Legality of Blue Carry

[SigMatt]

CharlieFoxtrot,

I don't see a conflict or problem in any case. I live in MoCo and I am always engaged in going to or from a target range when I am transporting. Plus I always follow state and Federal transport laws to the letter and to excess (no loaded magazines, ammo in separate bag/box, all gun cases locked with padlocks, guns inside the cases have cable locks on them). I am very paranoid about violating such laws because of my residency status.

As to "blue guns", 57-10 wouldn't apply. Quite simply, a gun shaped piece of rubber isn't a gun by any legal definition I can find in this state. Might scare the sheep because I am carrying something that looks like a gun but it would be plainly obvious to anyone (especially a LEO) that it was not. Especially considering I wouldn't be waving it around in any manner to suggest "gun like" qualities.

Would carry such a rubber replica on your hip in a car even be a violation of any law? Annoying a police officer because he doesn't like your rubber toy I think qualifies. Pissing off the LEO's is not the idea here; getting the sheep gaze up from the grass is.

If the MoCo ordinance is invalid, it should be repealed or struck from the books. If someone was arrested under its provision, state preemption rules and the manner of carriage was in compliance with state rules, would that not be an affirmative defense against a charge under the (illegal) MoCo rule?

Interesting stuff. I didn't expect this type of response. It's fun to make people think. I enjoy it.

Matt

 

[CharlieFoxtrot]

Everything I am about to describe is a matter of public record so I am not divulging any confidential information or names. This case happened about 5-6 years ago when Gansler was still State's Attorney. Client was a Fred Co resident who got up & went hunting in the am. No luck so he unloaded rifle, put it in case and went to work in Montgomery County. After work he went out to dinner with some co-workers. For some other reason not related to client police were called to restaurant. While police were there it came out (and I can't remember the specifics) that he had his rifle in car. Police seized rifle and arrested client and charged him with this subsection, which carries a potential sentence of 6 months in jail and $1000 fine. Interestingly enough the initial officer told me in court that he thought the charge was BS and he wanted to let my client go but was overruled by his Sergeant.

There was absolutely no talking any sense with the three prosecutors involved who were rabidly anti-gun. All sorts of threats of indictment or jail time if he didn’t plead guilty and agree to forfeit the rifle. We went to trial. Judge granted my motion to dismiss the case based on the preemption statute. Client also got his rifle back but it was a long (and expensive) process.

I guess the point I was trying to make in my long winded lawyerly way is beware that these goofy statutes are still out there. And even if they are illegal it can take quite an expenditure of time and money (and not to mention a night in jail) to get vindicated. I still don't see anything illegal with carrying a blue gun though.

 

[BenL]

Everything I am about to describe is a matter of public record so I am not divulging any confidential information or names. This case happened about 5-6 years ago when Gansler was still State's Attorney. Client was a Fred Co resident who got up & went hunting in the am. No luck so he unloaded rifle, put it in case and went to work in Montgomery County. After work he went out to dinner with some co-workers. For some other reason not related to client police were called to restaurant. While police were there it came out (and I can't remember the specifics) that he had his rifle in car. Police seized rifle and arrested client and charged him with this subsection, which carries a potential sentence of 6 months in jail and $1000 fine. Interestingly enough the initial officer told me in court that he thought the charge was BS and he wanted to let my client go but was overruled by his Sergeant.

There was absolutely no talking any sense with the three prosecutors involved who were rabidly anti-gun. All sorts of threats of indictment or jail time if he didn’t plead guilty and agree to forfeit the rifle. We went to trial. Judge granted my motion to dismiss the case based on the preemption statute. Client also got his rifle back but it was a long (and expensive) process.

I guess the point I was trying to make in my long winded lawyerly way is beware that these goofy statutes are still out there. And even if they are illegal it can take quite an expenditure of time and money (and not to mention a night in jail) to get vindicated. I still don't see anything illegal with carrying a blue gun though.

How about wearing just the holster?

 

[CharlieFoxtrot]

I see no problem with just wearing a holster.

 

[Redneck]

There was absolutely no talking any sense with the three prosecutors involved who were rabidly anti-gun. All sorts of threats of indictment or jail time if he didn’t plead guilty and agree to forfeit the rifle. We went to trial. Judge granted my motion to dismiss the case based on the preemption statute. Client also got his rifle back but it was a long (and expensive) process.

Do you think it would have been cheaper for him to hand over his rifle and then buy a new one?

 

[RnRFreak]

Do you think it would have been cheaper for him to hand over his rifle and then buy a new one?

Probably. I have a buddy thats a lawyer and his rates to me are $150 an hour. Thats at a discount and the clock doesn't only run when in court.

 

[Allium]

I'd say just carve one out of soap but dillinger did that and got out of jail. Just put a stick in it. then when tghey ask why the stick in the holster tell them its to throw at who ever starts shooting at us in a no firearms zone. Then well say what will that do just reply - thats my point.

Circus of the absurd

 

[CharlieFoxtrot]

Do you think it would have been cheaper for him to hand over his rifle and then buy a new one?

Yeah he probably ended up spending a little more than the rifle's actual value, but it had a lot of sentimental value to him and he wanted it back.

 

[ThatIsAFact]

The following point does not contradict what Charlie Foxtrot said above, but may be of some marginal interest: In a 1989 case styled Mark Handy v. State of Maryland, the Maryland Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) established three ways in which an object might be classified as a "dangerous or deadly weapon" under Maryland law. The court held, as a matter of law, that "a lightweight plastic toy gun" generally may not be classified as a deadly or dangerous weapon. However, under the court's analysis, a toy gun might qualify as a deadly or dangerous weapon if it is heavy enough to be used as a "bludgeon." In any event, it is not illegal (under state law) to carry a "deadly or dangerous weapon" if it is not concealed, unless it is carried "with the intent or purpose of injuring an individual in an unlawful manner."

 

[ThatIsAFact]

Maryland preemption law is weak

Since there have been several references to the Maryland preemption law (Section 4-209) in this thread, it is perhaps worthwhile to point out that it is a badly flawed preemption law. It explicitly authorizes local governments to continue to regulate "the purchase, sale, transfer, ownership, possession, and transportation" of "a handgun, rifle, or shotgun" and "ammunition for and components of a handgun, rifle, or shotgun," if "within 100 yards of or in a park, church, school, public building, and other place of public assembly." In addition, the local governments may continue to impose restrictions that apply to minors or local police officers.

 

[xd40c]

I see no problem with just wearing a holster.

I had a short conversation with an off duty Carrol County officer this afternoon. I had gone into the Starbucks in Westminster. I had disarmed before going in, so I was wearing an empty OC holster. He asked me if I was a MSP. I told him no, just a private citizen with a permit. That was all that was said. I got my coffee and went back to the car, stuck my gun back in my holster, and went back to work.

 

[Redneck]

I had a short conversation with an off duty Carrol County officer this afternoon. I had gone into the Starbucks in Westminster. I had disarmed before going in, so I was wearing an empty OC holster. He asked me if I was a MSP. I told him no, just a private citizen with a permit. That was all that was said. I got my coffee and went back to the car, stuck my gun back in my holster, and went back to work.

If you have a permit why did you leave the your handgun in the car?

 

[novus collectus]

Since there have been several references to the Maryland preemption law (Section 4-209) in this thread, it is perhaps worthwhile to point out that it is a badly flawed preemption law. It explicitly authorizes local governments to continue to regulate "the purchase, sale, transfer, ownership, possession, and transportation" of "a handgun, rifle, or shotgun" and "ammunition for and components of a handgun, rifle, or shotgun," if "within 100 yards of or in a park, church, school, public building, and other place of public assembly." In addition, the local governments may continue to impose restrictions that apply to minors or local police officers.

Wait, I re-read this other state preemption earlier today while sitting on the crapper:

Public Safety
§ 5-133.
(a) This section supersedes any restriction that a local jurisdiction in the State imposes on the possession by a private party of a regulated firearm, and the State preempts the right of any local jurisdiction to regulate the possession of a regulated firearm.


(b) A person may not possess a regulated firearm if the person:


(1) has been convicted of a disqualifying crime;


(2) has been convicted of a violation classified as a common law crime and received a term of imprisonment of more than 2 years;


(3) is a fugitive from justice;


(4) is a habitual drunkard;


(5) is addicted to a controlled dangerous substance or is a habitual user;


(6) suffers from a mental disorder as defined in § 10-101(f)(2) of the Health - General Article and has a history of violent behavior against the person or another, unless the person has a physician's certificate that the person is capable of possessing a regulated firearm without undue danger to the person or to another;


(7) has been confined for more than 30 consecutive days to a facility as defined in § 10-101 of the Health - General Article, unless the person has a physician's certificate that the person is capable of possessing a regulated firearm without undue danger to the person or to another;


(8) is a respondent against whom a current non ex parte civil protective order has been entered under § 4-506 of the Family Law Article; or


(9) if under the age of 30 years at the time of possession, has been adjudicated delinquent by a juvenile court for an act that would be a disqualifying crime if committed by an adult.


(c) (1) A person may not possess a regulated firearm if the person was previously convicted of:


(i) a crime of violence; or


(ii) a violation of § 5-602, § 5-603, § 5-604, § 5-605, § 5-606, § 5-607, § 5-608, § 5-609, § 5-612, § 5-613, or § 5-614 of the Criminal Law Article.


(2) A person who violates this subsection is guilty of a felony and on conviction is subject to imprisonment for not less than 5 years, no part of which may be suspended.


(3) A person sentenced under paragraph (1) of this subsection may not be eligible for parole.


(4) Each violation of this subsection is a separate crime.


(d) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, a person who is under the age of 21 years may not possess a regulated firearm or ammunition solely designed for a regulated firearm.


(2) Unless a person is otherwise prohibited from possessing a regulated firearm, this subsection does not apply to:


(i) the temporary transfer or possession of a regulated firearm or ammunition solely designed for a regulated firearm if the person is:


1. under the supervision of another who is at least 21 years old and who is not prohibited by State or federal law from possessing a firearm; and


2. acting with the permission of the parent or legal guardian of the transferee or person in possession;


(ii) the transfer by inheritance of title, and not of possession, of a regulated firearm;


(iii) a member of the armed forces of the United States or the National Guard while performing official duties;


(iv) the temporary transfer or possession of a regulated firearm or ammunition solely designed for a regulated firearm if the person is:


1. participating in marksmanship training of a recognized organization; and


2. under the supervision of a qualified instructor;


(v) a person who is required to possess a regulated firearm for employment and who holds a permit under Subtitle 3 of this title; or


(vi) the possession of a firearm or ammunition for self-defense or the defense of others against a trespasser into the residence of the person in possession or into a residence in which the person in possession is an invited guest.

It seems as if there may be some conflict in laws when it comes to regulated firearms.

 

[novus collectus]

If you have a permit why did you leave the your handgun in the car?

I can guess why. Some people are wary of a snatch attempt when open carrying in stores or crowded places.

 

[Redneck]

I can guess why. Some people are wary of a snatch attempt when open carrying.

Shouldnt the holster have a snap lock of some sort?

 

[novus collectus]

Shouldnt the holster have a snap lock of some sort?

I don't think the "enclosed" holster aspect applies to people with a permit.

 

[Redneck]

I don't think the "enclosed" holster aspect applies to people with a permit.

You lost me, enclosed? As in concealed enclosed or strap around the grip enclosed?

 

[novus collectus]

You lost me, enclosed? As in concealed enclosed or strap around the grip enclosed?

Sorry, I thought you were thinking about the "enclosed holster" while trasporting a handgun mention in the handgun section for us non-permit holders.
I have heard that a strap on the open end of the holster counts as "enclosed", but I am not definite and I did not hear this from the MDSP. But that was probably not what you were talking about anyway so never mind.

 

[Redneck]

Sorry, I thought you were thinking about the "enclosed holster" while trasporting a handgun mention in the handgun section for us non-permit holders.
I have heard that a strap on the open end of the holster counts as "enclosed", but I am not definite and I did not hear this from the MDSP. But that was probably not what you were talking about anyway so never mind.

It just doesnt make sense to me that if you have a permit open or conceal why leave it in your car? Whats the point of having a permit to carry if you are not going to use it?

 

[ThatIsAFact]

the two preemption laws

Wait, I re-read this other state preemption earlier today [5-133] while sitting on the crapper . . . It seems as if there may be some conflict in laws when it comes to regulated firearms.

5-133 is supposed to set uniform state standards for who may "possess" a handgun (ownership, basically). If a county board passed an ordinance that nobody in that county who had ever been convicted for DWI could own a gun within that county, clearly that would conflict with 5-133. But I agree that there seems to be some conflict between 5-133 and 4-209 with respect to "ownership," etc., within the local-control zones enumerated in the latter law. Maybe CharlieFoxtrot can shed some light on this?