What Is Penalty For Illegal Gun Carry?

jpk1md · Dec 25, 2010

krucam said:
I've said before...the Shoot/Don't Shoot scenarios need to be presented to applicants, but not necessarily range driven, perhaps written. I believe in this in the Civil Liability realm. It may not be popular. Perhaps....I just want it for myself.

However comma....in the Originalists view of the 2A, we got along just fine for about 100 years without it. Just sayin'....

We could argue this ad-nauseum...

If I may add to this....we CONTINUE to get along just fine without rediculous hoops to jump through in the rest of the country as MOST states have no such requirement for CCW.

Again....a solution in search of a problem.

Minuteman · Dec 25, 2010

It's starting to snow. Merry Christmas everyone.

I think you will enjoy reading this 2010 Shoot/don't shoot police guidance:
http://www.learningforlife.org/exploring/lawenforcement/study/shootordont.pdf

This is much less valuable, but it's the military polices training tables for shoot/don't shoot scenarios: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-22-9/ta_8.htm

I didn't have much of an opinion on this question (should there be a shoot/don't shoot requirement of any kind). I've always felt there should be a training requirement, and still do. Yes, I know our forefathers have managed quite nicely and the majority of Americans still today pass on traditions and you 'inherit' fundamentals of gun safety, manipulation, and marksmanship. Unfortunately a growing number of Americans are not being raised in a healthy gun culture.

Once I was naive enough to think that everyone having an opinion on CCW issues were reasonable people, willing to accept reasonable limits and stick to them, not keep creeping them to ridiculous degrees. I know now this (fundamental rights of gun ownership and law abiding carry for self-defense) issue is pushed toward more liberty, or less liberty in increments. We are not (in Maryland) at a point in time were a normal citizen can carry a firearm for simple self defense, except under excessive and arbitrary rules and policies.

Therefore I don't think we should give another inch, on any issue, until we achieve some normal semblance of a right to carry (shall issue) law in this state. So as strongly as I feel about a better requirement for training, and completely agree/would personally like some shoot/no-shoot training (even if its just making them watch a video); at this point I say, hell no! Enough is enough, the real elephant in the room is the restriction of law-abiding (non-felons, etc) the fundamental right of self defense (CCW) carry in public.

Wish everyone had the same attitude and as much common sense as this excellent Sgt Scott Allen:
http://www.clipsyndicate.com/video/playlist/3469/1476797?title=police_news

willtill · Dec 27, 2010

randomjoe said:
Markp and Doc,

Personally I would like there to be a nationwide permit system that is granted after training and renewed every year after an annual qualification.

The thing is I look at the ranges and shows and stores I've been to. I've met people who didn't have the most basic understanding of firearms safety, let alone an understanding of how/when deadly force would be appropriate. These would be the same folks who in a shall issue system could potentially be carrying a firearm and depend on it to save their life or someone elses.

I had been around firearms my entire life and felt comfortable handling and shooting them on the one-way static range. The first time I was allowed to carry (while working in a store) I suddenly realized I had no training in shoot/no-shoot, weapon retention, etc. I was woefully unprepared. Heck I had only fired the particular weapon I was carrying once at the range. No pressure, no drawing/dry-fire drills, nothing like that at all.

Later when I became a LEO I felt much more confident in my skills after getting quality instruction and training. I practice on my own regularly, to include weapons presentations, shoot/no-shoot scenarios, weapon retention, etc. I no longer view my firearms as the end all/be all, but simply another tool in the toolbox of self defense.

I guess im my view there should be a standard, a common sense standard. A law abiding citizen SHOULD be able to purchase a firearm with a background check. A law abiding citizen SHOULD be able to obtain a carry permit after meeting some basic requirements, such as a class that covers law/usage, safe operation/handling, shoot/no-shoot, etc. A person should be able to qualify and CCW with those weapons they purchase. Real simple, each year they get paperwork to re-up their permit, they go to a certified range and shoot a standardized course of fire with whatever weapons they want on their permit, pass an anual background check and bob's your uncle, you are able to CCW in all 50 states.

Are there folks out there who are raised around firearms all their life and have the common sense to carry lawfully? Absolutely. But much like driving a car there is a standard that must be met for their obtaining a license. I tend to think like that. Those that deserve it should be able to, while those that are unsafe shouldn't.

Nothing more than my humble opinion.

DocPeanut said:
R-joe,

I completely agree with your statement of having training to get a ccw permit.

I agree as well. Nicely presented, RandomJoe.... :thumbsup:

Pushrod · Dec 27, 2010

willtill said:
I agree as well. Nicely presented, RandomJoe....

I don't agree. This is not like driving a car, we are talking about a basic inherent right. Putting restrictions like this on a Right is going to be prohibitive for some citizens to carry their weapon for self-defence. People who may not be able to afford a prohibatively high fee for the class, or who live hours away from a range offering the class. Having to pay for his yearly and only be qualified to carry the weapon listed on the permit is also prohibative.

If these classes where offered free and set up in each county so that all had access (and the training was for the duration of the permit, not yearly) I would tend to agree with you, but otherwise... no. I have taken several defensive and tactical handgun courses, they were not cheap and they were not close. I shoot IDPA and practice regularly when I get the chance, I don't need the government telling me that is not enough and I must go through some yearly qualification.

willtill · Dec 27, 2010

Unfortunately, this is not 1776.

American society has evolved into a decadent and unmoraled state; especially in the highly liberal populated cities.

RandomJoe has this basically right; background checks, training (subsidized by the issuing authority), this should be mandated as a requirement for a federal CCW recognized across all 50 states.

By far, the law abiding majority of Americans would qualify.

I sit at my computer now and look at the filth across the street hanging out and drinking forties in the cold; jiving and back slapping each other. Imagine them suddenly being allowing to exercise their 2nd Amendment right and pack heat.

:sad20:

It's unfortunate. It's NOT for everyone.

Phoenix_1295 · Dec 27, 2010

Mark392001 said:
We'll know soon what the penalty is, this case has been dragging on for sometime now. 2nd offense for this defendant, first time he was let off.

http://casesearch.courts.state.md.u...il.jis?caseId=110104039&loc=69&detailLoc=DSK8

From the MD Judiciary site:

Charge No: 1
CJIS/Traffic Code: 1 5212
Description: HANDGUN ON PERSON: CARRY/WEAR
Plea: GUILTY Plea Date: 12/13/2010
Disposition: PROBATION AFTER CONVICTION
Disposition Date: 12/13/2010
Verdict: GUILTY Verdict Date:12/13/2010
Sentence Starts: 12/11/2010 Sentence Date:12/13/2010
Sentence Time: Yrs:03 Mos:00 Days:00 Confinement :NC
Suspended Time: Yrs:02 Mos:11 Days:28
Probation Time: Yrs:05 Mos:00 Days:00 Type:Supervised

Markp · Dec 27, 2010

Phoenix_1295 said:
Ruled on 12/13/10:

3 years incarceration - suspended
5 years supervised probation

Nice, so he can keep on riding dirty.

That's the way it works for repeat offenders... model citizens need not apply. He's been arrested multiple times, he's an example of revolving door Baltimore justice.

Mark

ih23 · Dec 27, 2010

willtill said:
I sit at my computer now and look at the filth across the street hanging out and drinking forties in the cold; jiving and back slapping each other. Imagine them suddenly being allowing to exercise their 2nd Amendment right and pack heat.

It's unfortunate. It's NOT for everyone.

You don't have to imagine too hard. Some of them probably already unlawfully own and/or carry a firearm. What's unfortunate is that I am not privileged under the Laws of this corporate State to carry a legally owned firearm.

Apparently plain English is too hard to understand,

"the RIGHT
[an inherent liberty: not given, made into a privilege, or granted under license; not subject to procedures or other prohibitive processes; governed by natural instinct and due action or duty, and exercised liberally without restraint]

of the PEOPLE
[the whole body of Citizens; ascribed to the individual and private person; the right of everyone in a society or State; the proper use of that right is reviewed by judges on a case by case basis, individually and not collectively]

to KEEP and BEAR arms,
[a firearm (among other arms) is a most effective instrument in defense of Life, Liberty and property; and is necessary whenever any threat, assault or imminent danger is present against these Rights]

shall NOT be infringed.
[a right being most essential to the happiness and security of man may not ever be legislated against, regulated, taxed, or licensed]

An armed Citizenry able and willing to be properly trained in the use of arms is absolutely necessary for the security of a FREE State. Any determent or restrictive process made by the Government or its officials against law abiding Citizens pursuing firearms education or exercising their natural Right to defense by means of Arms (whose use is protected by the Constitution and Common Law of the Land) is an act based on false presumptions and ill perceived notions, and any agent involved, being found liable, may be tried for treason.

