Just an exercise to show the issues with MD's carry laws.

[Schipperke]

public school grounds
thats my dilemma

 

[montoya32]

public school grounds
thats my dilemma

Right, which means you cannot have the firearm in the vehicle, if I am correct. How obscene is that? Not only can you not carry, but you cannot leave it in your vehicle, as Sgt. Knaub suggests is possible.

 

[redeemed.man]

Right, which means you cannot have the firearm in the vehicle, if I am correct. How obscene is that? Not only can you not carry, but you cannot leave it in your vehicle, as Sgt. Knaub suggests is possible.

Secure the weapon while parking elsewhere and walk to the school property unarmed.

 

[montoya32]

Secure the weapon while parking elsewhere and walk to the school property unarmed.

Does Maryland have a "proximity" law? Can't have a firearm within XX feet of a school?

 

[marylandmark]

Fed law is 1000 feet but if you have a permit or dropping off/picking up you are good to go IIRC. That's why people say to get a Virgina vs using Utah for Virginia.

Maryland? I don't think it extends further than school grounds per 4-102-B?

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/f...on=4-102&ext=html&session=2015RS&tab=subject5

I feel like the church thing is because of church schools? In that churches are not prohibited places unless you are in the school part of the church for churches that have schools?

 

[Stoveman]

Fed law is 1000 feet but if you have a permit or dropping off/picking up you are good to go IIRC. That's why people say to get a Virgina vs using Utah for Virginia.

Maryland? I don't think it extends further than school grounds per 4-102-B?

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/f...on=4-102&ext=html&session=2015RS&tab=subject5

I feel like the church thing is because of church schools? In that churches are not prohibited places unless you are in the school part of the church for churches that have schools?

But these are private schools. The law states public schools.

 

[navycraig]

Every single one of those is a "no" if in Leonardtown or LaPlata as their local "no firearms" ordinances pre-date state preemption and therefore carry the day.
At least that's my understanding.

 

[RonK]

Every single one of those is a "no" if in Leonardtown or LaPlata as their local "no firearms" ordinances pre-date state preemption and therefore carry the day.
At least that's my understanding.

Not sure why i'm concerned about it, since I don't have a permit but I was not aware of any municipal prohibitions in La PLata on posession/carrying of a firearm.
But i did look it up just now. The following from the Town Code: (also quoted in another thread)
146-5 Discharge of firearms.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person within the town limits to have concealed upon his person any deadly or dangerous weapon; provided, however, that the officers, noncommissioned officers and privates of the United States Army, Navy, Air Force or Marine Corps or any regularly organized military company, police officers, officers guarding prisoners, officials of the United States or any state or the District of Columbia engaged in the execution of the laws for the protection of persons or property, when such persons are on duty, shall not be liable for carrying necessary arms for use in performance of their duty, and provided further that nothing contained in this section shall be so construed as to prevent any person from keeping or carrying about his place of business, dwelling house or premises any such dangerous or deadly weapon or from carrying the same from place of purchase to his dwelling house or place of business or from his dwelling house or place of business or any place where repairing is done, to have the same repaired, and back again...

The bold above would allow "his place of business"(does he have to be owner??), and how the carrying is done from home to business I dunno.

Not familiar with local vs state preemption but the above code was repealed and reenacted (with ammendments in other areas concerning public urination) last year. Ordinance 15-23, adopted 10/27/15, enacted 11/12/15. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...0098FqeYgJZnFuiMw&sig2=7TTL4RBocovsHsLBxsGm4w

Anyways, like I said above doesn't apply to me but does remind me to check town/city codes vs state in the states I may travel with a Utah permit.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Re # 10 :

If someone doesn't care to consume while packing, ( or is teetotaler in general ), I'm not going to force them to drink. Since Tim specified a Business Roundtable function ; it's not too much of a stretch to expect a group of mostly known profesional people , meeting a respectable establishment, quiet enough to hold a business meeting. With those cavets, minimal concerns, drink iced tea or soda if so inclined. Stopping in for happy hour at the local Dew Drop Inn , requires its own evaluations.

 

[navycraig]

Right, which means you cannot have the firearm in the vehicle, if I am correct. How obscene is that? Not only can you not carry, but you cannot leave it in your vehicle, as Sgt. Knaub suggests is possible.

Would this not also hold true for what I mentioned in post #27? Leonardtown and LaPlata both prohibit carry of firearms so I would expect that even if I'm simply passing through that I'm technically breaking the law.

 

[Pinecone]

Every single one of those is a "no" if in Leonardtown or LaPlata as their local "no firearms" ordinances pre-date state preemption and therefore carry the day.
At least that's my understanding.

That is not how preemption works.

When a state preempts local ordinances, they preempt ALL of them, existing or future. The ordinances do not come off the books, but they are unenforceable.

This is why there are issues with some suppliers shipping ammo to MoCo and Annapolis. They both banned the sale of ammunition. The state then passed the preemption law, so those local ordinances cannot be enforced, but since they are on the books, some suppliers will not ship, thinking it is against the local ordinances.

 

[ar154u]

I think I've read here that some permit restrictions say and I'm paraphrasing not valid where prohibited. When I read this statement I think of not only the " unlawful " places, but establishments that post on their doors firearms are prohibited. So it seems to me if you carry in one of the places contrary to the signs posted you may be arrested and lose your permit.

 

[navycraig]

I think I've read here that some permit restrictions say and I'm paraphrasing not valid where prohibited. When I read this statement I think of not only the " unlawful " places, but establishments that post on their doors firearms are prohibited. So it seems to me if you carry in one of the places contrary to the signs posted you may be arrested and lose your permit.

As for the establishments, it all comes down to whether or not, in that state, those signs have "the force of law". Some do, some don't.

Handgunlaw.us is an awesome place to check and is a great tool. It dedicates a heading to this very issue. For MD it states: "Do “No Gun Signs” Have the Force of Law? “??????” (Can find no law stating they do)"

In other instances, VA for example, handgunlaw.us states that the signs do not have the force of law.

That said, while it's a great tool, check and double check the specific laws. I used their "create a license map" tool based on the permits that I have. When I looked at the map it indicated that I'm good to go in CO, but when I looked at CO specifically, they do not honor non-resident permits and they also don't honor MD so their map was a bit off.

 

[navycraig]

That is not how preemption works.

When a state preempts local ordinances, they preempt ALL of them, existing or future. The ordinances do not come off the books, but they are unenforceable.

This is why there are issues with some suppliers shipping ammo to MoCo and Annapolis. They both banned the sale of ammunition. The state then passed the preemption law, so those local ordinances cannot be enforced, but since they are on the books, some suppliers will not ship, thinking it is against the local ordinances.

Thank you for this reply.

 

[danb]

That is not how preemption works.

When a state preempts local ordinances, they preempt ALL of them, existing or future. The ordinances do not come off the books, but they are unenforceable.

This is why there are issues with some suppliers shipping ammo to MoCo and Annapolis. They both banned the sale of ammunition. The state then passed the preemption law, so those local ordinances cannot be enforced, but since they are on the books, some suppliers will not ship, thinking it is against the local ordinances.

Sometimes state preemption laws grandfather certain things or certain localities. You have to look at the specific statute. It is not always as cut and dry as you say.

 

[marylandmark]

But these are private schools. The law states public schools.

Correct you are, thank you for pointing that out.

Every single one of those is a "no" if in Leonardtown or LaPlata as their local "no firearms" ordinances pre-date state preemption and therefore carry the day.
At least that's my understanding.

That is not how preemption works.

When a state preempts local ordinances, they preempt ALL of them, existing or future. The ordinances do not come off the books, but they are unenforceable.

This is why there are issues with some suppliers shipping ammo to MoCo and Annapolis. They both banned the sale of ammunition. The state then passed the preemption law, so those local ordinances cannot be enforced, but since they are on the books, some suppliers will not ship, thinking it is against the local ordinances.

