Legal transport

simplegreen said:

yeah good point

hows the gun laws in montana? lol always liked that state.

Click to expand...

The laws in states like Montana will only remain favorable as long as there are people in states like MD willing to stand up and fight the anti-gun politicians infesting their general assemblies.

Norton said:

The laws in states like Montana will only remain favorable as long as there are people in states like MD willing to stand up and fight the anti-gun politicians infesting their general assemblies.

Click to expand...

You got that right. Especially since all the liberal Californians have started invading the western part of Montana.

The language of 18 USC 926A governs where applicable

novus collectus said:

There is another letter I remember reading but for the life of me cannot find on the internet agin that, IIRC, said something like this: The fed law applies to interstate travel through MD and into MD, but if your point of origin in in MD to another state, then you are subject to the MD transport rules.

Click to expand...

Respectfully, whoever wrote that interpretation was wrong. The language of the federal law is quite clear. Here it is (with boldface added for emphasis):

Title 18
Sec. 926A. Interstate transportation of firearms

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully
possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver's compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console. [end of quote]

So, if you are departing from a location in Maryland where you "may lawfully possess and carry such firearm"-- for example, your residence -- and you are going directly to another location where you may "lawfully possess and carry such firearm" -- for example, just about anyplace in Virginia -- then you need not worry about the Maryland law and its list of "approved" locations. In that circumstance, the "notwithstanding" clause renders the Maryland law irrelevant as a matter of law.

Unfortunately, in Maryland, gunowers are sometimes regarded as innocent unless proven guilty. And, if it becomes an issue, it is easier to prove where you already were than to prove where you intended to go.

I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Bottom line, regardless of the laws, why give them the excuse? Even in Virginia with a carry permit, I still double locked my guns in their cases and with the exception of keeping mags loaded, the ammo was still separate from the arms. Overkill for Virginia but if I am pulled over and wind up in court, it is better to show an above-and-beyond good faith effort to be a responsible gun owner than meet the minimum standard even if fully legal.

We are perceived by our actions and not solely by the writing of the law.

In Maryland, why take the chance? Rockville police are known to be less than enthusiastic (at least in the past from what I have read) about gun ownership in the city or MoCo in general. Why give them any flimsy excuse at all? And if they do run you in on an invalid interpretation of the law, isn't it better to be standing before the judge showing the responsible behavior an average citizen would expect of a gun owner? Although I agree with novus, having a holstered handgun on the seat next to me and handing the officer a copy of the law during a traffic stop isn't exactly the best way to stay out of a bad situation. I envy your ability to do it. For me, a mere misdemeanor firearms charge is enough to land me in serious trouble with the INS. Hence my conservatism in this.

It's unfortunate that I've been conditioned to be so cautious in such matters. Part of it is my original culture and the rest is my indoctrination into being a safe, visibly responsible firearms owner in all aspects. If I am caught, there is no question I am in the right.

This state of affairs needs to change. But until the politics of change begins to blow in our direction here, why give anyone an excuse to demonize us as irresponsible, loud mouth gun bigots? I'd rather project a positive image to those around me and fight tooth-and-nail where it counts: in the Legislature.

Just my thoughts.

Matt

Matt,

I am scratching my head, wondering how you would end up in court in Virginia. In Virginia, it is perfectly legal to carry a loaded handgun in a vehicle, without carry permit if the gun remains in plain sight -- for example, on the passenger seat -- or concealed with a carry permit. In my experience, at least, the law enforcement officers in Virginia are generally well acquainted with the law -- there have been some well-publicized embarrassments for a few who were not. If you just don't feel comfortable carrying a loaded gun around in a car, that's fine, but in Virginia I think there is no cause for concern as long as one remains with the parameters I've described, avoids schools, etc.

ThatIsAFact said:

Respectfully, whoever wrote that interpretation was wrong. The language of the federal law is quite clear. Here it is (with boldface added for emphasis):

Title 18
Sec. 926A. Interstate transportation of firearms

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully
possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver's compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console. [end of quote]

So, if you are departing from a location in Maryland where you "may lawfully possess and carry such firearm"-- for example, your residence -- and you are going directly to another location where you may "lawfully possess and carry such firearm" -- for example, just about anyplace in Virginia -- then you need not worry about the Maryland law and its list of "approved" locations. In that circumstance, the "notwithstanding" clause renders the Maryland law irrelevant as a matter of law.

Unfortunately, in Maryland, gunowers are sometimes regarded as innocent unless proven guilty. And, if it becomes an issue, it is easier to prove where you already were than to prove where you intended to go.

I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

Click to expand...

No, I agree with your interpretation, it is just that if I recall the letter correctly it was supposedly written by the same Mr. Bowen from the AGs office, but I do not know if my memory is clear on this and I have no idea if the letter was genuine to begin with.
The way you interpret it is how I would and I agree that it does not matter where the person started from if they were going interstate. I just hope the AG's office and the courts see it our way too.

i struck a nerve.

i guess it really comes down to the interpretation of each individual and the amount in which he/she wants to exercise their rights. Yes i'd love to have a firearm at the exact moment i really really REALLY need one, thats the main reason i have one in my home now. I guess there is really no middle ground here. Either you hate the way politicians bend our laws to suit popular (or un popular/ignorant) majority. Or you really dont care that much until the right is taken away from you. I guess a better topic would be what normal people can do to address this issue and stamp this out (you know like how they do in a democracy..... if our representatives actually listened to the masses....) To be honest, my life is too busy to go full on down to the capital and raise hell... What can i do?

I guess for me, its more of a hassle to deal with the high likelihood i need to go to court, than the low likelihood trouble finds me. Now, im sure i know myself enough to know that my tune would change 180 degrees if i was the victim of such an event. Again, perspective i guess.