magazine limitations in md?

davsco · Jan 7, 2019

just checking, there are no magazine capacity restrictions (rifle or handgun) in maryland currently, is that right? buying 17 (or whatever) rounder handgun mags or 30 (or whatever) rounder AR mags in another state and bringing back and using in maryland is currently legal, right? a relative asked so figured i'd confirm, thanks.

sinensis · Jan 7, 2019

Correct, just cannot purchase/sell/transfer within Maryland. No ban on ownership... yet...

Moorvogi · Jan 28, 2019

does this include .22LR magazines?

daggo66 · Jan 28, 2019

Moorvogi said:
does this include .22LR magazines?

Yes

rseymorejr · Jan 28, 2019

Moorvogi said:
does this include .22LR magazines?

Detachable mags, yes. .22 semi-auto rifles with tubular magazines are exempt

lazarus · Jan 29, 2019

rseymorejr said:
Detachable mags, yes. .22 semi-auto rifles with tubular magazines are exempt

No they aren’t. 14 round limit (13?) on tube feed 22s. It isn’t blanket exempt. The original Marlin 60 had a 19 round tube (I think). So it wouldn’t be legal to transfer an original in the state. You could through FFLs outside of the state and bring it in.

Rimfire Firearms aren’t subject to assault weapon restrictions (over all length, flash suppressor, grenade launcher and folding stock restrictions).

It would be a bit stupid, but I have been wanting to build a 10/22 with a 6-8” barrel and folding stock and possibly flash hider suppressor host. By stupid I mean it seems stupid to spend that effort and $200 tax stamp for a Rimfire rifle. But I could have a wee little rifle then.

Only real reason I am interested in braces is those Glock drop in frames that B&T and others makes. Looks like tons of fun (or a Vz61 with a folding stock adapter and brace) b

Hawkeye · Jan 29, 2019

lazarus said:
No they aren’t.

Yes, they are.

MD Criminal Law, §4–305:

§4–305.

(a) This section does not apply to:

(1) a .22 caliber rifle with a tubular magazine; or

(2) a law enforcement officer or a person who retired in good standing from service with a law enforcement agency of the United States, the State, or any law enforcement agency in the State.

(b) A person may not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, purchase, receive, or transfer a detachable magazine that has a capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition for a firearm.

14 round limit (13?) on tube feed 22s.

As above, tube fed .22s are exempt, period. Frankly, though, I can't think of a tube fed .22 that has a detachable magazine anyways, so why they had to make them exempt I don't know, since that section specifically applies to detachable magazines.

The original Marlin 60 had a 19 round tube (I think). So it wouldn’t be legal to transfer an original in the state. You could through FFLs outside of the state and bring it in.

This is wrong, unless you can provide me a citation of something that I'm missing.

It would be a bit stupid, but I have been wanting to build a 10/22 with a 6-8” barrel and folding stock and possibly flash hider suppressor host. By stupid I mean it seems stupid to spend that effort and $200 tax stamp for a Rimfire rifle. But I could have a wee little rifle then.

I don't think that would be stupid at all - I think it'd be a ton of fun! I've actually thought about registering my 10/22 Takedown as an SBR so I could put a Charger takedown front end on it for just that purpose.

lazarus · Jan 31, 2019

Hawkeye said:
Yes, they are.

MD Criminal Law, §4–305:

As above, tube fed .22s are exempt, period. Frankly, though, I can't think of a tube fed .22 that has a detachable magazine anyways, so why they had to make them exempt I don't know, since that section specifically applies to detachable magazines.

This is wrong, unless you can provide me a citation of something that I'm missing.

I don't think that would be stupid at all - I think it'd be a ton of fun! I've actually thought about registering my 10/22 Takedown as an SBR so I could put a Charger takedown front end on it for just that purpose.

Dang it, you are right! I swear to god I remember reading there was a capacity restriction for internal mag firearms that DID apply to rimfires.

Law is clear it is only centerfire internal mags that are limited to 10 (maybe I am thinking of some other stupid state's laws that limits to 13 or 14. Maybe it was NJ when they were only partly retarded and then went full retard over the last 10-20 years).

My bigger thing is the SBR restrictions to me are a pain. It does evade the 29" OAL restrictions for MD, which is nice. Maybe some year if my wife loosens up a little I will do my next 10/22 project as an SBR. A take-down would be cool. A take-down, with a folding stock, 6" barrel and a suppressor.

OH! or see if you can find a take down with a handguard that will accept the suppressor inside the handguard.

My dream SBR is still a Vz61. Not ever in MD with that OAL restriction :sad20:

One that is bastardized with an AR folding adapter and a brace would be "okay" also.

Which makes me wonder still if anyone has made a 22lr Vz61.

Also why I am curious on the brace chassis for Glocks. Not really the same thing at all, but similarish concept of an itty bitty PDW using a pistol caliber. AR pistols just don't float my boat. Had one, I see the usefulness and a pistol caliber one would be better than the .223 one I had, but I just don't like the format in general as a pistol or even really small SBR. Which I guess is odd, because I LOVE my ARs in "big boy" sizes. I think some of it is that with the buffer tube and the size of the receiver it just isn't all that compact compared to a real PDW or pistol in a PDW chassis.

BeoBill · Jan 31, 2019

Hawkeye said:
Yes, they are.

MD Criminal Law, §4–305:

As above, tube fed .22s are exempt, period. Frankly, though, I can't think of a tube fed .22 that has a detachable magazine anyways, so why they had to make them exempt I don't know, since that section specifically applies to detachable magazines...

It sure wasn't because they were late for their Mensa meeting, that's certain.

Schipperke · Jan 31, 2019

The Marlin 60 went from 18rds to 14rds for NJ law years ago. There are several states now with Bills, if passed would limit tube fed rimfire to 10 rounds.

yakfish · Feb 6, 2019

I just tell anyone who asks me now that 10+ round mags are banned, period.

It’s easier than explaining otherwise, and if they’re stupid enough to believe it without checking, problem solved.

Hawkeye · Feb 6, 2019

yakfish said:
I just tell anyone who asks me now that 10+ round mags are banned, period.

Please don't do that. It spreads false information and there's too much of that already around guns in MD.

It’s easier than explaining otherwise, and if they’re stupid enough to believe it without checking, problem solved.

Except that you've now created another person who misunderstands the law.
That's not good for anyone.

yakfish · Feb 6, 2019

Hawkeye said:
Please don't do that. It spreads false information and there's too much of that already around guns in MD.

Except that you've now created another person who misunderstands the law.
That's not good for anyone.

Yes. I WANT people misunderstanding it.

Then there’s no incentive to “fix” it.

Pinecone · Feb 7, 2019

yakfish said:
Yes. I WANT people misunderstanding it.

Then there’s no incentive to “fix” it.

Until one of those realizes you have over 10 round magazines and red flags YOU.

Those that don't understand have NO desire to fix anything.

hillbilly grandpa · Feb 7, 2019

yakfish said:
Yes. I WANT people misunderstanding it.

Then there’s no incentive to “fix” it.

Except that their deep digging researchers DO discover the "loophole." Then we have yet another bill to close another loophole. This adds to the deluge of new bills/laws that "aren't that terrible; they're just closing another loophole." That's how the incremental process works.

BeoBill · Feb 7, 2019

hillbilly grandpa said:
Except that their deep digging researchers DO discover the "loophole." Then we have yet another bill to close another loophole. This adds to the deluge of new bills/laws that "aren't that terrible; they're just closing another loophole." That's how the incremental process works.

Where's the "Like" button? :thumbsup:

That's exactly how it works with the simpletons in the Gun Grabber Lobby.

yakfish · Feb 7, 2019

hillbilly grandpa said:
Except that their deep digging researchers DO discover the "loophole." Then we have yet another bill to close another loophole. This adds to the deluge of new bills/laws that "aren't that terrible; they're just closing another loophole." That's how the incremental process works.

So how is that any different, then?

It’s not.

Pinecone · Feb 8, 2019

yakfish said:
So how is that any different, then?

It’s not.

Because all those people you let keep their mistaken ideas are not concerned about a bill that does what they already think the law does.

Would you worry about another law to make speeding illegal? But would you worry about a law that made driving illegal?

Docster · Feb 8, 2019

Hawkeye said:
Please don't do that. It spreads false information and there's too much of that already around guns in MD.

Except that you've now created another person who misunderstands the law.
That's not good for anyone.

^^^ AGREE. IMHO both actual laws and real science rules. Pays to know both before spreading guesses and misinformation which just leads to more misinformation, rumors and unecessary threads

magazine limitations in md?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Member

Firearm Advocate

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

The Leatherstocking

Ultimate Member

Crank in the Third Row

Ultimate Member

Banned

The Leatherstocking

Banned

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Crank in the Third Row

Banned

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics