Police stop and you are legally transporting a non-serial number firearm?
- Thread starter My Toy
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Many years ago I was moving about 20 long guns from one place to another when I was involved in a traffic accident. BCoPD showed up to handle the reports for the four of us. I told the LEO that I was transporting a number of rifles and ammo. He looked at me said OK and continued the reports. I'm regularly armed (carry permit) and transport firearms for range use, of the few traffic stops the LEO never went any further then a OK then wrote the ticket. But then I don't look like a bad guy crack head either. Chris
1time
Ultimate Member
Sound very excited, tell them yes and tell them all about the build. There are 2 types of police. Those like me who are genuinely interested, and those that are so sick of hearing those like me talk about the latest purchase, build, modification, or competition their eyes will glaze over and they will walk away, possibly forgetting to write you a ticket.
I do not disagree.. now for some
Schipperke and 1time, your replies are "not disapproved"
I’ve known a few folks that do not, in two cases never in their life did, smoke weed and still got the ******** “I smell marijuana” line.
Of course nothing was found but it doesn’t stop the slimy fishing expedition.
Only for citizens. Police can freely lie to you though.
5.56blaster
Ultimate Member
I've carried firearms in my vehicles for 40 years and never been asked by anyone in authority to look at them. Keep them cased and be polite.
IANAL but I do believe that Maryland is a Upon Request state which means that if stopped you do not have to announce you have a fire arm but if asked You are supposed to tell them. Don't now what the consequences are if you lie.
You can answer I have nothing illegal in my car. If asked if they can conduct a search, politely decline. It’s your 4A right. If they feel they have PC, let them go get a search warrant.
You have no illegal firearms in your vehicle and are not engaged in an illegal activity minus whatever reason the LEO stopped you for.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You have no illegal firearms in your vehicle and are not engaged in an illegal activity minus whatever reason the LEO stopped you for.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
iH8DemLibz
When All Else Fails.
Do they need a search warrant when they have PC?
Biggfoot44
Ultimate Member
- Aug 2, 2009
- 33,173
There are more elements to the Obstructing statute beyond simply lying . BUT you can betcha being cought fibbing with be a factor in the totality of the field investigations.
But 4th Amendment activism is a whole field in itself . Harking back to my frequent invocations of * The Five Different Conversations about Firearms Transport * , " wise & prudent " is a not a fixed thing .
Added - S/N were not required on rifles and shotguns until 1968 . Many inexpensive to field grade firearms did not have one . They are recorded on 4473 and other documents as " NSN " .
That said , while not required , few downsides to engraving your own random number upon your self built firearm . ( I didn't say the rest of the info required by NFA, etc , just a number .) It's not linked to any registration or database , and sometimes its helpful for you to be able to objectively refer to your creation . ie forgotten at AGC firing line , stolen and recovered , left for gunsmithing or refinishing , insurance claim after fire or disasters.
It easier to refer to s/n BF44-001 than to " that black gun with the thing that goes up , not that one , the other one over there .
But 4th Amendment activism is a whole field in itself . Harking back to my frequent invocations of * The Five Different Conversations about Firearms Transport * , " wise & prudent " is a not a fixed thing .
Added - S/N were not required on rifles and shotguns until 1968 . Many inexpensive to field grade firearms did not have one . They are recorded on 4473 and other documents as " NSN " .
That said , while not required , few downsides to engraving your own random number upon your self built firearm . ( I didn't say the rest of the info required by NFA, etc , just a number .) It's not linked to any registration or database , and sometimes its helpful for you to be able to objectively refer to your creation . ie forgotten at AGC firing line , stolen and recovered , left for gunsmithing or refinishing , insurance claim after fire or disasters.
It easier to refer to s/n BF44-001 than to " that black gun with the thing that goes up , not that one , the other one over there .
No, you do not have to consent to a search request from the officer. But, if the officer has what he or she considers to be probable cause, they will search, no warrant required. Then it will be battled in court.
- Feb 17, 2011
- 14,024
Not in a car. PC in a residence is more stringent, if they have PC they can get a warrant to search your house.
And I would guess even if something was found but the court rules no PC, then the result of that search is in admissible.
Fruit of the poisonous tree and all that
Name Taken cirted a court case that allows police searches of vehicles looking for contraband. But a stop without PC of contraband being suspected would not be PC for a search for some other reason IMO.
But IANAL
Fruit of the poisonous tree and all that
Name Taken cirted a court case that allows police searches of vehicles looking for contraband. But a stop without PC of contraband being suspected would not be PC for a search for some other reason IMO.
But IANAL
correct.
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
This is NOT legal advice: These are principles that I, personally, adhere to. YMMV:
First, making a false statement to a FEDERAL LEO (etc) can be a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001. That covers "whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. Ask Martha Stewart about Section 1001.
MD State law is different.
Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 9-501 (recodifying former Art. 27, § 150), provides that “(a) A person may not make, or cause to be made, a statement, report, or complaint that the person knows to be false as a whole or in material part, to a law enforcement officer of the State, of a county, municipal corporation, or other political subdivision of the State, or of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Police with intent to deceive and to cause an investigation or other action to be taken as a result of the statement, report, or complaint. That's a misdemeanor that makes the person "subject to imprisonment not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding $500 or both."
In Johnson v. Maryland, 75 Md.App. 621 (Ct. of Sp. Appeals 1988), cert denied 316 Md. 675 (1989), the intermediate court of appeals of Maryland applied Maryland precedent and held that "we do not believe the giving of false information in response to routine questioning by the police, even though it is likely to hinder or delay an investigation already underway, is the type of false statement, report or complaint that comes within the “false alarm” public mischief the General Assembly intended to criminalize when it enacted § 150" Rather, the statute covers "the making of false reports to the police which cause the police to conduct investigations that divert them from their proper duties of preventing crime and investigating actual incidents of crime." That's much more narrow than Section 1001. This holding in Johnson was confirmed by the MD Court of Appeals in Jones v. State, 362 Md. 331, 765 A.2d 127 (2001), which reaffirmed its post-Johnson prior opinion in Choi v. State, 316 Md. 529, 560 A.2d 1108 (1989). The Court stated in Jones that "under Choi, the offense of making a false statement to a police officer is not committed by one who, during an ongoing investigation, answers an investigating police officer's inquiries untruthfully. The offense is only committed by one whose false statement causes the police initially to undertake an investigation or other action" (765 A.2d at 130). See also In re Heather B. 369 Md. 257, 799 A.2d 397 (2002).
This is not to say that lying to a state LEO is ok. Quite to the contrary, generally, intentionally lying to police officers is a bad idea. It just may not be criminal, in and of itself, in very specific circumstances. This can get complicated very quickly. I would consult a lawyer.
This is NOT legal advice
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
Speaking for myself, I am actually not required to actually answer any questions. I have to produce my license, registration and proof of insurance, if driving. To all other questions, I can simply say: Officer, no disrespect, but I would like to be on my way. Am I free to go or am I being detained? Repeat. And, if necessary, repeat again. The more conversation I engage in the more likely I will say something that could trigger further questions and down the rabbit hole I go. The right not to answer is there to protect the innocent. See Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391 (1957) ("'one of the basic functions of the privilege’ is ‘to protect ‘the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances'"). If I am being detained, then if want to assert my right to silence, I would be required (under Salinas v. Texas,133 S.Ct. 2174 (2013)) to assert my 5th Amendment right to silence expressly and expressly decline to answer further questions without the assistance of legal counsel. The invocation of my Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel is particularly appropriate. This is not legal advice.
buellsfurn
Ultimate Member
so if its against the law to not tell the truth to all above mentioned paragraph 2 code ann how is it not against law in to do the same hb1302
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
The petitioner under HB1302 is expressly granted complete immunity from criminal and civil liability for filing a petition if the petitioner does so in "good faith." So, yes, HB 1302 immunity would arguably be from charges that could have otherwise been brought under Section 9-501
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
Just want to thank the extremely awesome folks at Tyler Firearms (2 Viewers)- Started by GenoBluzGtr
- Replies: 4
-
-
Clearance Liqui Moly Motorbike 4T SAE 15W-50 Street | Full Synthetic Motor Oil | 4 Liter (1 Viewer)- Started by mpollan1
- Replies: 3
-
-
-
