Post 10/1 and educating your child practicing safe gun control

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!
  • ameridane

    Member
    Jun 5, 2013
    60
    I do not know if this question has been answered already, but post 10/1 and all grand fathered guns and gun owners, when going to the range to educate their children safe gun control and usage.

    Will this be illegal due to the new term in SB281 about taking possession of a regulated handgun, when you are handing your gun to your child? Will it be an illegal offense for both the child and the parent to do this?

    It would pretty sad if we can't teach new and upcoming gun-owners how to safely operate firearms?
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    I do not know if this question has been answered already, but post 10/1 and all grand fathered guns and gun owners, when going to the range to educate their children safe gun control and usage.

    Will this be illegal due to the new term in SB281 about taking possession of a regulated handgun, when you are handing your gun to your child? Will it be an illegal offense for both the child and the parent to do this?

    It would pretty sad if we can't teach new and upcoming gun-owners how to safely operate firearms?

    It depends on what "receive" means under SB 281. See
    http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=2583572&postcount=7
     

    ameridane

    Member
    Jun 5, 2013
    60
    It depends on what "receive" means under SB 281. See
    http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=2583572&postcount=7

    After reading this via the link provided, I didn't see any clear answer to this anywhere. I didn't see any clear answer but only more confusion after 10/1. Even the Federal law/interpretation was weak if everything was posted in that link.

    I hope it will be a part of an upcoming lawsuit against the SB281 just to verify what we can do and not.

    Imaging you take your kids with you to the range. The range personal is LEO on duty and see that your children are learning how to shoot, and smack here comes the blinking lights and 2 people are getting arrested. :tdown: :sad20: :o
     

    hvymax

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Apr 19, 2010
    14,011
    Dentsville District 28
    After reading this via the link provided, I didn't see any clear answer to this anywhere. I didn't see any clear answer but only more confusion after 10/1. Even the Federal law/interpretation was weak if everything was posted in that link.

    I hope it will be a part of an upcoming lawsuit against the SB281 just to verify what we can do and not.

    Imaging you take your kids with you to the range. The range personal is LEO on duty and see that your children are learning how to shoot, and smack here comes the blinking lights and 2 people are getting arrested. :tdown: :sad20: :o
    I have kids that shoot and would be in for the suit especially since they didn't call us on the ADA part of the law.
     

    mtnwisdom

    Active Member
    Sep 9, 2012
    290
    Sparrows Point
    I do not know if this question has been answered already, but post 10/1 and all grand fathered guns and gun owners, when going to the range to educate their children safe gun control and usage.

    Will this be illegal due to the new term in SB281 about taking possession of a regulated handgun, when you are handing your gun to your child? Will it be an illegal offense for both the child and the parent to do this?

    It would pretty sad if we can't teach new and upcoming gun-owners how to safely operate firearms?


    Here is the language in 281 that covers your question regarding teaching a minor...

    Can be found on pages 38-40, 281 Enrolled


    (d) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, a person who is under the age of 21 years may not possess a regulated firearm.
    (2) Unless a person is otherwise prohibited from possessing a regulated firearm, this subsection does not apply to:
    (i) the temporary transfer or possession of a regulated firearm
    if the person is:
    1. under the supervision of another who is at least 21 years old and who is not prohibited by State or federal law from possessing a firearm;
    and
    2. acting with the permission of the parent or legal guardian of the transferee or person in possession;
    (ii) the transfer by inheritance of title, and not of possession, of a regulated firearm;
    (iii) a member of the armed forces of the United States or the National Guard while performing official duties while performing official duties;
    if the person is:
    (iv) the temporary transfer or possession of a regulated firearm
    1. participating in marksmanship training of a
    recognized organization; and
    2. under the supervision of a qualified instructor;
    (v) a person who is required to possess a regulated firearm for employment and who holds a permit under Subtitle 3 of this title; or
    (vi) the possession of a firearm for self–defense or the defense of others against a trespasser into the residence of the person in possession or into a residence in which the person in possession is an invited guest.
     

    ameridane

    Member
    Jun 5, 2013
    60
    Here is the language in 281 that covers your question regarding teaching a minor...

    Can be found on pages 38-40, 281 Enrolled


    (d) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, a person who is under the age of 21 years may not possess a regulated firearm.
    (2) Unless a person is otherwise prohibited from possessing a regulated firearm, this subsection does not apply to:
    (i) the temporary transfer or possession of a regulated firearm
    if the person is:
    1. under the supervision of another who is at least 21 years old and who is not prohibited by State or federal law from possessing a firearm;
    and
    2. acting with the permission of the parent or legal guardian of the transferee or person in possession;
    (ii) the transfer by inheritance of title, and not of possession, of a regulated firearm;
    (iii) a member of the armed forces of the United States or the National Guard while performing official duties while performing official duties;
    if the person is:
    (iv) the temporary transfer or possession of a regulated firearm
    1. participating in marksmanship training of a
    recognized organization; and
    2. under the supervision of a qualified instructor;
    (v) a person who is required to possess a regulated firearm for employment and who holds a permit under Subtitle 3 of this title; or
    (vi) the possession of a firearm for self–defense or the defense of others against a trespasser into the residence of the person in possession or into a residence in which the person in possession is an invited guest.

    That's great news. So we can still go shooting with our children. Atleast the GA were thinking about the kids in this case. :D
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    Shouldn't matter. It would still legally be your gun.

    If "receive" is interpreted under sb281 to mean the same thing as it means under federal law as temporary possession, ownership won't matter a bit. Take a look at the facts in Turnmire, cited in the link. That gun was owned by someone else and was retrieved by the disqualified person for self defense. Didn't matter.
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    That's great news. So we can still go shooting with our children. Atleast the GA were thinking about the kids in this case. :D

    That is in 5-133(d) of the Public Safety Article, which was not amended by sb281. Now, great care should be exercised under (d). For example, I am a NRA certified instructor in rifle and pistol. I teach kids in the BSA and NRA courses. I'll become a HQL instructor. If I don't have written permission in my possession from a parent, that kid can't touch a regulated firearm.

    More weird is that (d) only talks about temporary transfer and possession -- not "receipt" Now SB 281 requires a Handgun Qualification License (HQL) for anyone before they can "purchase, rent, or receive a handgun." It doesn't talk about "transfer or possession" A HQL cannot be given out to persons under 21. A person participating in the unlawful "receipt" of a handgun can be charged under 5-143 -- that is both the person giving the handgun and the person receiving the handgun. Is that in conflict with the intent behind 5-133(d)? Of course it is. It is totally absurd. But receipt is not defined and we have had some indication that the MSP wants to define receipt in the same manner it is defined in federal law. Given the uncertainty, I am not sure that I will be giving any instruction in handguns to persons under 21 until this is sorted out. And yes, that is a major PITA for me, as I have kids under 21 and I take to the range for shooting the kids of friends.

    You can see that many terms employed by the GA create the potential for massive confusion. It gets worse, the new draft MSP regs in .03 ban the possession of any ammunition designed solely for a regulated firearm by persons under 21. No one really knows what that means. Of course, that ban in the regs re-imposes a ban that the GA dropped from the language of 5-133(d) back in 2011. SB 281 does not reimpose it. So it is an illegal reg, but tell that to the arresting officer. Again, no one knows what that kid of ammo is -- is it 9mm? 45ACP? .40? 10mm? .380? .25?
     

    MJD438

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 28, 2012
    5,849
    Somewhere in MD
    That is in 5-133(d) of the Public Safety Article, which was not amended by sb281. Now, great care should be exercised under (d). For example, I am a NRA certified instructor in rifle and pistol. I teach kids in the BSA and NRA courses. I'll become a HQL instructor. If I don't have written permission in my possession from a parent, that kid can't touch a regulated firearm.

    More weird is that (d) only talks about temporary transfer and possession -- not "receipt" Now SB 281 requires a Handgun Qualification License (HQL) for anyone before they can "purchase, rent, or receive a handgun." It doesn't talk about "transfer or possession" A HQL cannot be given out to persons under 21. A person participating in the unlawful "receipt" of a handgun can be charged under 5-143 -- that is both the person giving the handgun and the person receiving the handgun. Is that in conflict with the intent behind 5-133(d)? Of course it is. It is totally absurd. But receipt is not defined and we have had some indication that the MSP wants to define receipt in the same manner it is defined in federal law. Given the uncertainty, I am not sure that I will be giving any instruction in handguns to persons under 21 until this is sorted out. And yes, that is a major PITA for me, as I have kids under 21 and I take to the range for shooting the kids of friends.

    You can see that many terms employed by the GA create the potential for massive confusion. It gets worse, the new draft MSP regs in .03 ban the possession of any ammunition designed solely for a regulated firearm by persons under 21. No one really knows what that means. Of course, that ban in the regs re-imposes a ban that the GA dropped from the language of 5-133(d) back in 2011. SB 281 does not reimpose it. So it is an illegal reg, but tell that to the arresting officer. Again, no one knows what that kid of ammo is -- is it 9mm? 45ACP? .40? 10mm? .380? .25?
    I don't presently own any handguns; but, I am glad that I took the opportunity to do a handgun safety lecture using my brother's handguns earlier this year with my kids and his.

    This sucks on many levels - I love the AR platform and am in the process of building several. But, after 01OCT2013, I will not be able to teach my children to properly use/care them, since I am not comfortable with the reported stance that MSP is taking on the meaning of the word "receive". Since they are equating it to mere possession, regardless of supervision, my gutshot reaction (i.e., opinion, not a statement of fact) tells me that we are going to see some significant levels of enforcement activity at publicly accessible ranges mandated by either the GOCCP or the AG for any weapons on the "ban" list and/or handguns; after the latest PII fiasco, I do not trust the Executive Branch of Maryland Government.
     

    ameridane

    Member
    Jun 5, 2013
    60
    I feel very uncomfortable taking my son or inviting friends/family with me to the range after 10/1. The whole purpose for me, was to buy a regulated firearm for some family quality time. I got the ND just 3 days ago after 133 days of waiting. It leaves my family with less than 3 weeks to have some QT time together.

    Wrongfully I didn't think a second about ammunition in possession of a minor but only about the handing off/receiving/possession part of the SB281 of the hand gun.

    This suddenly created a new spin to my concern. I really hope this will be addressed in a few weeks time. I'll contact representatives in Annapolis to get clarification about this if possible.
     

    WeaponsCollector

    EXTREME GUN OWNER
    Mar 30, 2009
    12,120
    Southern MD
    Don't be battered gun owners, that's exactly what the domestic enemies want. Continue to live your life as you do now and take your friends and relatives shooting as much as you want. If the enforcers want to act like jackboot fascist thugs and arrest you for showing newbies how to shoot, post here and let everyone know about it ASAP, but I really don't see that happening(at least not at first). I will continue to go shooting with whoever I want to and use whatever guns I want to use and some stupid new unconstitutional laws will not change that.
     

    ameridane

    Member
    Jun 5, 2013
    60
    Dear Mr. XXXXXX:

    Senator Nancy Jacobs asked that I look into your question and get an Attorney General's opinion regarding the legality of taking your son to a legal shooting range under the new SB 281 bill effective October 1, 2013.

    This is answer I received from the AG's office.

    From: Rowe, Kathryn <krowe@oag.state.md.us>
    Date: Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 11:14 AM
    Subject: Chapter 427
    To: "hilda.austin@gmail.com"



    "The new law, at page 39, reflects the existing law (PS Article Section 5-133(d)) that a person under the age of 21 may not possess a regulated firearm (including an assault weapon), but making an exception for a temporary possession if the person is “under the supervision of another who is at least 21 years old and who is not prohibited by State or federal law from possessing a firearm,” and acting with the permission of the parent or legal guardian” of the person who is under 21. There is also an exception for a person who is “participating in marksmanship training of a recognized organization,” and “under the supervision of a qualified instructor.” These provisions are not altered by the new law. Thus, a person may take a person who is under 21 years old to a firing range and allow them to fire an assault weapon.

    With this answer from the AG's office it seems like teaching children, the safe and correct way, at a shooting range will be ok even after 10/1. I don't see anything that will stop it in the new law. Also since the new law takes presidence over any older law or direction from COMAR we can continue to practice safe shooting with our children.
     

    2AHokie

    Active Member
    Dec 27, 2012
    663
    District - 9A
    From: Rowe, Kathryn <krowe@oag.state.md.us>
    Date: Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 11:14 AM
    Subject: Chapter 427
    To: "hilda.austin@gmail.com"



    "The new law, at page 39, reflects the existing law (PS Article Section 5-133(d)) that a person under the age of 21 may not possess a regulated firearm (including an assault weapon), but making an exception for a temporary possession if the person is “under the supervision of another who is at least 21 years old and who is not prohibited by State or federal law from possessing a firearm,” and acting with the permission of the parent or legal guardian” of the person who is under 21. There is also an exception for a person who is “participating in marksmanship training of a recognized organization,” and “under the supervision of a qualified instructor.” These provisions are not altered by the new law. Thus, a person may take a person who is under 21 years old to a firing range and allow them to fire an assault weapon.

    Who do they expect to fill out the note for 18-20 year olds? I'm pretty sure at age 18 you are an adult in charge of yourself. You definitely shouldn't need you parents' permission to take a pistol class.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,354
    SoMD / West PA
    Who do they expect to fill out the note for 18-20 year olds? I'm pretty sure at age 18 you are an adult in charge of yourself. You definitely shouldn't need you parents' permission to take a pistol class.

    This would make a good civil lawsuit, even better than the other 18-21 cases.
     

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    I do not know if this question has been answered already, but post 10/1 and all grand fathered guns and gun owners, when going to the range to educate their children safe gun control and usage.

    Will this be illegal due to the new term in SB281 about taking possession of a regulated handgun, when you are handing your gun to your child? Will it be an illegal offense for both the child and the parent to do this?

    It would pretty sad if we can't teach new and upcoming gun-owners how to safely operate firearms?

    There are ranges that are not subject to the jurisdiction of Maryland. Most are within driving distance and do not require a passport ( yet ). I think this will be resolved eventually, but for what its worth there are still options.
     

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    That is in 5-133(d) of the Public Safety Article, which was not amended by sb281. Now, great care should be exercised under (d). For example, I am a NRA certified instructor in rifle and pistol. I teach kids in the BSA and NRA courses. I'll become a HQL instructor. If I don't have written permission in my possession from a parent, that kid can't touch a regulated firearm.

    More weird is that (d) only talks about temporary transfer and possession -- not "receipt" Now SB 281 requires a Handgun Qualification License (HQL) for anyone before they can "purchase, rent, or receive a handgun." It doesn't talk about "transfer or possession" A HQL cannot be given out to persons under 21. A person participating in the unlawful "receipt" of a handgun can be charged under 5-143 -- that is both the person giving the handgun and the person receiving the handgun. Is that in conflict with the intent behind 5-133(d)? Of course it is. It is totally absurd. But receipt is not defined and we have had some indication that the MSP wants to define receipt in the same manner it is defined in federal law. Given the uncertainty, I am not sure that I will be giving any instruction in handguns to persons under 21 until this is sorted out. And yes, that is a major PITA for me, as I have kids under 21 and I take to the range for shooting the kids of friends.

    You can see that many terms employed by the GA create the potential for massive confusion. It gets worse, the new draft MSP regs in .03 ban the possession of any ammunition designed solely for a regulated firearm by persons under 21. No one really knows what that means. Of course, that ban in the regs re-imposes a ban that the GA dropped from the language of 5-133(d) back in 2011. SB 281 does not reimpose it. So it is an illegal reg, but tell that to the arresting officer. Again, no one knows what that kid of ammo is -- is it 9mm? 45ACP? .40? 10mm? .380? .25?


    Color me simplistic, but why cant all such instruction take place out of state.

    Not convenient, but would seem to give the whole mess wide berth until courts rule. Md would seem to have no jurisdiction... am I wrong ?
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,916
    Messages
    7,258,539
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom