Legality of Blue Carry

[novus collectus]

1898 Derringer, not 1899.
The 1899 is not an "antique" unless it is a cap lock, flintlock or matchlock, or muzzloader made in 1899, or if does not use ammunition commercially available and is a replica of a pre-1898 Derringer.

 

[ThatIsAFact]

clarification

The 1899 is not an "antique" unless it is a cap lock, flintlock or matchlock, or muzzloader made in 1899, or if does not use ammunition commercially available and is a replica of a pre-1898 Derringer.

A replica of a pre-1899 Derringer, you meant to say.

Sorry, I neglected to mention that my hypothetical "1899 Derringer" was actually manufactured in 1898, and therefore is by definition an "antique firearm" under 4-201. They did then with pocket guns what they do now with cars -- the "1899 model" actually began to be manufactured and sold in 1898. My hypothetical Derringer-carrier is on firm ground because he has inherited not only the Derringer but the original sales receipt retained by his great-great-grandfather, documenting that he purchased the weapon on September 30, 1898.

 

[novus collectus]

A replica of a pre-1899 Derringer, you meant to say.

Ha! Got me.

 

[xd40c]

This information reinforces my point. They "prefer" concealed carry, and if you disregard that preference, you are at the mercy of whoever may decide to complain about it. People in Maryland are not used to seeing non-uniformed persons carrying holstered handguns. If a permit holder open carries without a good reason, and somebody (a law enforcement officer or somebody else) complains to the MSP, then it is entirely within "the Secretary's" discretion (which no doubt really means, the lower-ranking officers to whom such things are delegated) whether to regard that behavior as "behavior by the permit holder which would result in undue apprehension of existing danger by the general public."

Novus Collectus, we agree that open carry by a permit holder is not a violation of the statutes. I am saying that it is within MSP's discretionary authority to regard it as behavior justifying revocation, depending no doubt on perception of the carrier's motivation, the surroundings in which the open carry occurred, who it is who is complaining about it and why, whether the permit holder promises not to do it again, and who knows what else.

[end of regulation]

FYI my C.T.A.C. arrived Friday. That will pretty much spell the end of OC for me. (Except for when I'm VA of course!)

 

[CharlieFoxtrot]

What is your basic opinion on the carry of a loaded "antique" handgun openly or concealed?
The 4-101 dangerous weapons statute says as long as a ("any") weapon is carried openly without intent to unlawfully injure or by a minor in certain counties, then it does not restrict carry (as I read it). Also 4-101 specifically says it does not apply to "handguns" and "penknives", but it does not define handguns.
4-203 resticts its definition of "handguns" to exlcude "antiques", so the restrictions on transport, wearing, carry and possession of loaded "antique" handguns is not restricted by 4-203.

As I am understanding this an "antique" handgun may be exempted from 4-101 so it can be worn concealed loaded because "handguns" are excepted , and it is not restriced by 4-203 because it is excluded from its scope since it is an "antique". But this is questionable to me.

What is not as questionable to me as a layman is I think it is legal to carry a loaded "antique" handgun openly without intent to unlawfully injure because there is no restriction in either statute.

What do you think?

This is a great question. Here are my thoughts:
An antique firearm is by definition not a handgun 4-201(c). Therefore the 4-203. wearing, carrying, or transporting handgun prohibitions do not apply. However since it is not a handgun it is therefore not excluded from the dangerous and deadly weapon statute. (4-101). 4-101(c) (1) prohibits you from wearing or carrying a dangerous or deadly weapon concealed on or about the person unless you fit one of the 4-101(b) exceptions. Also it makes no difference if it is loaded or unloaded. This then leads to the absurdity that whenever you transport an antique firearm, if you carry it in a case in your car you are violating the law.
4-101(c) (2) says “a person may not wear or carry a dangerous weapon … openly with the intent or purpose of injuring an individual in an unlawful manner.” I think the key word here is unlawful. If you are carrying it openly and with the intent of using it for lawful self-defense then you are OK. So bottom line I do not think it is against the law to carry an antique firearm openly.
Now that being said just because you can do some thing doesn’t necessarily mean you want to do it! I have a lot of respect for LEOs, but this is a very arcane area of the law. I’ve had two clients in the past 12 months who were charged with carrying a concealed deadly weapon when all they had were folding knives and that is a generally more well known exception than the one we are discussing here.

 

[novus collectus]

This is a great question. Here are my thoughts:
An antique firearm is by definition not a handgun 4-201(c). Therefore the 4-203. wearing, carrying, or transporting handgun prohibitions do not apply. However since it is not a handgun it is therefore not excluded from the dangerous and deadly weapon statute. (4-101). 4-101(c) (1) prohibits you from wearing or carrying a dangerous or deadly weapon concealed on or about the person unless you fit one of the 4-101(b) exceptions. Also it makes no difference if it is loaded or unloaded. This then leads to the absurdity that whenever you transport an antique firearm, if you carry it in a case in your car you are violating the law.

Oh, but why is it not a "handgun" in 4-101? The definition excluding antiques from handguns is in Subtitle 2, "Handguns" and it states the definitions are for that subsection only:

§ 4-201.
(a) In this subtitle the following words have the meanings indicated.


(b) "Antique firearm" means:


(1) a firearm, including a firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar ignition system, manufactured before 1899; or


(2) a replica of a firearm described in item (1) of this subsection that:


(i) is not designed or redesigned to use rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition; or


(ii) uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition that is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.


(c) (1) "Handgun" means a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person.


(2) "Handgun" includes a short-barreled shotgun and a short-barreled rifle.


(3) "Handgun" does not include a shotgun, rifle, or antique firearm.

So a "handgun" in Title 4, subtitle 2 excludes antiques, but subtitle 1 does not and since subtitle 2 seems to specifically limit its scope to within the subtitle, it would be adding to the meaning in 4-101 that which is not written.

4-101(c) (2) says “a person may not wear or carry a dangerous weapon … openly with the intent or purpose of injuring an individual in an unlawful manner.” I think the key word here is unlawful. If you are carrying it openly and with the intent of using it for lawful self-defense then you are OK. So bottom line I do not think it is against the law to carry an antique firearm openly.

That is what I surmise with my guesswork too.

Now that being said just because you can do some thing doesn’t necessarily mean you want to do it! I have a lot of respect for LEOs, but this is a very arcane area of the law. I’ve had two clients in the past 12 months who were charged with carrying a concealed deadly weapon when all they had were folding knives and that is a generally more well known exception than the one we are discussing here.

Oh I have no intent to do this unless I am extremely desperate. For instance if there is a natural disaster and the cops are too busy and I fear for my safety, I may wear an "antique" openly. Or if someone threatens my life and I believe them, since MD will most likely not give me a carry permit I might wear an "antique". Or possibly if I am out in the middle of nowhere and I fear wild animals (like in Western MD maybe?) I might wear one.
I might get arrested by an LEO in those desperate situaions listed above, but the risk of that may be outweighed by the inherent danger at the time and at least I know there is a good possible defense in law if that happenned.