Question regarding firearm possession/carry at work

[MikeTF]

This.

I'm open minded. I'm trying to understand how this applies to the OP.

How does a case involving a delinquent child, having a shotgun under their bed (which could be legal, given their age, and completion of a hunter safety course) apply to an adult (non disqualified) carrying a weapon (concealed or not) at a place of business (private property) with the permission of the business (property) owner.

On December 29, 1998, a petition was filed by the State's Attorney for Baltimore City alleging that petitioner, Colby H., was a delinquent child based upon four alleged firearm violations.1  

Is the evidence sufficient to establish “wearing and carrying” of a dangerous or deadly weapon in violation of Md. Ann.Code, Art. 27, § 36, where the prosecution proves nothing more than [that] the police found a shotgun under [a] mattress in Respondent's room at a time when Respondent was not even home? - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/md-court-of-appeals/1048866.html#sthash.ltEdczBm.dpuf

 

[esqappellate]

I'm open minded. I'm trying to understand how this applies to the OP.

How does a case involving a delinquent child, having a shotgun under their bed (which could be legal, given their age, and completion of a hunter safety course) apply to an adult (non disqualified) carrying a weapon (concealed or not) at a place of business (private property) with the permission of the business (property) owner.

Read the whole case carefully and distinguish between two statutory provisions, currently codified at Crim. Law Section 4-101 (dangerous weapons other than handguns) and Section 4-203 (concerning the "wearing, carrying or transporting" handguns). The kid was charged with having a concealed shotgun in his home under 4-101. In holding that did not violate 4-101, the court also discussed what is now 4-203 in noting that the ban imposed by 4-203 on handguns was stricter than the ban on concealed weapons in 4-101. The court expressly noted that handgun possession in the home (not just private property but the home) was legal. As to private property, 4-203(b)(6) permits "(6) the wearing, carrying, or transporting of a handgun by a person on real estate that the person owns or leases or where the person resides or within the confines of a business establishment that the person owns or leases." That does NOT permit the carrying of handguns on other types of private property. In contrast, Colby holds that 4-101 is not violated if a person has a non-handgun weapon on the private property of another person if that owner gives permission. There is no general private property exception to 4-203. Reading statutes and cases is what lawyers do. It's a skill set.

 

[Bafflingbs]

popo

 

[Mark K]

OK, slightly different twist in my case.

Former Maryland resident, but I now live in Ohio and have an Ohio CCW permit. I'll be driving to Maryland in December to attend our daughter's UMD graduation, staying at a hotel. I'll be entering Maryland and checking into the hotel on the same day.

I can obviously carry in Ohio and Pennsylvania (with reciprocity).

Before entering Maryland, I intend on locking the gun in the trunk, unloaded, in its own locked box.

The key seems to be whether a hotel room is a "bona fide residence" (under Maryland law), or whether I "may lawfully possess and carry" a gun in a Maryland hotel room (under FOPA).

There seems to be debate as to the "bona fide residence" bit -- any legal reference to the term seems to be connected with tax status. So I'd prefer not to depend on Maryland law in this case.

But to be covered under FOPA, seems that it would have to be legal to "possess and carry" a gun in a Maryland hotel room. I'd guess yes, but what's the cite? I'd have a reservation as proof of intent.

I don't intend to speed, but stuff happens... and I'd prefer not to have to play the Fourth and Fifth Amendment games with an LEO...

 

[Mr H]

The hotel room is considered a 'domicile'.

So, having it handy is not a problem.

 

[Mark K]

The hotel room is considered a 'domicile'.

So, having it handy is not a problem.

(Doh, I meant to post this in the "Maryland handgun transport rules" thread. But since I did it here, I'll press on... )

I've seen a lot of posts here certain that a hotel room is OK, but no reference for it. Is it legal in Maryland to have a gun in any "domicile"? Makes sense, but what's the reference?

 

[esqappellate]

The hotel room is considered a 'domicile'.

So, having it handy is not a problem.

Sorry. A hotel room is not a "domicle" You become domicled in a place when to move to a jurisdiction with the the intent of making it your permanent residence. I am domicled in the State of Maryland, not my house. The house is my residence. It is possible that a hotel room it might be your "residence," which can be temporary, but even that is pushing it for purposes of gun laws. Not legal advice, just a suggestion.

 

[Mr H]

Sorry. A hotel room is not a "domicle" You become domicled in a place when to move to a jurisdiction with the the intent of making it your permanent residence. I am domicled in the State of Maryland, not my house. The house is my residence. It is possible that a hotel room it might be your "residence," which can be temporary, but even that is pushing it for purposes of gun laws. Not legal advice, just a suggestion.

Fair enough... They've been used interchangeably in the past, here.

Unless I've missed a change in opinion consensus has been that, regardless of the wording, temporary residences are good to go.

Willing to be educated, as always.

 

[Pinecone]

AFAIK, temp residences are GTG.

Even a motor home, once it is parked. Once it starts moving, it is a motor vehicle. But when parked, it is a residence.

The same thing has been posted about firearms and boats. Under weigh, vehicle. Stopped for the night, in a boat suitable for spending the night, it is a residence.

 

[redeemed.man]

Someone was carrying at work

Armed bar employee shoots robbery suspect

Link:
http://www.abc2news.com/news/crime-checker/baltimore-city-crime/armed-bar-employee-shoots-robber

 

[71Chevelle427]

Someone was carrying at work

Armed bar employee shoots robbery suspect

Link:
http://www.abc2news.com/news/crime-checker/baltimore-city-crime/armed-bar-employee-shoots-robber

He deserves a raise.

 

[esqappellate]

Fair enough... They've been used interchangeably in the past, here.

Unless I've missed a change in opinion consensus has been that, regardless of the wording, temporary residences are good to go.

Willing to be educated, as always.

Speaking only for myself, that is not an argument that I intend to rely on. The court is likely to look at this as simply a matter of legislative intent. Given the restrictive purpose and history of this law, I won't wager my freedom (and a life time ban on gun and ammo possession) that a court will rule that my overnight hotel room is my residence within the meaning of 4-203. If anyone wishes to be the test case, I would watch with great interest, but I sure would not advise it.

 

[MikeTF]

I'd rather save my life and risk losing my gun rights.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[Pinecone]

AFAIK, hotel/motel as temp residence, as well as motor home when stopped for that night, has been tested in court. Precedence has been set.

 

[esqappellate]

AFAIK, hotel/motel as temp residence, as well as motor home when stopped for that night, has been tested in court. Precedence has been set.

cite?

 

[Pinecone]

None, right now.

But that is also why I said AFAIK.

I remember some instances where this ended up in court.

The proof is left to the student as an exercise.

 

[CharlieFoxtrot]

AFAIK, hotel/motel as temp residence, as well as motor home when stopped for that night, has been tested in court. Precedence has been set.

While not directly on point (this case deals with the castle doctrine and definition of dwelling) Gainer v. State, 40 Md. App. 382; 391 A.2d. 856 (1978) might be of some help.

A dwelling place is any building or habitation, or part of it, in which the actor is at the time temporarily or permanently residing and that is in the exclusive possession of the actor, or of a household of which he is a member. Only that part of the building or other habitation that is actually used for residential purposes is a dwelling place. Thus a man's house is the dwelling place of himself, his family, his servants and for the time being, the dwelling place of one who is residing, however temporarily, in the house as a guest. It is not the dwelling place of a visitor, social or business, who comes to the house for a particular purpose and not to reside therein. The phrase "dwelling place" includes a room or apartment in a hotel that the guest and his family are entitled to occupy exclusively. It does not include the lobbies, halls or common rooms of a hotel or apartment house.

 

[esqappellate]

While not directly on point (this case deals with the castle doctrine and definition of dwelling) Gainer v. State, 40 Md. App. 382; 391 A.2d. 856 (1978) might be of some help.

Nice case for the castle doctrine and plainly decided correctly. I have not found any case law on whether a "dwelling" for purposes of the castle doctrine equates with "residence" for purposes of 4-203. Some overlap, for sure, but I would hesitate to rely too heavily on castle doctrine cases for purposes of insulating myself from 4-203 charges. The purposes are quite different. Indeed, 4-203 uses the term "bona fide residences" which suggests a narrow application.

 

[CharlieFoxtrot]

Indeed, 4-203 uses the term "bona fide residences" which suggests a narrow application.

I agree.