MD law Section 4-203

[GTOGUNNER]

It's going to be exciting here when a new LGOC thread starts!!

 

[TexDefender]

Hmm... I wasn't there and I can't speak as to why the person was popped at a Royal Farms. When I was in LE, we had to use our judgement many times. Good judgement comes from reading/looking up the code, experience, guidance from fellow officers, guidance and direction from supervisors, and input and direction from the Attorney's office. (Note: Direction of supervisor's and the Attorney's office.) I believe the Federal Law allows for reasonable stops (My suggestion, be really close to an interstate if you make a stop). I think that may have been a case were an inexperience officer made a bad call. I always used some common sense, example:

Would you pop an individual who stopped for a flat tire? Engine Trouble? Needs gas? Became sick? I surely wouldn't. Is an individual still in transit if the car is stopped, keys in the ignition, but the motor is off? I think you could make the argument it is still in transit, because haven't individuals been popped for DUI/DWI because they were asleep in their car with the keys in the ignition? Drunk in public is an entirely different matter though. I find it hard to believe a marked law enforcement unit would be constantly at a firearm range. If one could produce some evidence, I would think you would have a good case for entrapment. That is like being across the street from a bar when it's closing time. I was taught that was a No, No. I never needed to go fishing, there were enough people doing enough stupid things to at the time to keep me busy, and I didn't need any additional paperwork. RoadDawg may have a different take on it, and I want to make it clear I'm not call him or anyone else out on this subject. It is solely my opinion.

 

[swinokur]

The MD AG has issued an opinion that trips that start and stop in MD are not subject to FOPA and that MD 4-203 applies. Being near the Interstate probably won’t be of any value in raising a defense if your trip started and ended in MD

IANAL

 

[BeoBill]

Maybe instructors teaching HQL training need to add counter-surveillance to their curriculum?

That's a good idea. IMO, not just because of entrapment but also because of the potential for robbery/theft by private criminals.

 

[swinokur]

Some HQL instructors have given inaccurate info on MD statutes. Best to read for yourself or seek an attorney who knows MD firearms laws if you have questions

 

[danb]

Some HQL instructors have given inaccurate info on MD statutes. Best to read for yourself or seek an attorney who knows MD firearms laws if you have questions

Actually I would go further: all instructors probably say at least one inaccurate thing during a 4 (or 16) hour class.

The law is ambiguous, people confuse a convincing interpretation that they heard from someone else, or their own risk aversion, with the actual law (which no one really knows until you are arrested and go before the judge). Instructors also confuse MD, DC, VA, and some other places (like: you cannot carry a 11+ round mag, or carry more than 2 mags, which is for DC I think but some say this is for MD)

 

[TexDefender]

The MD AG has issued an opinion that trips that start and stop in MD are not subject to FOPA and that MD 4-203 applies. Being near the Interstate probably won’t be of any value in raising a defense if your trip started and ended in MD

IANAL

May intent was if you were going from Texas going to Maine or something like that. If the MD AG has issued an opinion that trips that start and stop in MD are not subject to FOPA and that MD 4-203 applies. Then your answer is mostly likely the reason he was popped initially. If that is indeed the AG opinion it needs to be in the law. Maybe that is a bill we can get submitted, that reasonable stops are allowed, such as emergency maintenance (Flat Tires, engine trouble, etc), Refueling, etc.

 

[danb]

Again, the only "bill" that needs to be submitted is the one that makes MD shall-issue. 4-203 only applies to people without permits. MD Shall issue, case closed.

This is coming soon, not in the form of a bill, but probably in the form of a judicial mandate.

 

[danb]

and btw, I would not assume that the police car was "marked." I have seen the po-po outside several ranges in unmarked cars (no they are not as stealthy as they think). For various reasons probably - not to pop people itself - but people are being followed home and having things stolen. There is one range, not naming names, where I only go there during daylight and am somewhat thankful for the presence. Lets just say they have never busted me going through the drive thru at popeyes.

 

[swinokur]

Actually I would go further: all instructors probably say at least one inaccurate thing during a 4 (or 16) hour class.

The law is ambiguous, people confuse a convincing interpretation that they heard from someone else, or their own risk aversion, with the actual law (which no one really knows until you are arrested and go before the judge). Instructors also confuse MD, DC, VA, and some other places (like: you cannot carry a 11+ round mag, or carry more than 2 mags, which is for DC I think but some say this is for MD)

I am training exempt and took no HQL course, so I won't paint all instructors with that broad of a brush, as I have no first hand knowledge besides the posts I have read here.

But some instructors are more informed than others,. I'll admit that.

 

[swinokur]

May intent was if you were going from Texas going to Maine or something like that. If the MD AG has issued an opinion that trips that start and stop in MD are not subject to FOPA and that MD 4-203 applies. Then your answer is mostly likely the reason he was popped initially. If that is indeed the AG opinion it needs to be in the law. Maybe that is a bill we can get submitted, that reasonable stops are allowed, such as emergency maintenance (Flat Tires, engine trouble, etc), Refueling, etc.

Here is the AG opinion on FOPA and travel. SA's use AG opinions for guidance on decisions on whether to prosecute or not.

It might not be in a statute but might carry weight for prosecutorial decisions.

I agree the law needs clarification but asking the MGA for clarification could result in the opposite happening and the statute becomes even more restrictive.

Remember this is MD.
.

 

[BeoBill]

May intent was if you were going from Texas going to Maine or something like that. If the MD AG has issued an opinion that trips that start and stop in MD are not subject to FOPA and that MD 4-203 applies. Then your answer is mostly likely the reason he was popped initially. If that is indeed the AG opinion it needs to be in the law. Maybe that is a bill we can get submitted, that reasonable stops are allowed, such as emergency maintenance (Flat Tires, engine trouble, etc), Refueling, etc.

I'm sure if WE suggest that, the PG/AA/MOCO/HOCO coalition will find a way to make it work against us. Not pessimistic; just realistic based on experience.

 

[TexDefender]

Here is the AG opinion on FOPA and travel. SA's use AG opinions for guidance on decisions on whether to prosecute or not.

Just because it's not in a statute doesn't mean it doesn't carry any weight for prosecutorial decisions.

I think you misunderstood me, I'm not saying is doesn't carry weight, in my earlier post I noted guidance and direction of the AG and supervisors.

I'm simply pointing out that it is not in the law as written, could we not play the left's game and submit changes to the law to make it clear and do that in a reasonable fashion? They no doubt will bring that up. But we certainly could hit them with emergency stops and such to get it more to our liking. Could we not?

 

[swinokur]

Sorry, I edited my post after you replied. The danger in MD is the antis will seize the opportunity to make it more restrictive.

This is MD

 

[TexDefender]

True, but I wouldn't think we should roll over an play dead now.

 

[rbird7282]

Again, the only "bill" that needs to be submitted is the one that makes MD shall-issue. 4-203 only applies to people without permits. MD Shall issue, case closed.

This is coming soon, not in the form of a bill, but probably in the form of a judicial mandate.

Well yes and no. There are plenty of people who go to the range that have no interest in a carry permit.
Now, make it Constitutional carry and then it all goes away. I know, I know, I’m dreaming.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TexDefender]

Who would be a good delegate to submit a draft to?

 

[swinokur]

You can ask one of your reps to submit a bill for clarification. Perhaps pose the question in a new thread to get some of our politically savvy folks to give suggestions.

I don't think the rep would be interested if they don't represent you.

But it may also be a case of be careful what you ask for and all that.

 

[jrh0341]

The answer boils down to two things: Common sense (you) and nonsense (MD).

I have stopped to feed the kids and such, so I can't see how anyone would interpret the law as literally meaning NO STOPS. some are unavoidable. I have stopped at stores and such to/from a range, too, knowing that it was possible that if anyone found out I could be hip deep in manure. Still, I can't see how stopping for gas or a gallon of milk is that big a deal.

Your honor, I stopped for gas, fast food and essential groceries, just milk and eggs.

I deemed these acceptable stops, by a reasonable person standard.

What was my reasoning?

I spent a shit ton of time in the Marines. We were not allowed to wear our camouflage utility uniform off base, but REASONABLE/ESSENTIAL STOPS on the way home from base were allowed. Gas/Food/Essential groceries were the reasonable stops allowed, as specifically written in the Nav/MC Regulations.

So you see, your honor, my understanding of "reasonable stops" was (A.) formed by multiple years of experience

AND

(B.) given the absence of any explicit definition from any other federal, state or municipal level office, they were based on the ONLY written guidance on "acceptable stops" ever provided to me by any actual government entity at any level. I think a reasonable person would agree with that, don't you?

If I could have worn cammies there, its a reasonable stop. Prove me wrong.

 

[swinokur]

Using the words reasonable and MD in the same post is dicey at best.

Good luck