Elk Neck arrest for "transfer" of high capacity magazine: Fact or Fiction?

[CypherPunk]

I wanted to hold the new Glock at the gun store and they told me I couldn't because if I did we would both be arrested for unlawful transfer.

/sarcasm

 

[Mr H]

I wanted to hold the new Glock at the gun store and they told me I couldn't because if I did we would both be arrested for unlawful transfer.

Please please PLEASE tell me you're joking........

But, then... I wouldn't put it past our Keepers to browbeat FFLs that way.

OOPS... got my engine started ahead of your edit...

 

[teratos]

I was the one who got the people arrested. I wrote the MSP a letter and told them where I was going to be letting people shoot banana clips.

It's a fine line, but handing someone a 30 rounder is transferring a 30 rounder.
.

No. It's not a fine line. When you are standing next to the person who owns it, there has been no transfer of ownership. Possession of standard capacity mags is still perfectly legal.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

I Get It.

 

[bigdaddycoolfm]

Was this "gun shop guy" the same person who told me that his uncle knows a guy who went to school with a guy whose grandfather invented a carburetor that made cars get 200MPG, but the Humongous Oil Company Conspiracy forced him to sell them their patent, to stop the car companies from building energy-efficient cars?

bwahahah..

 

[frogman68]

wouldn't 1 of the RSO's posted this ? The Cecil Whig would of been on this like white on rice heck they had the article on the range closing due to the maintenance.

 

[Vile Shadow]

Yes, there is case law. Chow v. State

The legal definition of transfer is changing ownership. As long as ownership does not change, no transfer has been made.

Thank you, because I don't buy this horseshit story at all. Where are the details?

 

[fabsroman]

No. It's not a fine line. When you are standing next to the person who owns it, there has been no transfer of ownership. Possession of standard capacity mags is still perfectly legal.

Yeah, but the law does not only mention transfer. If it only mentioned transfer, then I would say you are completely right because Chow v. State specifically states that unless defined in the statute, transfer entails an intent to convey ownership. It is the "receive" part in the statute that scares me, along with transfer being in the statute. So, transfer means a transfer of ownership, so what does receive mean? Is is that the owner is transferring the mag to the new owner and the new owner is receiving the mag, so transfer/receive encompasses both ends of the sale? Pretty sure we have beaten this thing to death and that a search on this forum would bring up the answer.

For the sake of discussion, here is the actual language of the statute:

(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.

Anybody have any idea what is meant in the statute by "receive"?

 

[fabsroman]

"Rent" is codified in existing statute as removal from the premises.

Yes it is:

(S) “Rent” means the temporary transfer for consideration of a regulated firearm that is taken from the property of the owner of the regulated firearm.

 

[mvee]

(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.

Anybody have any idea what is meant in the statute by "receive"?

This is my understanding;
Transfer and receive are two parts of changing ownership. If person A gives a standard capacity magazine to person B, person A would have transferred the magazine to person B. Person B would have received it. They would both have violated this law.

 

[NateTheShake]

The horse dun ben beated on this subject in other threads.

Not doing it here too.

Sweet, so exit thread at the top. I appreciate the absolute lack of help and look forward to future interactions in which nothing of use is gained. Because it sounded like you agreed "transfer" includes "loan temporarily in the presence of the owner" and it sounds like you're wrong.

Yes, there is case law. Chow v. State

The legal definition of transfer is changing ownership. As long as ownership does not change, no transfer has been made.

The temporary gratuitous exchange or loan of a regulated handgun between two adult individuals, who are otherwise permitted to own and obtain a regulated handgun, does not constitute an illegal “transfer” of a firearm in violation of Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl. Vol., 2002 Supp.), Art. 27, § 442, in particular, subsection (d). The plain language of § 442(d), when construed in harmony with the rest of the subheading, reveals that “transfer” refers to a gratuitous permanent exchange of title or possession and does not include temporary exchanges or loans.

On another subject:

I'll chime in. I've been shooting at Elk Neck pretty regular the past 2 years and I've never seen a LEO there.

I have actually seen the MSP at Elk Neck in the past. When they were called by another concerned shooter when I was shooting a suppressed pistol on the pistol range. They asked for my paperwork (I keep a copy of my stamps in my range bag) and were on their way. The officer was actually very cordial, but it was one of my first experiences of gun owners self-regulating on something they don't understand. No doubt some Cecil-tucky Fudd decided my scary suppressor had to be illegal and decided to take another dangerous gun owner off the streets.

I no longer shoot at Elk Neck.

 

[1time]

A while back a person let his friend borrow a pistol. The person had an open warrant and during the arrest the handgun was found. The owner was charged with an illegal transfer. Judge said as soon as you hand it to someone it is a transfer. The case was appealed. The appeal judge found that it is only a transfer if it was permanent. You could lend a firearm for an indefinite amount of time as long as it would be going back to the original owner.

I don't know how that case would affect lending a magazine. Letting someone shoot your machine gun, SBR, silencer is okay. Leaving it with them without you is not.

I would say it is certainly possible to get charged for letting someone shoot your hi cap mags. The likely hood of a conviction I am not as certain about.

 

[organized_mayhem]

wouldn't 1 of the RSO's posted this ? The Cecil Whig would of been on this like white on rice heck they had the article on the range closing due to the maintenance.

The Cecil Whig couldn't report a car accident if it drove through their building. And if they did, it would be a week after it happened.

As an RSO at Elk Neck, I have heard no such story. Going to call BS on this one for lack of evidence,

 

[daggo66]

Renting 10 round firearms at a private range and handing someone a 30 round magazine at a public range is mixing apples and oranges.

It's a fine line, but handing someone a 30 rounder is transferring a 30 rounder.

I don't agree with it, but it is what it is.

Sorry to be blunt, but you are flat out wrong. People continue to confuse regular terminology with legal terminology. In terms of the law, "transfer" applies to ownership, not moving from one place to another. If I shoot your rifle with a 30 round magazine you may have physically transferred the rifle and magazine to me, but you still maintain ownership. Therefore you it was not a transfer.

 

[daggo66]

This is my understanding;
Transfer and receive are two parts of changing ownership. If person A gives a standard capacity magazine to person B, person A would have transferred the magazine to person B. Person B would have received it. They would both have violated this law.

Again this is wrong. "Receive" is a little more confusing, but it also applies to ownership. Adding the "receive" portion is an attempt o prevent someone from sidestepping the law. Think internet. The "transfer" takes place when you make payment and the seller sends it. A Transfer of ownership has already occurred outside of Maryland, which is legal. However, when it arrives at your door, you "receive" it.

That is why you have to physically go out of state to make the purchase. This stuff is really not that hard to understand but everyone wants to be an arm chair lawyer and make more out of it than it is.

 

[CypherPunk]

There is also legislative intent.

Armchair case in point, MSP's Tom Williams AELR testimony on the terms TRANSFER, RENT and RECEIVE.

 

[teratos]

For the sake of discussion, here is the actual language of the statute:

(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.

Anybody have any idea what is meant in the statute by "receive"?

My understanding was the receive was part of the change of ownership. I do not have an MSP bulletin or AG opinion on that. Maybe we need one, just to save some idiocy. You speak fluent lawyer, fabs. If you are not clear on it it makes me wonder.

 

[Bob A]

My understanding was the receive was part of the change of ownership. I do not have an MSP bulletin or AG opinion on that. Maybe we need one, just to save some idiocy. You speak fluent lawyer, fabs. If you are not clear on it it makes me wonder.

If the subject under discussion is transfer of ownership, then for "receive" to carry any meaning lesser than receiving title or ownership would be absurd. Even legislators understand the concept of "context".

Just another thread spun off the self-woven cocoon of Battered Gun Owner Syndrome.

 

[CnC]

Sounds like typical gun store bs info to me.

 

[dblas]

Please please PLEASE tell me you're joking........

But, then... I wouldn't put it past our Keepers to browbeat FFLs that way.

OOPS... got my engine started ahead of your edit...

This is actually the case at Outdoor World at Arundel Mills, and the idiots behind the counter keep saying it is state law and not a company policy.