Long gun Carry

[sfchoffman]

Well that kills my idea of open carry rifles to a rally in Annapolis, should have known there would be restrictions on that,might intimidate them or something. Look up on youtube the gun rally in Indiana a couple months ago...
Oh and the M4 or AK would work just fine, with the evil 30rd mag...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=KSfy3U7-xPM

 

[jpo183]

I support this idea.

 

[awptickes]

So, basically, chamber flag and muzzle discipline, and you'll be fine.

 

[tjv4163]

So, basically, chamber flag and muzzle discipline, and you'll be fine.

maybe..

 

[AliasNeo07]

So you are afraid they will ban something that you are afraid to do because they may ban it? How is that working out for you?

Who said that?

 

[j1337]

.

 

[sfchoffman]

That is a thought !

 

[GTOGUNNER]

This may sound silly, but thought I'd throw it out there just in case it caught on. What if there was a demonstration with the non-regulated parts of different firearms? For example, only AR15 upper receivers. It gets the same point across. We may be able to make fun of ourselves for being so silly (as we would with empty holsters), but the antis would see it as no different from carrying the complete firearm (unlike empty holsters). In fact, I doubt most of them would even know the difference. So it's possible it would be just as effective. Just throwing that out there Ron Burgundy style. If you don't like it you can send it right back.

Hummmm..
but what if some one tries to steal your upper? Does sound doable!

 

[Mark75H]

This may sound silly, but thought I'd throw it out there just in case it caught on. What if there was a demonstration with the non-regulated parts of different firearms? For example, only AR15 upper receivers. It gets the same point across. We may be able to make fun of ourselves for being so silly (as we would with empty holsters), but the antis would see it as no different from carrying the complete firearm (unlike empty holsters). In fact, I doubt most of them would even know the difference. So it's possible it would be just as effective. Just throwing that out there Ron Burgundy style. If you don't like it you can send it right back.

A MD judge would still give you 30 days for disturbing the peace because you knew it would be provocative even though technically legal from the firearms stand point.

Your intent to provoke fear is enough to put you in the pokie

 

[River Mud]

A MD judge would still give you 30 days for disturbing the peace because you knew it would be provocative even though technically legal from the firearms stand point.

Your intent to provoke fear is enough to put you in the pokie

I was discussing this with my father in law, a former cop/detective in NC. He recalled the post segregation era in NC, where both pro-white and pro-black groups would demonstrate to attempt to intimidate the general public of the other race.

He said that at least in NC, there is specifically a law concerning "appearing to threaten the public in a public place" that bypassed the fact that the groups may have been carrying wooden/fake/toy firearms, and get the demonstrators off the streets at least long enough to charge them and fine them.

His words, "in a socialist state like Maryland, you can bet your last dollar that laws against 'intimidating the public' exist to make sure the police can keep a handle on those exercising their right to assemble/protest."

 

[beafly.cakes]

You guys need to back off the demonstration stuff. It's a non-starter in MD.

Until your neighbors look out their window, see you walking your dog with an AR on your back while in your own neighborhood and just shrug instead of calling in a man with a gun, doing so in the public square is just gonna win you a trip to the lockup.

 

[Glaug-Eldare]

I was discussing this with my father in law, a former cop/detective in NC. He recalled the post segregation era in NC, where both pro-white and pro-black groups would demonstrate to attempt to intimidate the general public of the other race.

He said that at least in NC, there is specifically a law concerning "appearing to threaten the public in a public place" that bypassed the fact that the groups may have been carrying wooden/fake/toy firearms, and get the demonstrators off the streets at least long enough to charge them and fine them.

His words, "in a socialist state like Maryland, you can bet your last dollar that laws against 'intimidating the public' exist to make sure the police can keep a handle on those exercising their right to assemble/protest."

http://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2010/ <- Go find it. I haven't found one yet.

 

[Vile Shadow]

A MD judge would still give you 30 days for disturbing the peace

So, it's a crime to exercise a legal right under the state's own code?

because you knew it would be provocative

Really? And how does one prove "intent", at least in that context?

even though technically legal from the firearms stand point.

That's right. "Technically legal". 'Nuff said.

Your intent to provoke fear is enough to put you in the pokie

Carrying a shotgun, slung on your shoulder that is,something that is legal in this state as we've covered here, is not enough to "provoke fear". Pointing it, however, is a different story. Then your argument may hold water.

But by itself, no

You guys need to back off the demonstration stuff. It's a non-starter in MD.

Oh yeah? Abd who declared you to have the authority to make such a demand?

Until your neighbors look out their window, see you walking your dog with an AR on your back while in your own neighborhood and just shrug

And how do you think we're supposed to get to that point?

instead of calling in a man with a gun,

Which would be a waste of time if you're minding your own business and not threatening anyone.

doing so in the public square is just gonna win you a trip to the lockup.

For what? Again, if you haven't committed assault by pointing the gun at anyone, and you're not legally disqualified from possessing a firearm, there's nothing anyone can say.

The naysayers are not part of the solution. They're part of the freakin' problem!!

 

[Redcobra]

So, it's a crime to exercise a legal right under the state's own code?



Really? And how does one prove "intent", at least in that context?



That's right. "Technically legal". 'Nuff said.



Carrying a shotgun, slung on your shoulder that is,something that is legal in this state as we've covered here, is not enough to "provoke fear". Pointing it, however, is a different story. Then your argument may hold water.

But by itself, no



Oh yeah? Abd who declared you to have the authority to make such a demand?



And how do you think we're supposed to get to that point?



Which would be a waste of time if you're minding your own business and not threatening anyone.


For what? Again, if you haven't committed assault by pointing the gun at anyone, and you're not legally disqualified from possessing a firearm, there's nothing anyone can say.

The naysayers are not part of the solution. They're part of the freakin' problem!!

I suggest you sling your AR-15 and take a stroll around the neighborhood and report back to us about what happened.

 

[beafly.cakes]

So, it's a crime to exercise a legal right under the state's own code?



Really? And how does one prove "intent", at least in that context?



That's right. "Technically legal". 'Nuff said.



Carrying a shotgun, slung on your shoulder that is,something that is legal in this state as we've covered here, is not enough to "provoke fear". Pointing it, however, is a different story. Then your argument may hold water.

But by itself, no



Oh yeah? Abd who declared you to have the authority to make such a demand?



And how do you think we're supposed to get to that point?



Which would be a waste of time if you're minding your own business and not threatening anyone.


For what? Again, if you haven't committed assault by pointing the gun at anyone, and you're not legally disqualified from possessing a firearm, there's nothing anyone can say.

The naysayers are not part of the solution. They're part of the freakin' problem!!

You seem to have all your bases covered. Take a stroll and let us know how it goes.

 

[Merlin]

I would say that if no one can carry a long gun for fear of the legal consequences, that right is already gone whether it's officially on the books or not.

And your point is?

 

[Merlin]

I support this idea.

Let us know how it works out for you and report back.

 

[jpo183]

most of the argument stems from a SINGLE person doing this. A single person is vulnerable to prosecution even while following the law. A "demonstration" or group of people is a different story, especially if you inform local LEO what is going to occur. The risk of being detained as a group (20+) is unlikely. A single person can be used as an example by politicians....

 

[jimbobborg]

Did this thread start because of my thread in the Water Cooler?

 

[beafly.cakes]

most of the argument stems from a SINGLE person doing this. A single person is vulnerable to prosecution even while following the law. A "demonstration" or group of people is a different story, especially if you inform local LEO what is going to occur. The risk of being detained as a group (20+) is unlikely. A single person can be used as an example by politicians....

Re-read: http://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2010/criminal-law/title-4/subtitle-2/4-208/

That is the point. It's clearly illegal to attend a demonstration with a long gun and therefore VERY likely that you'll be detained and probably prosecuted for doing so in a group of 20+.