Open carry on your own property in PG County Laurel

[saltyphotog]

I would think if the officer truly believed the OP was violating the law by open carrying outside, there would have been more done. He would have asked for ID, and perhaps arrested or at the very least disarmed the OP. I believe he was using deceptive persuasion.

 

[PapiBarcelona]

What about dialing 911 for reporting a suspicious person, that's not even about your own personal business. Dude just walking into the woods, after the fact.

Everyone has smart phones, internet. It would take like 15 seconds to find a non emergency number to call.

 

[Rack&Roll]

I would think if the officer truly believed the OP was violating the law by open carrying outside, there would have been more done. He would have asked for ID, and perhaps arrested or at the very least disarmed the OP. I believe he was using deceptive persuasion.

Yes, legislators pass so many laws it is not possible to keep up, so officers get good at phrases like "you NEED to step back", rather than "you MUST step back".

Same for "that firearm NEEDS to be in the house (so I feel safer). Officers are actually using the First Amendment right that ALL of us have to talk to people in public about ANY subject, as long the language does not "assault" the listener.

Think "street preacher". He can tell you in public that he thinks you "NEED" to find God but you are free to ignore it.

In the same manner cops can tell you what they think you need to be doing on an infinite number of subjects but that all changes when a cop says you MUST comply with his demand or face arrest.

The best example is a cop telling you he NEEDS to see an ID when you have a legal right to withhold it, as when you are on a public sidewalk and not breaking any laws. The cop will say "if I don't see it we could be here awhile" which might be true but only because he wants to debate you. Eventually you will win because the cop may NOT say legally "you MUST show me an ID" when you are a pedestrian in public and are not breaking any laws.

 

[Seeker]

What about dialing 911 for reporting a suspicious person, that's not even about your own personal business. Dude just walking into the woods, after the fact.

Everyone has smart phones, internet. It would take like 15 seconds to find a non emergency number to call.

Cpl Beasock from the PG County police COPS program told us in the training class that we should simply dial 911, and not look up the non-emergency numbers, if we see something that is suspicious. In this case, I knew they were actively looking for a person and had a very vague description. The fact that the guy seemed to be hiding his face made me suspicious enough to make the call. The security and safety of our own neighborhoods is our own personal business.

 

[PapiBarcelona]

Cool. Not going to comment on your particular "man hunt" incident since each situation is different but personally, I'm still not dialing 911 over suspicious person(s). Just my experience, I known someone who used 911 over health issues that didn't warrant that type of medical response, and not long after "strong words" were given to this person.

 

[Seeker]

Cool. Not going to comment on your particular "man hunt" incident since each situation is different but personally, I'm still not dialing 911 over suspicious person(s). Just my experience, I known someone who used 911 over health issues that didn't warrant that type of medical response, and not long after "strong words" were given to this person.

I asked the question specifically at the training as to whether we should dial non-emergency or 911, and Cpl Beasock told me that we should just use 911. He said they'd rather just get the info as soon as possible if there's something going on.

But I do get your point, and I wish they had a fixed number like 911 for reporting things like this, rather than trying to figure out which agency to call, and finding their NE number.

 

[Mr H]

What we need is statewide 311, but that would make too much sense.

I'm just comforted we have 211, so folks can get Brownbamacare......

 

[Pinecone]

No, you could get yourself in a heap of trouble if you don't recognize enforceable laws that PRE-DATE preemption. MoCo tried to outlaw online ammo sales AFTER preemption and it is thus unenforceable.

Check again. The preemption was passed AFTER the MoCo ammunition sales ban. The MoCo ammunition sales ban was one of the reasons for the preemption.

http://smartgunlaws.org/local-authority-to-regulate-firearms-in-maryland/

 

[dblas]

No, the local laws stay on the books, they just are not enforceable.

The MoCo prohibition against ammunition sales is still on the books. Just takes up space in the world, not enforceable.

Maryland Annotated Code, Criminal law, 4-209(c)

(c) To the extent that a local law does not create an inconsistency with this section or expand existing regulatory control, a county, municipal corporation, or special taxing district may exercise its existing authority to amend any local law that existed on or before December 31, 1984.

Link: http://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2005/gcr/4-209.html

Any law on the books before before Dec 1, 1984 at a local or county level, is still in force so long as it does not create an inconsistency with state law.

 

[e40bib]

I guess the thought of a Carry permit never entered the Officers mind. Hummm.

Not in Maryland

 

[Pinecone]

Maryland Annotated Code, Criminal law, 4-209(c)

(c) To the extent that a local law does not create an inconsistency with this section or expand existing regulatory control, a county, municipal corporation, or special taxing district may exercise its existing authority to amend any local law that existed on or before December 31, 1984.

Link: http://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2005/gcr/4-209.html

Any law on the books before before Dec 1, 1984 at a local or county level, is still in force so long as it does not create an inconsistency with state law.

That is NOT what that says.

It says they can change their laws, as long as it does not contradict the state law.

And the point is, if it DOES create an inconsistency with state law, it is NOT in force and cannot be amended to create such an inconsistency.

State law says IT is the only entity that can create laws regarding firearms.

 

[Blaster229]

Some backstory:

Last week there was a search going on in my immediate area for a breaking and entering suspect, involving a MDSP helicopter circling for hours, and officers searching the park and woods near my home. During this time, I decided to put on my holster and open carry on my own property.

At one point I saw a guy I did not recognize go walking into the local park they'd been searching. He had his face partially covered by a hoodie (without having his arms in it at all, just draped down his back like a cape) which seemed a bit odd, so I called 911 to relay the info just in case. About 10 minutes later an officer came up the street, and I waved to him (I'd been outside talking to my neighbor) to flag him down and told him I was the one who called and described what I'd seen.

This is when things got confusing and I'd like others' insight into whether there is a local or county law that conflicts with the state law on carrying on your own property.

Nothing better to do but get strapped and go outside to maybe join the action?

So, when you called 911, the operator asked you if you wanted contact by an Officer and you said yes?
Do you think a cop would feel comfortable being asked for contact by someone who is carrying, legally on their property or not?


On average how many times a year do you dial 911 for things such as this or report possible drunk drivers, etc...?

 

[dblas]

That is NOT what that says.

It says they can change their laws, as long as it does not contradict the state law.

And the point is, if it DOES create an inconsistency with state law, it is NOT in force and cannot be amended to create such an inconsistency.

State law says IT is the only entity that can create laws regarding firearms.

Read the part after your hi light, "any local law that existed on or before December 31, 1984."

They can amend it, which means it is NOT pre-empted by state law, unless the amendment creates an inconsistency. The preemption law took affect on January 1, 1985, so any firearms related laws after Jan 1, 1985 can only come from the state level. So any local or county laws on the books at the time, that do not conflict with state law, are still in force.

 

[Pinecone]

So MoCo ammunition sales prohibition is still in effect??????

Try section (a)

(a) State preemption. -- Except as otherwise provided in this section, the State preempts the right of a county, municipal corporation, or special taxing district to regulate the purchase, sale, taxation, transfer, manufacture, repair, ownership, possession, and transportation of:

(1) a handgun, rifle, or shotgun; and

(2) ammunition for and components of a handgun, rifle, or shotgun.

Notice NO effective date. NO exemption for previous laws.

Again, the part you quote just says that they cannot amend a previous law to make a law that conflicts with the state laws.

Read this article on Preemption of a Law. Preemption invalidates any existing conflicting laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption

 

[Minuteman]

I carry on my property all the time. Mowing the grass, watering the flowers, grilling, playing with the kids. Pretty much, if I am home, I am armed. However, I NEVER open carry. I see absolutely no utility in doing so. Others' needs may not match my own, obviously, but I see no need in a populated, liberal, suburban area, to incur the questions of soccer moms and their calls to LE. Plus, if a bad guy tries to sneak up on me while I am mowing the lawn, I would rather he assume I am unarmed, like most people in MD. ;-)

This is exactly how I feel, and I've been saying this for years.

I'm ok with open carry too. And I understand concealed carry (CC) is a bit slower to draw and slightly more complicated for some. But the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. With just a little training, CC can be as secure, and fast as a less trained open carry person.

 

[dblas]

That is NOT what that says.

It says they can change their laws, as long as it does not contradict the state law.

And the point is, if it DOES create an inconsistency with state law, it is NOT in force and cannot be amended to create such an inconsistency.

State law says IT is the only entity that can create laws regarding firearms.

Sorry, I posted an older version of 4-209 (that's what I get for doing this while on vacation).

From Lexis Nexis and the most current code:

(c) Preexisting local laws. -- To the extent that a local law does not create an inconsistency with this section or expand existing regulatory control, a county, municipal corporation, or special taxing district may exercise its existing authority to amend any local law that existed on or before December 31, 1984.

So if they have authority to amend it, and it does not create an inconsistency, then they have the authority to enforce it, if it was created before Dec 31, 1984.

The MoCo ammo ban law was in 1986 I believe, I am working on getting a copy of the county bill for reference. I am also working on getting a copy of Chapter 26 from 2002 to see what those changes were.

 

[dblas]

And the entire law with references for when changes where made, at the bottom.

§ 4-209. Regulation of weapons and ammunition


(a) State preemption. -- Except as otherwise provided in this section, the State preempts the right of a county, municipal corporation, or special taxing district to regulate the purchase, sale, taxation, transfer, manufacture, repair, ownership, possession, and transportation of:

(1) a handgun, rifle, or shotgun; and

(2) ammunition for and components of a handgun, rifle, or shotgun.

(b) Exceptions. --

(1) A county, municipal corporation, or special taxing district may regulate the purchase, sale, transfer, ownership, possession, and transportation of the items listed in subsection (a) of this section:

(i) with respect to minors;

(ii) with respect to law enforcement officials of the subdivision; and

(iii) except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, within 100 yards of or in a park, church, school, public building, and other place of public assembly.

(2) A county, municipal corporation, or special taxing district may not prohibit the teaching of or training in firearms safety, or other educational or sporting use of the items listed in subsection (a) of this section.

(3) A county, municipal corporation, or special taxing district may not prohibit the transportation of an item listed in subsection (a) of this section by a person who is carrying a court order requiring the surrender of the item, if:

(i) the handgun, rifle, or shotgun is unloaded;

(ii) the person has notified the law enforcement unit, barracks, or station that the item is being transported in accordance with the court order; and

(iii) the person transports the item directly to the law enforcement unit, barracks, or station.

(c) Preexisting local laws. -- To the extent that a local law does not create an inconsistency with this section or expand existing regulatory control, a county, municipal corporation, or special taxing district may exercise its existing authority to amend any local law that existed on or before December 31, 1984.

(d) Discharge of firearms. --

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, in accordance with law, a county, municipal corporation, or special taxing district may regulate the discharge of handguns, rifles, and shotguns.

(2) A county, municipal corporation, or special taxing district may not prohibit the discharge of firearms at established ranges.

HISTORY: An. Code 1957, art. 27, § 36H; 2002, ch. 26, § 2; 2010, ch. 712.

Link to Chapter 712 from 2010: http://mlis.state.md.us/2010rs/chapters_noln/Ch_712_hb0905T.pdf

 

[Pinecone]

Sorry, I posted an older version of 4-209 (that's what I get for doing this while on vacation).

From Lexis Nexis and the most current code:

(c) Preexisting local laws. -- To the extent that a local law does not create an inconsistency with this section or expand existing regulatory control, a county, municipal corporation, or special taxing district may exercise its existing authority to amend any local law that existed on or before December 31, 1984.

So if they have authority to amend it, and it does not create an inconsistency, then they have the authority to enforce it, if it was created before Dec 31, 1984.

The MoCo ammo ban law was in 1986 I believe, I am working on getting a copy of the county bill for reference. I am also working on getting a copy of Chapter 26 from 2002 to see what those changes were.

No, that says they have the authority to AMEND IT. Not to enforce it.

But if the existing law does not contradict the State law, it would not be preempted.

State law says carry on your own property is OK.

 

[dblas]

No, that says they have the authority to AMEND IT. Not to enforce it.

But if the existing law does not contradict the State law, it would not be preempted.[/quote]

Provided it was on the books before Dec 31, 1984.

State law says carry on your own property is OK.

And on this, we agree.

 

[Abulg1972]

I am going to look at the law tomorrow and will give you my thoughts (not a legal opinion, of course ). I suspect that all local laws that are inconsistent with state law are preempted and unenforceable. My thought is also that the Maryland statute was meant to allow the continued enforcement of existing laws (and subsequent amendments thereto) that are not inconsistent with Maryland law. For example, if State law says that open carry on your property is legal (which the US Constitution also says, btw), then any county law to the contrary is not enforceable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk