Legality of Blue Carry

[SigMatt]

I know, odd title for a post but it was deliberate.

I have been pondering a form of visual protest against MD gun laws.

I used to live in Virginia. I loved Virginia. It was the first state I got to exercise 2A rights in and it spoiled me. Because then I moved here. I did so at least out of one of the more noble of motives: love.

I despise MD gun laws. I tolerate them. I don't have to like them and I don't. It was moving here that got me to start getting active publicly with regard to my rights and lack thereof in this state. Moving here has done more to get me to think on the nature of rights and citizen responsibility/duty than anything.

If anything, I miss the pastures I left behind and like those who engage in Californication, I want them here.

With that preamble in mind, my question is this:

What is the legality in this state of a) Wearing an empty holster openly and b) Wearing of said holster with an obvious fake dummy gun (like this)?

I am wanting to do this as a form of protest against MD preventing me from defending myself on the same level as a diamond broker or person under documented threat of death. Here, cash is more important than corpus.

I ask the paired questions because I can see nothing that says I can't wear an empty holster. Just a clothing accessory, albeit a weird one. Which is the point. It is my hope that it might get someone curious (preferably a fence sitter) to ask me why I am wearing a holster and then politely spend 30 seconds or so explaining why this state denies me and them equally the basic right of self-defense that the State of Virginia across the river has no difficulty doing for its citizens. And with a crime rate many times lower.

The dummy gun is merely an extension of above with the effect that it will be *much* more obvious and likely to attract much more attention. And perhaps of the sort I am not wanting.

I don't care about "scaring the sheep". I open carry in Virginia enough to do that and didn't care when I lived there. But at the same time, I like my rights and don't particularly care to lose them permanently. Especially being a non-citizen of this country where minor violations (or any violation of a firearms law) is grounds for deportation. I have to temper my tolerance for risk under the present circumstances. In 2 1/2 years with my citizenship in hand, my willingness to accept minor but not rights threatening transgressions increases.

Any thoughts on this? I am of the sort that wants to illustrate by doing and educate from there. Whether it is warranted, prudent or legal I don't know and I am looking for knowledge and opinions.

Thoughts?

Matt

 

[novus collectus]

Ok, I am not a lawyer and I am not an LEO and a total novice and layman, but my careful reply would be that unless you were someone under 18, unless were using said "fake" gun in a felony like a robbery, then there is no law local or state that would prevent you from carrying in a holster a fake gun.
As I undstand it, unless you were a felon, committing a felony or in one of the localities that disallows minors to possess real looking guns, then it is perfectly not illegal.


And you know what, I am not even sure if there are any laws against minors having one. And for that matter, I don't think there are any state laws directly addressing criminals using one in a crime (feds have one IIRC). The only law I have seen so far is that you may not transfer "toy cartidge pistols" to a minor inside the city limits of Baltimore under penalty of a $10 fine.

A police officer may or may not give you guff for wearing one, but he would have no legal standing because there are no laws I am aware of the prevent it, and any so called "breach of the peace" claim can be countered by your First amendment rights.

 

[ke3gk]

I think the statement would go further without a dummy gun - just an empty holster.

People would ask - why the empty holster ?

and your reply would be ...

 

[sbarber7973]

Maryland Sucks !!!!!!!

 

[novus collectus]

Maryland Sucks !!!!!!!

 

[VNVGUNNER]

I don't think I would walk around with a smurf gun.

 

[nighthawk2099]

I'm bored tonight.

 

[foxtrapper]

This so called "free state" , yeah right...

 

[VNVGUNNER]

 

[SigMatt]

Nighthawk,

Can I borrow that? Would look good on a small information card or brochure.

Matt

 

[nighthawk2099]

Nighthawk,

Can I borrow that? Would look good on a small information card or brochure.

Matt

By all means. Anything to help us get CCW in MD.

 

[CharlieFoxtrot]

There's nothing in state law that I am aware of that would prevent you from doing what you want to do as long as you don't wave it around or rob someone with it. However you need to be aware that the state preemption clause only applies to firearms. Therefore local jurisdictions are free to enact their own laws if it’s not a firearm. I don't know what the particulars in every county or city code but I do know for example that Ocean City has a municipal ordinance regulating the possession of "replica" guns.

 

[BenL]

You know, OP might be on to something, here. The media LOVE a good "the government is infringing on my rights" story. I doubt the Sun "newspaper" would pick it up, but I bet if enough people did this, and it got some traction, it would end up on the news.

 

[smores]

There's nothing in state law that I am aware of that would prevent you from doing what you want to do as long as you don't wave it around or rob someone with it. However you need to be aware that the state preemption clause only applies to firearms. Therefore local jurisdictions are free to enact their own laws if it’s not a firearm. I don't know what the particulars in every county or city code but I do know for example that Ocean City has a municipal ordinance regulating the possession of "replica" guns.

Seeing as the blue guns are totally inert, one solid piece, and made from urethane, I don't see how it can be defined as a "replica." BB guns (especially airsoft guns) are a different story.

But then again, I agree that an empty holster makes a better case for CCW. Like if you were in danger, all you have is a desire to grab what isn't there to protect human life.

 

[SigMatt]

The only ordinances I've found with regard to replicas dealing with guns that fire some form of projectile. BB guns are the typical case. Ocean City has such an ordinance, for example.

I've found nothing with regard to a rubber gun.

I know the idea of carry a red or blue rubber gun openly in a holster is kind of silly. The purpose is to attract the attention of the sheep. And if they approach me, have a little info card I can hand them where they can learn more.

I see it as trying to bring attention to the issue of future armed citizens and get into the awareness of the public. Form the roots of a VCDL-like organization here so when we get "shall issue" CCW, the foundations of support and mobilization will be in place. Look at how effective VCDL is in Virginia. We need to start that here and being passive and hoping the issue will resolve itself over time may not be enough. With attention, we can gain traction even if it is one "gun nut" at a time.

Plus, I just like to stir up the hornet's nest once in a while.

Matt

 

[novus collectus]

Seeing as the blue guns are totally inert, one solid piece, and made from urethane, I don't see how it can be defined as a "replica." BB guns (especially airsoft guns) are a different story.

But then again, I agree that an empty holster makes a better case for CCW. Like if you were in danger, all you have is a desire to grab what isn't there to protect human life.

I think he was just using that as an example of how certain localities can have their own little laws about toy or fake guns.
But since you brought it up, the blue gun is not a "gun replica" in OC.

Sec. 58-141. Definition.

Gun replica. A reproduction of an authentic weapon with similar design, weight and components of its real counterpart, which shoots BBs, pellets, darts or other projectiles made of plastic, metal or other materials.

http://www.town.ocean-city.md.us/clerk/code/ch0058.html#art3

 

[novus collectus]

......
I know the idea of carry a red or blue rubber gun openly in a holster is kind of silly. The purpose is to attract the attention of the sheep. And if they approach me, have a little info card I can hand them where they can learn more.

I see it as trying to bring attention to the issue of future armed citizens and get into the awareness of the public. Form the roots of a VCDL-like organization here so when we get "shall issue" CCW, the foundations of support and mobilization will be in place. Look at how effective VCDL is in Virginia. We need to start that here and being passive and hoping the issue will resolve itself over time may not be enough. With attention, we can gain traction even if it is one "gun nut" at a time.

Plus, I just like to stir up the hornet's nest once in a while.

Matt

 

[smores]

So, who's "carrying" to the next CCW hearings?

 

[CharlieFoxtrot]

Sorry, I was not implying that a blue gun is a replica. The only point I was trying to make is that since it is not a firearm there may be some wacky laws out there. Unfortunately there is not searchable database that you can use statewide. Most municipalities have them online but not all. You'd have to individually search each one. I wouldn't put it past say, Tacoma Park, to have some stupid law.

By the way did you know this is still on the books (and contrary to state law) in Montgomery County. I had a client arrested for this once.

Sec. 57-10. Keeping guns on person or in vehicles.
It shall be unlawful for any person to have upon his person, concealed or exposed, or in a motor vehicle where it is readily available for use, any gun designed to use explosive ammunition unless:

(a) Lawful mission. Such person is then engaged upon a lawful mission for which it is necessary to carry a gun upon his person; or

(b) Special guard, special police, etc. Such person is employed as a special guard, special police officer or special detective and has been lawfully deputized by the sheriff for the county, or has been appointed a constable in the county, or has been licensed under the laws of the state, should such a law be enacted, to carry such gun and then is on or in the immediate vicinity of the premises of any employer whose occupation lawfully requires the employment of a person carrying a gun while in the discharge of the duties of such employment; or

(c) Military service. Such person is then lawfully engaged in military service or as a duly authorized peace officer; or

(d) Hunting, target practice, etc. Such person is engaged in lawful hunting, drill, training or target practice on property of which he is the owner or lessee or on property with the prior permission of the owner or lessee thereof; or

(e) Going to or returning from hunting, target practice, etc. Such person is engaged in going to or from lawful hunting, drill training or target practice, or in delivering such gun to or carrying it from a gunsmith or repairman, or is engaged in any other lawful transfer of possession; provided, that such person shall be on or traveling upon a public highway or property of which he is the owner or lessee or on property with the prior permission of the owner or lessee thereof; provided further, that such gun shall not be loaded with explosive ammunition. (1981 L.M.C., ch. 42, § 1; 2001 L.M.C., ch. 11, § 1.)

 

[novus collectus]

.....

By the way did you know this is still on the books (and contrary to state law) in Montgomery County. I had a client arrested for this once.
....

And??? I have been wondering about that law for a while now. If it was not on the books before 1984 then it violates the state preemption as I thought, so I am dying to know how an actual case went on this.