I went to the Town of La Plata Police Department and asked the Chief of Police in person about carrying at Town Hall (paying my H20 bill). He said if I can carry in Maryland that I can carry at Town Hall because it is a county government building, not a State or Federal building. Not a bash but it goes without saying that if you ask 10 cops that you will get 12 different answers but I did my best to reach out to find the truth.

 

[Jack McCauley]

Depends...do you have your DC letter?

I caution you, this post will get a bit off the topic. But when I get started, I often continue on the path until the end. So bare with me.

Your Maryland Designated Collector status does nothing to validate any transport of firearms. The only purpose, under Maryland law, for the Designated Collector status is to allow an individual to purchase more than one firearm in a thirty day period. The exemptions for transport are not bolstered or corroborated by the designation.

A few years back, I had a conversation with a lobbyist and former State employee in Annapolis regarding the original intent of the Designated Collector status. He wrote the Firearms Safety Act in the 90's. He told me the DC was an intentional loophole that was created to provide a cushion for any impending lawsuit against the one gun a month purchase. He said that many lawmakers were concerned at the time that the one gun a month was unconstitutional (but they would pass it anyway) as long as an exemption existed.

For a very long period of time the AGC Legislative Vice President fought the State Police on their requirements for those persons who were applying to become a designated collector. The State, at the time, was requiring proof that the individual owned a collection of firearms. This argument went to the Lt Colonel, who after consultation with Legal Counsel, ruled that the State Police could not require an applicant to provide such proof and that anyone could be approved as a Designated Collector by simply applying. There is no mechanism under Maryland law to deny any applicant, even if they are a prohibited person. This ruling was ignored by Licensing Division personnel for over two years and they continued to require documentation. Because the Licensing Division is typically ignored by headquarters command staff, this failure to obey a lawful order simply continued. No one was aware that personnel ignored their orders. Both the AGC Legislative Vice President and the former MSI President brought this to my attention when I became the commander. So I looked into it. After reviewing the well documented communication history on this process (saved by the AGC Vice President), I immediately placed a person in charge of reviewing and approving all applications without the required proof of evidence they already owned firearms. I then created and issued a new Special Order.

This was one of many wakeup calls I had that began within days of taking over this command. I was shocked the State Police had ignored these issues even despite the proper challenges and reviews having been made. This division was run unlike any other division I had seen within the Department. Every value the department had was ignored within this division. This was not the State Police I had known and loved for over 20 years. I was shocked at nearly everything these employees were forced to endure while being ignored by those who preached how much of a family we were. This division was truly a nightmare and was not representative of an otherwise professional and historically respected police department. But it was never the fault of the employees (well most of the employees.)

The Licensing Division and their problems are still being ignored today. Most of this is not the fault of the personnel assigned. We all know there are a few within the division that are running the place from the bottom up. But for the most part, they are just people trying to do their jobs. They do not have the authority to overrule or ignore the Standard Operating Procedures. And the people that need to correct these failed processes continue to ignore the issues.

As the commander of this division, I had an intern that evaluated every process within the Licensing Division. She generated a very well written report. (one that is likely still available via a PIA request) At 21 years of age and just out of college, she was able to identify and record every major mistake within the division and offer a solution to fix the process. The fixes were not really difficult. I suspect her report is being used to balance the broken leg of a 40 year old desk inside of some office.

 

[miles71]

Churches illegal to carry? I've heard this but never confirmed it, can't find it anyplace as law.

Is this one of those rumors that become "true".

TD

 

[Jack McCauley]

Churches illegal to carry? I've heard this but never confirmed it, can't find it anyplace as law. Is this one of those rumors that become "true". TD

I carry in church and my preacher thanks me for it.

 

[daggo66]

While consuming alcohol to a degree may be legal, there is another aspect of it to consider. The civil lawsuit. Should you enter in a situation where you are forced to take action. you can expect a civil lawsuit. ANY consumption of alcohol would not be in your best interest if that should occur.