Apparently some officials and government entities believe they are immune from their oath and duty to secure my Right against infringement. :sad20:

Time to send new elected officials to represent us. I can't 'till 2012 comes. Be prepared.

Phoenix_1295 · Dec 27, 2010

Interestingly, this was not his first time caught with a handgun. Here is a another one for him in MD Judiciary from 1993:

Charge No: 001 Description:HANDGUN IN VEHICL : PUBLIC ROAD,
Statute: 27.36B.(b) Description:HANDGUN IN VEHICLE
Amended Date: CJIS Code:1 0175MO/PLL: Probable Cause:X
Incident Date From: To: Victim Age:
Disposition
Plea: NOT GUILTY
Disposition: PBJ UNSUPERVISED Disposition Date:04/01/1993
Fine:$200.00 Court Costs:$20.00 CICF:$30.00
Amt Suspended: Fine:$30.00 Court Costs:$0.00 CICF:$0.00
PBJ EndDate: 04/01/1994 Probation End Date: Restitution Amount:$0.00
Jail Term: Yrs: Mos: Days:
Suspended Term: Yrs: Mos: Days:
Credit Time Served:

Darkemp · Dec 27, 2010

Cold Steel said:
I have no intention of carrying a gun illegally, nor do I advocate it, but I was wondering what the penalty was.

The reason I ask is that I was in a local gun store and we were shooting the breeze when someone brought it up. The guy behind the counter said that not only was it a felony and you could go to jail, but that the state could come and seize every gun in your home, even if it wasn't involved in the infraction.

I know it's a serious offense in this crazy state, but I have problems believing the part about seizing your guns. Was this guy right about that or was he stomping smoke?

He also said that in Maryland if you are transporting a gun in a car, the gun had to be carried in the car's cabin, while the ammo had to be carried in the trunk. That sounded right, but I would think it should be reversed.

Finally, are most Maryland cops for "shall issue" pemit laws or against them?

Pretty sure the penalty is akin to this just think concrete cell block where there is woods...

mudskipper · Dec 28, 2010

willtill said:
Imagine them suddenly being allowing to exercise their 2nd Amendment right and pack heat.

It's unfortunate. It's NOT for everyone.

You know what's even scarier to me than them carrying?

Them VOTING.

Until we do something in this country that will enable the mass disenfranchiesment of morons, parasites and illegal aliens, then we are S-C-R-E-W-E-D.

Nothing else matters as long as stupid, unqualified or illegal people are allowed to vote.

Voting should be as difficult as possible, expensive, and time consuming. So much so that only the most dedicated citizens would see it as being "worth the trouble".

This is the only way this country is going to get fixed. By ensuring that at least 80% of the people currently voting no longer see it as being worth their time.

marlin.357 · Dec 28, 2010

willtill said:
I sit at my computer now and look at the filth across the street hanging out and drinking forties in the cold; jiving and back slapping each other. Imagine them suddenly being allowing to exercise their 2nd Amendment right and pack heat.

It's unfortunate. It's NOT for everyone.

1. What makes you think they aren't?

2. If you need a license to exercise a right, it ain't a right...

ThePirate · Dec 30, 2010

AlphaTango said:
I have ask many police officers about how to transport a firearm, correctly and what I have concluded is that guns and ammo are best transported separately. Separately meaning in different containers not necessarily in different compartments of the vehicle. Some officers have told me that it's best to not transport loaded magazines either because some police may believe that I may have the intent to load the firearm when I shouldn't or that I might be up to something. I am not a lawyer nor am I a police officer, but it my understanding that it is illegal to transport a loaded firearm in MD, without a permit. I guess it matters what else you are doing when the police stop you and find you with the loaded firearm as to weather or not you committed a felony or misdemeanor. Maybe, the clerk at the gun shop you were at misunderstood where you were going with the conversation.

When I transport my handgun from my home in MD to the range in PA I always lock both up in separate cases with the magazines unloaded. I do have a CC, it's just not good in MD.

randomjoe · Jan 2, 2011

I guess I'm one of those guys who isn't simply satisfied with "It's a right" as an answer. I'm the kind of person who looks for reasonable limits set forth so that people who shouldn't do something are prevented from doing so as much as possible.

Do I think that sensible gun laws will prevent criminals from doing what they want? Of course not, they are criminals and by the very term they do not follow the law. So lets look at my example of driving a car. Are there people who drive cars on suspended/revoked licenses? Without a license? While drunk? Sure, absolutely. So then why do we need a license/license procedure if some of use are responsible and may have been raised around cars and drive NASCAR in our free time? It's because something is in place that puts everyone on a level playing field taking into account the lowest common denominator in society today.

I think sensible gun laws go hand-in-hand with sensible/appropriate punishment for those that fail to follow them. I don't think convicted criminals should be able to vote, hold public office, obtain any public help (welfare, unemployment, etc.) It isn't hard to go through life not being a criminal, you simply follow the law.

Again, I didn't say my solution was perfect. Personally I would like to see the program set up nationwide with set fee's/costs in place. Again we are not the same society we were in 1789 when a firearm was a tool that was essential to everyday life and people were raised around them. Look at the firearms back then compared to now. We are talking a basically identical operating system with a single shot between handguns and long guns compared to the variety around us today. You are almost setting someone up for failure by saying "heck buy whatever you want and carry without any type of training." Just because you train on your own doesn't mean someone else does, and do you want to be the one in front of them when they overreact to a situation and use deadly force where it isn't needed?

Oh and as far as the video's that were posted earlier with the LEO's having ND's.....we are human. They do not represent me anymore than the drunkard who fired rounds into the ceiling of the walmart represent every shooter in america.

knownalien · Jan 2, 2011

randomjoe said:
I guess I'm one of those guys who isn't simply satisfied with "It's a right" as an answer. I'm the kind of person who looks for reasonable limits set forth so that people who shouldn't do something are prevented from doing so as much as possible.

Do I think that sensible gun laws will prevent criminals from doing what they want? Of course not, they are criminals and by the very term they do not follow the law. So lets look at my example of driving a car. Are there people who drive cars on suspended/revoked licenses? Without a license? While drunk? Sure, absolutely. So then why do we need a license/license procedure if some of use are responsible and may have been raised around cars and drive NASCAR in our free time? It's because something is in place that puts everyone on a level playing field taking into account the lowest common denominator in society today.

I think sensible gun laws go hand-in-hand with sensible/appropriate punishment for those that fail to follow them. I don't think convicted criminals should be able to vote, hold public office, obtain any public help (welfare, unemployment, etc.) It isn't hard to go through life not being a criminal, you simply follow the law (no, it's much easier to be a criminal than you think when nearly everything is regulated and many things we assume legal in fact are illegal).

Again, I didn't say my solution was perfect. Personally I would like to see the program set up nationwide with set fee's/costs in place. Again we are not the same society we were in 1789 when a firearm was a tool that was essential to everyday life and people were raised around them. Look at the firearms back then compared to now. We are talking a basically identical operating system with a single shot between handguns and long guns compared to the variety around us today. You are almost setting someone up for failure by saying "heck buy whatever you want and carry without any type of training." Just because you train on your own doesn't mean someone else does, and do you want to be the one in front of them when they overreact to a situation and use deadly force where it isn't needed?

Oh and as far as the video's that were posted earlier with the LEO's having ND's.....we are human. They do not represent me anymore than the drunkard who fired rounds into the ceiling of the walmart represent every shooter in america.

there are plenty of countries that do not offer this right. If the founding fathers intended this (there was crime back them too), they would have simply copied what other countries did. But most other countries were birthed from Monarchies and thus the people were like chattle. The Founding Fathers decided that we would have something MORE than what they had known. It is the contract made with we the people. If you want to alter it because we are more decadent than before and are a danger to ourselves, ok. How about the other half of the equation ALSO limiting itself due to corruption . . . there is not an American alive who does not believe that our politicians aren't corrupt.
OH . . . . . . . doesn't look so nice put that way. we know that the gov't only ever wants more power and you can only get that by taking from the other half of the equation: we the people. So no, if for no other reason than to be part of the intended "checks and balances" I insist the gov't uphold their end of the contract (Constitution). They SWORE to do so. How do other contracts work in this world when there is a unilateral change the other party does not want???

randomjoe · Jan 2, 2011

Really? I'm trying to see your logic with everything being regulated and stuff we assume is legal being illegal.

I mean really...pay for items you pick out at the store, file taxes when you are supposed to, read the numbers on the speed limit sign...I'm trying to see where it's so hard. If I was setting out to do something that has a legal backing to it (say I'm traveling with firearms) I'd make it my business to research and investigate all the legalities I could. Even though I'm covered under HR-218 I still make a point to contact the State Police from whatever state I'm visiting and spend as much time as possible reading and researching that particular states laws. I've yet to be in violation.

knownalien · Jan 2, 2011

randomjoe said:
Really? I'm trying to see your logic with everything being regulated and stuff we assume is legal being illegal.

I mean really...pay for items you pick out at the store, file taxes when you are supposed to, read the numbers on the speed limit sign...I'm trying to see where it's so hard. If I was setting out to do something that has a legal backing to it (say I'm traveling with firearms) I'd make it my business to research and investigate all the legalities I could. Even though I'm covered under HR-218 I still make a point to contact the State Police from whatever state I'm visiting and spend as much time as possible reading and researching that particular states laws. I've yet to be in violation.

without offending you, I see your response expected: one who's past job was enforcing rules may never question them and see everything black and white.

I'll give you an example of criminality which we assume is legal. Assume nothing about a side that I take, but if I were to agree with the viewpoint of HAMAS has, I am (according to SCOTUS) an accessory to terrorism (lending material support). If I am critical of this gov't, I may be a terrorist. This is just a minor example. Freedom of speech means just that. I take it very seriously. Now the head of Homeland Security can say that that makes me a terrorist. Will the gov't come after me? Maybe not. But they could and I would have no recourse because SCOTUS already concluded in July (I think) that there is nothing I can do. Again, power in one direction. A lot of LEO's feel that carrying a firearm is what makes them special and many become an LEO to feel that power over the regular citizens. But that right in that way is not frankly garunteed to LEO's by the Bill Of Rights. It is, however, garunteed to us. An LEO is part of the Gov't, not part of "we the people."

randomjoe · Jan 2, 2011

Funny story it isn't my past job, it's my current job. And once upon a time when I stopped drooling over my Glock and obsession with enforcing my will on the pions around me I read a book. It isn't about black and white. I don't make the laws, I enforce them. People don't like weed laws? Vote to change them. People don't like gun laws? Take it to the polls. I also have common sense. Any idea how many hunters I've stopped at o'dark thirty that had ammo and guns side by side? "Hey sir just as an FYI to prevent any potential problems...." and they are on their way.

I don't know a cop out there who hasn't at one time or another questioned a law. You say "a lot of LEO's become cops to feel power over citizens who can't carry guns." I'd like to see some numbers or something or is that just a statement you came up with?

Freedom of Speech is just that....speech. With it comes responsibility, which has been established as to why you can't scream "fire" in a movie theater or "bomb" on an airplane. You can agree with whatever you want. You can agree with HAMAS or Hezbollah or the Crips or Bloods and that is your right. You can say they are the greatest thing since sliced Falafal. Feel free. But providing support to them.....sending money to known terrorist organizations, giving money or equipments to criminals to further their criminal enterprise, that is wrong. That is illegal and for good reason.

knownalien · Jan 2, 2011

randomjoe said:
I don't know a cop out there who hasn't at one time or another questioned a law. You say "a lot of LEO's become cops to feel power over citizens who can't carry guns." I'd like to see some numbers or something or is that just a statement you came up with?

Freedom of Speech is just that....speech. With it comes responsibility, which has been established as to why you can't scream "fire" in a movie theater or "bomb" on an airplane. You can agree with whatever you want. You can agree with HAMAS or Hezbollah or the Crips or Bloods and that is your right. You can say they are the greatest thing since sliced Falafal. Feel free. But providing support to them.....sending money to known terrorist organizations, giving money or equipments to criminals to further their criminal enterprise, that is wrong. That is illegal and for good reason.

1) it's nearly every forum member!! Have you not been reading the Woolard thread???

2) that is not what SCOTUS concluded.

joppaj · Jan 2, 2011

knownalien said:
1) it's nearly every forum member!! Have you not been reading the Woolard thread???

Interesting. I'm a cop, and a forum member, and an executive member in MSI, a member in SAF, life member of the NRA...

I don't know a single cop out of the THOUSANDS I've met that got into this work to somehow feel superior. Now, we're going WAY off the rails in this thread.

What Is Penalty For Illegal Gun Carry?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Member

The Dude Abides

Master Blaster

The Dude Abides

Creature of Life and Fire

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Creature of Life and Fire

Ultimate Member

Banned

NRA Life Member, MSI, SAF

Active Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Sheepdog

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics