i really don't know the LAW. please help.

i have searched the mdsp website and i suppose i am too inept in finding the answer to my question.

QUESTION: if a family member who lives out of state wanted me to assess the performance of his rifle, meaning he gives it to me for a while to sight it in, function check it, and shoot it. is there a transfer issue or not?

the rifle was recently banned, think M&P Sportee, 5.56. can i take temporary possession to complete the assessment in MD? thanks,

I would say yes as long as it is pre 10/1/2013 but someone with more smarts will be along shortly

IIRC,can bring in previously owned(pre fsa 2013) banned if registered within 90 days of moving here but can't bring in as resident,since it's banned.Otherwise everyone would be borrowing "banned" weapons.

"Transfer", as has been beaten to death here for 3.5 years, is not in play. It is a very specific term in MD law, and IMO does not apply here. Loan and rental do not constitute a transfer.

IANAL, and it gets arcane, but this strikes me as a loan, and FSA13 appears not to apply, regardless of the firearm. People can bring pretty much anything in for target shoots, hunting, etc., so unless someone has a specific case to prove otherwise, I see no issue.

Correction appreciated

woodstock said:

i have searched the mdsp website and i suppose i am too inept in finding the answer to my question.

QUESTION: if a family member who lives out of state wanted me to assess the performance of his rifle, meaning he gives it to me for a while to sight it in, function check it, and shoot it. is there a transfer issue or not?

the rifle was recently banned, think M&P Sportee, 5.56. can i take temporary possession to complete the assessment in MD? thanks,

Click to expand...

I may not transport into MD or possess in MD a banned rifle purchased after 10/1/2013. Period. Full stop

esqappellate said:

I may not transport into MD or possess in MD a banned rifle purchased after 10/1/2013. Period. Full stop

Click to expand...

so, if it is an out of state gun owner, who purchased it after 2013, resides in another state, it is banned from being touched in maryland? i can't find this statute in the law. please provide if possible.

in thinking about this, if someone purchased a banned gun according to maryland law, banned by definition from being transferred to a resident of this state, you are telling me if the owner brought the gun into this state and i shot it at a range in maryland, i am in legal trouble if i am a resident of this state? .

i need verification of this opinion.

woodstock said:

so, if it is an out of state gun owner, who purchased it after 2013, resides in another state, it is banned from being touched in maryland? i can't find this statute in the law. please provide if possible.

in thinking about this, if someone purchased a banned gun according to maryland law, banned by definition from being transferred to a resident of this state, you are telling me if the owner brought the gun into this state and i shot it at a range in maryland, i am in legal trouble if i am a resident of this state? .

i need verification of this opinion.

Click to expand...

You need to work on you reading comprehension

If it was a banned rifle purchased after 2013 it is not allowed in the state. Period.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

woodstock said:

so, if it is an out of state gun owner, who purchased it after 2013, resides in another state, it is banned from being touched in maryland? i can't find this statute in the law. please provide if possible.

in thinking about this, if someone purchased a banned gun according to maryland law, banned by definition from being transferred to a resident of this state, you are telling me if the owner brought the gun into this state and i shot it at a range in maryland, i am in legal trouble if i am a resident of this state? .

i need verification of this opinion.

Click to expand...

No you both would be in trouble and it's a prohibiting crime upon conviction for the two of you plus they'd have you on conspiracy for posting this thread on MDS. Take a trip out of state and do it there, if you're good at shooting it shouldn't matter what range you do it at.

esqappellate is the president of MSI and a fine attorney, and others have given you the same advice that he has. However, I will be kind enough to provide you with the Maryland code section.

Maryland Criminal Law §4–303.
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person may not:
(1) transport an assault weapon into the State; or
(2) possess, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, or receive an assault weapon.
(b) (1) A person who lawfully possessed an assault pistol before June 1, 1994, and who registered the assault pistol with the Secretary of State Police before August 1, 1994, may:
(i) continue to possess and transport the assault pistol; or
(ii) while carrying a court order requiring the surrender of the assault pistol, transport the assault pistol directly to the law enforcement unit, barracks, or station if the person has notified the law enforcement unit, barracks, or station that the person is transporting the assault pistol in accordance with a court order and the assault pistol is unloaded.
(2) A licensed firearms dealer may continue to possess, sell, offer for sale, or transfer an assault long gun or a copycat weapon that the licensed firearms dealer lawfully possessed on or before October 1, 2013.
(3) A person who lawfully possessed, has a purchase order for, or completed an application to purchase an assault long gun or a copycat weapon before October 1, 2013, may:
(i) possess and transport the assault long gun or copycat weapon; or
(ii) while carrying a court order requiring the surrender of the assault long gun or copycat weapon, transport the assault long gun or copycat weapon directly to the law enforcement unit, barracks, or station if the person has notified the law enforcement unit, barracks, or station that the person is transporting the assault long gun or copycat weapon in accordance with a court order and the assault long gun or copycat weapon is unloaded.
(4) A person may transport an assault weapon to or from:
(i) an ISO 17025 accredited, National Institute of Justice–approved ballistics testing laboratory; or
(ii) a facility or entity that manufactures or provides research and development testing, analysis, or engineering for personal protective equipment or vehicle protection systems.

If the firearm in question falls under the definition of "assault weapon", and neither you nor your friend are exempted from the above under subsection (b), then you are screwed. If you want to know what the definition of "assault weapon" is, it is provided just prior to this section. Google the General Assembly's website and then look under statutes.

Edit to add: It isn't so much about whether it is a "transfer". I would argue that under the Chow case, it isn't a transfer. Problem is, the legislature added in these other pesky words like "possess" or "receive". Possession and receipt of something are quite different than a transfer of ownership, and it is assumed that the legislature would not be putting duplicitous language in the statute.

Its not legal, but that is not the answer some people want to hear, so its "invalid".

clandestine said:

Its not legal, but that is not the answer some people want to hear, so its "invalid".

Click to expand...

Do you remember firewall the .gov agent who had a suppressor he wanted to register post manufacture?

thank you. this is what i was looking for and yes i know esqappellate, fine man, i just needed the clarity your reply provided. thank you again.

fabsroman said:

esqappellate is the president of MSI and a fine attorney, and others have given you the same advice that he has. However, I will be kind enough to provide you with the Maryland code section.

Maryland Criminal Law §4–303.
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person may not:
(1) transport an assault weapon into the State; or
(2) possess, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, or receive an assault weapon.
(b) (1) A person who lawfully possessed an assault pistol before June 1, 1994, and who registered the assault pistol with the Secretary of State Police before August 1, 1994, may:
(i) continue to possess and transport the assault pistol; or
(ii) while carrying a court order requiring the surrender of the assault pistol, transport the assault pistol directly to the law enforcement unit, barracks, or station if the person has notified the law enforcement unit, barracks, or station that the person is transporting the assault pistol in accordance with a court order and the assault pistol is unloaded.
(2) A licensed firearms dealer may continue to possess, sell, offer for sale, or transfer an assault long gun or a copycat weapon that the licensed firearms dealer lawfully possessed on or before October 1, 2013.
(3) A person who lawfully possessed, has a purchase order for, or completed an application to purchase an assault long gun or a copycat weapon before October 1, 2013, may:
(i) possess and transport the assault long gun or copycat weapon; or
(ii) while carrying a court order requiring the surrender of the assault long gun or copycat weapon, transport the assault long gun or copycat weapon directly to the law enforcement unit, barracks, or station if the person has notified the law enforcement unit, barracks, or station that the person is transporting the assault long gun or copycat weapon in accordance with a court order and the assault long gun or copycat weapon is unloaded.
(4) A person may transport an assault weapon to or from:
(i) an ISO 17025 accredited, National Institute of Justice–approved ballistics testing laboratory; or
(ii) a facility or entity that manufactures or provides research and development testing, analysis, or engineering for personal protective equipment or vehicle protection systems.

If the firearm in question falls under the definition of "assault weapon", and neither you nor your friend are exempted from the above under subsection (b), then you are screwed. If you want to know what the definition of "assault weapon" is, it is provided just prior to this section. Google the General Assembly's website and then look under statutes.

Edit to add: It isn't so much about whether it is a "transfer". I would argue that under the Chow case, it isn't a transfer. Problem is, the legislature added in these other pesky words like "possess" or "receive". Possession and receipt of something are quite different than a transfer of ownership, and it is assumed that the legislature would not be putting duplicitous language in the statute.

Click to expand...

woodstock, where would all this testing take place? On your own private land? At a range that allows AR rifles inside?

You would almost think MD wants all firearms to be illegal.

Almost.

curious, has anyone been charged or convicted under these laws? just seems like enforceability is difficult at best, trying to prove when guns and parts and assemblies were bought / assembled?

davsco said:

curious, has anyone been charged or convicted under these laws? just seems like enforceability is difficult at best, trying to prove when guns and parts and assemblies were bought / assembled?

Click to expand...

I know of a few. They called me looking for legal advice because of my training classes.

Yes it has happened.

mopar92 said:

Do you remember firewall the .gov agent who had a suppressor he wanted to register post manufacture?

Click to expand...

LOL. Great memory. I had forgotten until you mentioned that guy.

fabsroman said:

esqappellate is the president of MSI and a fine attorney, and others have given you the same advice that he has. However, I will be kind enough to provide you with the Maryland code section.

Maryland Criminal Law §4–303.
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person may not:
(1) transport an assault weapon into the State; or
(2) possess, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, or receive an assault weapon.
(b) (1) A person who lawfully possessed an assault pistol before June 1, 1994, and who registered the assault pistol with the Secretary of State Police before August 1, 1994, may:
(i) continue to possess and transport the assault pistol; or
(ii) while carrying a court order requiring the surrender of the assault pistol, transport the assault pistol directly to the law enforcement unit, barracks, or station if the person has notified the law enforcement unit, barracks, or station that the person is transporting the assault pistol in accordance with a court order and the assault pistol is unloaded.
(2) A licensed firearms dealer may continue to possess, sell, offer for sale, or transfer an assault long gun or a copycat weapon that the licensed firearms dealer lawfully possessed on or before October 1, 2013.
(3) A person who lawfully possessed, has a purchase order for, or completed an application to purchase an assault long gun or a copycat weapon before October 1, 2013, may:
(i) possess and transport the assault long gun or copycat weapon; or
(ii) while carrying a court order requiring the surrender of the assault long gun or copycat weapon, transport the assault long gun or copycat weapon directly to the law enforcement unit, barracks, or station if the person has notified the law enforcement unit, barracks, or station that the person is transporting the assault long gun or copycat weapon in accordance with a court order and the assault long gun or copycat weapon is unloaded.
(4) A person may transport an assault weapon to or from:
(i) an ISO 17025 accredited, National Institute of Justice–approved ballistics testing laboratory; or
(ii) a facility or entity that manufactures or provides research and development testing, analysis, or engineering for personal protective equipment or vehicle protection systems.

If the firearm in question falls under the definition of "assault weapon", and neither you nor your friend are exempted from the above under subsection (b), then you are screwed. If you want to know what the definition of "assault weapon" is, it is provided just prior to this section. Google the General Assembly's website and then look under statutes.

Edit to add: It isn't so much about whether it is a "transfer". I would argue that under the Chow case, it isn't a transfer. Problem is, the legislature added in these other pesky words like "possess" or "receive". Possession and receipt of something are quite different than a transfer of ownership, and it is assumed that the legislature would not be putting duplicitous language in the statute.

Click to expand...

Yup, that's exactly correct, thanks Fabsroman. Normally I would do the same (give the cite and the analysis) except I was on the subway at the time so all I could do was dash off a note. To pick up the thread where Fabsroman left off, the definition for assault weapons is in MD Code, Criminal Law, § 4-301(d) which states:
(d) "Assault weapon" means:
(1) an assault long gun;
(2) an assault pistol; or
(3) a copycat weapon.

An assault long gun is defined in 4-301 as "any assault weapon listed under § 5-101(r)(2) of the Public Safety Article." Section 5-101(r)(2) includes a list (basically, everything that was a regulated long gun before SB 281 is now a banned long gun). Then add to that list any "copycat" weapon (and assault pistols), which are also defined at MD Code, Criminal Law, § 4-301. Both are too long to quote, so are attached. Basically, every "assault weapon" as thus defined are banned under Section 4-303 quoted by Fabsroman above. As that quote makes clear, that ban means that "a person may not:
(1) transport an assault weapon into the State; or
(2) possess, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, or receive an assault weapon

That is *very* comprehensive, especially the "possess" part. The only exceptions are those listed in subpart (b). Now the wording of subpart (b) is critical. It provides that "A person who lawfully possessed, has a purchase order for, or completed an application to purchase an assault long gun or a copycat weapon before October 1, 2013, may: (i) possess and transport the assault long gun or copycat weapon." That's a focus on "possess" of that particular long gun. So, if your friend in PA bought the banned long gun before 10/1/13, *he* (or she) may arguably transport and possess the long gun in MD, but since you did not possess that long gun before 10/1/13, *you* may not possess that long gun in MD. He could transport into MD, but *you* could not. If your PA friend bought the now banned gun after 10/1/13, then neither one of you can transport into or possess in Maryland. Indeed, since the focus of the exemption is on the "person" who possessed as of 10/01/13, there is an argument that that no *other* person in MD may "possess, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, or receive" that now banned long gun in MD, including, arguably, friends and even family, including even a temporary possession at the range or elsewhere. Lots and lots of legal risks and traps for the unwary here. As Fabsroman points out, one could quarrel over the meaning of "transfer" or even "receive" (under Chow) as not encompassing temporary loans, but "possess" is less ambiguous. See, e.g., State v. Leach, 296 Md. 591, 596, 463 A.2d 872 (1983) (to support a conviction for a possessory offense, the “ ‘evidence must show directly or support a rational inference that the accused did in fact exercise some dominion or control over the prohibited ... [contraband] in the sense contemplated by the statute, i.e., that [the accused] exercised some restraining or directing influence over it’ ”) (quoting Garrison v. State, 272 Md. 123, 142, 321 A.2d 767 (1974)); Herring v. State, 198 Md.App. 60, 16 A.3d 24 (2011) (law regarding possession of a firearm is "well settled"). For all these reasons, I protect myself and my friends and family by simply not owning (or possessing) any of the banned guns.

davsco said:

curious, has anyone been charged or convicted under these laws? just seems like enforceability is difficult at best, trying to prove when guns and parts and assemblies were bought / assembled?

Click to expand...

It depends on what the defendant gives up under questioning. Could be as simple as talking to an undercover LEO about when one built said firearm.

Defendant: "Yeah, I just built this thing up last month."
Undercover: "You mind if I take a look at that and give it a try?"
Undercover: Pow, pow
Undercover: "That is a mighty nice government profile barrel you got there. What did it run you?"
Defendant: "Buck fifty."
Undercover: "I'm Sergeant Undercover with the Maryland State Police. Turn around and put your hands on your head. You are under arrest for possessing a banned assault weapon in the Free State of Maryland."

I think you know the rest.

I also think the OP's question has been thoroughly covered.