Gawlik · Jan 22, 2010

It's okay. (But not an official opinion.)

joppaj · Jan 22, 2010

It helps...

frozencesium · Jan 22, 2010

Ok...so... :wtf:

The AG says "sure, no problem, however my office may still charge you if we think you look funny and the LEOs are still free to detain you, file a criminal complaint and confiscate your property..."

Seriously, if you are going to issue an opinion, it should be an official opinion...

Chris L · Jan 22, 2010

I'm still printing copies to keep in my range bag and gun cases.

Half-cocked · Jan 22, 2010

Chris L said:
I'm still printing copies to keep in my range bag and gun cases.

Ditto! This is awesome, it confirms what we have always known about the wording of the law, but was always subject to the interpretive whim of any LEO or prosecutor!

I intend to keep this letter RIGHT ON TOP of my loaded magazines, which will be kept COMPLETELY SEPARATE from my guns, from now on. I'm fed up with having to waste time unloading magazines, only to have to reload them at the range!!!

novus collectus · Jan 22, 2010

I wonder if someone will give Continental a copy.

zombiehunter · Jan 22, 2010

novus collectus said:
I wonder if someone will give Continental a copy.

And Select Fire.

HOWEVER

The BUSINESS still has their own private property RIGHT to say whether or not they'll allow you to walk in with loaded mags.

Now that being said, YOU still have the RIGHT to be annoyed about it, to go somewhere where they don't kick you in the nuts for it (On-Target has never given me a problem about it) or to think that their policy is just to rack up a few extra minutes of range time.

novus collectus · Jan 22, 2010

zombiehunter said:
And Select Fire.

HOWEVER

The BUSINESS still has their own private property RIGHT to say whether or not they'll allow you to walk in with loaded mags.

Now that being said, YOU still have the RIGHT to be annoyed about it, to go somewhere where they don't kick you in the nuts for it (On-Target has never given me a problem about it) or to think that their policy is just to rack up a few extra minutes of range time.

I have no problem with a store with a policy about loaded mags. I will still go to Continental someday. What I do have a problem with is when they claim it is the law and tell people this including police officers that go there to shootl. Some rookie or underinformed LEO may believe them and illegally arrest a MD gun owner for loaded mags. Telling people detached loaded mags are illegal will only hurt someone getting wrongly arrested and hurt the LEO by getting sued.

Redneck · Jan 22, 2010

Half-cocked said:
Ditto! This is awesome, it confirms what we have always known about the wording of the law, but was always subject to the interpretive whim of any LEO or prosecutor!

I intend to keep this letter RIGHT ON TOP of my loaded magazines, which will be kept COMPLETELY SEPARATE from my guns, from now on. I'm fed up with having to waste time unloading magazines, only to have to reload them at the range!!!

Im doing the same thing. Its a waste of money to pay for range time and spend the first 10+ minutes or so loading your mags.

Les Gawlik · Jan 22, 2010

novus collectus said:
I wonder if someone will give Continental a copy.

YOU BET! It was a visit there that got me started on this. I have no problem with a range adopting a policy regarding loaded mags, because it's my decision to go there or somewhere else. But please don't try to lecture me about Maryland law unless you have some idea what you're talking about.

BTW, this is not a "get out of jail free" card, but the SAO would have to have a compelling reason to maintain a prosecution in the face of an unofficial opinion of the AG. That would be a rare and exceptional case.

novus collectus · Jan 22, 2010

Les Gawlik said:
YOU BET! It was a visit there that got me started on this. I have no problem with a range adopting a policy regarding loaded mags, because it's my decision to go there or somewhere else. But please don't try to tell me about what Maryland law is unless you have some idea what you're talking about.

BTW, this is not a "get out of jail free" card, but the SAO would have to have a compelling reason to maintain a prosecution in the face of an unofficial opinion of the AG. That would be a rare and exceptional case.

What I don't understand is why they did not issue an official opinion if a senator asked them.

JeepDriver · Jan 22, 2010

I can tell you that Continental will not change their policy. They are sted fast in the opinion that a loaded mag is a loaded gun due to the MSP handout they have. I will try to help them change their stance to a store policy vs. a Maryland Law.

I personally will be printing this out and keeping it in everyone of my range bags in case of dealings with a MSP or BCPD interaction.

Inigoes · Jan 22, 2010

Thank you

Saved a copy, given a few printouts to friends

haoleboy · Jan 22, 2010

Can we make this a sticky so that its easier to come back and find?
Or can we have some sort of forum database that we can keep PDF's and the like for ease of viewing and printing?

jonnyl · Jan 22, 2010

I'll take the optimistic view that it was not an "official opinion" because no opinion was required. It was a pure statement of fact with no interpretation needed.

"Maryland law does not prohibit an individual from transporting a loaded magazine in a vehicle while transporting an unloaded handgun under the provisions of 4-203(b)"

K-Romulus · Jan 22, 2010

novus collectus said:
What I don't understand is why they did not issue an official opinion if a senator asked them.

Maybe it was a such a clear-cut explanation of longstanding law that official interpretation was not necessary?

But
Without the official opinion, or other evidence that this letter or its information is being sent to all MD LE agencies, the agencies might not be considered "on notice" about loaded magazine transport. That might make it harder to win a S1983 suit for false arrest/constitutional violation under color of law.

My kids' college fund might have to look for other income boost sources. :tdown:

novus collectus · Jan 22, 2010

K-Romulus said:
Maybe it was a such a clear-cut explanation of longstanding law that official interpretation was not necessary?

But
Without the official opinion, or other evidence that this letter or its information is being sent to all MD LE agencies, the agencies might not be considered "on notice" about loaded magazine transport. That might make it harder to win a S1983 suit for false arrest/constitutional violation under color of law.

My kids' college fund might have to look for other income boost sources.

Wait, so official opinnions get sent to all LE agencies? Does this mean that they were all notified a month ago when they came out with the official opinion that it is generally legal to open carry a long gun?

As far as notification with this unofficial opinion, how about we send a copy of this letter ourselves to all the LE agencies? :cool:

swinokur · Jan 22, 2010

novus collectus said:
Wait, so official opinnions get sent to all LE agencies? Does this mean that they were all notified a month ago when they came out with the official opinion that it is generally legal to open carry a long gun?

As far as notification with this unofficial opinion, how about we send a copy of this letter ourselves to all the LE agencies?

I vote for that Novus. You'd think there would be a mechanism in place to do this whenever the AG issues any opinion or interpretation about the law. Oh wait, I forgot, this is the Guvmint. My bad.

K-Romulus · Jan 22, 2010

novus collectus said:
Wait, so official opinions get sent to all LE agencies? Does this mean that they were all notified a month ago when they came out with the official opinion that it is generally legal to open carry a long gun?

As far as notification with this unofficial opinion, how about we send a copy of this letter ourselves to all the LE agencies?

Well a published Attorney General Opinion is public record, just like a court opinion. One prior court opinion on an issue is enough "notice" that a reasonable LE agency should be familiar with the opinion and its impact on the law. That way the agency can't claim "qualified immunity" from a civil suit. (Qualified Immunity is a defense that the US supreme court made up to give LE one "free pass" on federal Constitutional violations if the LE conduct was not clearly 'unconstitutional' at the time of the violation; arresting someone for a non-existent state violation counts as a 4th Amendment violation)

Though an AG opinion alone is not enough by itself to "prove/answer" a question of law in a court (the judge gets a say on that one), it is considered persuasive.

An AG opinion is also supposed to be "official policy" for LE in the state, esp. if it refers to some sort of law enforcement practice (see the opinion in the link below on "Whether Deputy Sheriffs May Require Individuals Entering a Courthouse to Remove Religious Face Covering for Security Purposes").

I am not sure where this letter from AAG Bowen fits into things. One could say that it is the same as any AG Opinion, but there is no reference number like these other "official" AG opinions: http://www.oag.state.md.us/Opinions/2009/09index.htm\

The letterhead also says it is coming from MSP, not necessarily the AG. And Gansler isn't listed as a signer (unlike the "official" opinions), only Bowen.

It may have been done this way to escape the whole "official policy" angle. I wouldn't put it past them.

Compare this magazine letter with the AG Opinion giving the thumbs up to Baltimore's "lost and stolen" law (that to me violates state gun law preemption):
http://www.oag.state.md.us/Opinions/2008/93oag126.pdf

The magazine letter even says "not an official opinion of the Attorney General."

If the legislator wants to push it, he could always ask for an "official opinion." But that could cut both ways in the end. Right now we have the MSP saying one thing; if pushed, Gansler could order that overridden.

novus collectus · Jan 22, 2010

K-Romulus said:
Well a published Attorney General Opinion is public record, just like a court opinion. One prior court opinion on an issue is enough "notice" that a reasonable LE agency should be familiar with the opinion and its impact on the law.

Though an AG opinion alone is not enough by itself to "prove/answer" a question of law in a court (the judge gets a say on that one), it is considered persuasive.

An AG opinion is also supposed to be "official policy" for LE in the state, if it refers to some sort of law enforcement practice.

I am not sure where this letter from AAG Bowen fits into things. One could say that it is the same as any AG Opinion, but there is no reference number like these other "official" AG opinions: http://www.oag.state.md.us/Opinions/2009/09index.htm\

The letterhead also says it is coming from MSP, not necessarily the AG. And Gansler isn't listed as a signer (unlike the "official" opinions), only Bowen.

Very informative, thanks! :thumbsup:

Here is the AG Opinion on Loaded Magazines

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Attachments

Sheepdog

BBQ Czar

Bite me

Senior Meatbag

Banned

Ultimate Member

Banned

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Banned

Self confessed gun snob

Head'n for the hills

1/2 Banned

Ultimate Member

Suburban Commando

Banned

In a State of Bliss

Suburban Commando

Banned

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics