Selling a 30round mag in MD

[Boom Boom]

Is this the bourbon porn thread?

 

[A1Uni]

Police and retired (in good standing) police are completely exempt from the mag regs and can buy whatever they want.

That is all.

 

[RoadDawg]

So how much did ya pay for it?

You could have said that few post ago and every one will be on their way.

Lol

Let them biotch and vent... It ain't personal. At least not for me anyway..

And arbud is a class act.

 

[RoadDawg]

Is this the bourbon porn thread?

I'll take that shot.

 

[Vile Shadow]

Police and retired (in good standing) police are completely exempt from the mag regs and can buy whatever they want.

That is all.

Not that it matters, but just outta curiosity... Has this always been?

Or did somethin' change since I been to yer place fer them four transfers?

 

[Hawkeye]

When driving on a street which has a speed camera... Knowing that camera is set to take your picture at any speed more than 12 miles per hour over the posted speed... Do you drive at the posted speed or do you merely drive less than eleven miles per hour over the posted speed?

I think you have me confused with some guy who rides a white horse and shoots silver bullets there...

I'll happily cruise past a speed camera doing 11 over the limit.

That said, why you felt the need to bring up a straw argument and toss snide comments and eye rolling in my direction I have no idea. Did you think I was attacking you or something? What I was posting about was interpretation of the law. I believe what you say when you say that you have this in writing from someone at MSP. All I am saying is that I believe that MSP is wrong when they interpret this section of the law this way.

Look at it this way: if Joe Citizen has a mag to sell, and Joe LEO is his buyer, there are two parties involved in the transaction. Joe LEO is exempt from the prohibition on buying a 10+ mag, but Joe Citizen is not exempt from the "offer for sale" part of the law. I just think it's an example of an asinine law, but even worse, here we have yet another example of MSP taking it upon themselves to come up with an incorrect interpretation of it. It's emblematic of the problems we as gun owners face in dealing with the government in this state.

The MDSP has issued a policy which they intend to use in the matter.

Who issued it? Did you write to them specifically to ask about this question? I'm genuinely curious here, because this whole thing just reeks of a situation that could really end up sucking for someone who sells a mag based on it and then later there's some junior assistant AG who wants to score points with Frosh who gets wind of it and wants to prosecute.

AND... When selling or otherwise transferring a >10 magazine TO an exempt party, the transferring party is NOT guilty of "offering to sell/transfer to a prohibited person".

Except that that's not how the statute reads. It doesn't say "offer to sell/transfer to a prohibited person. It's as follows:

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.

While the subsection directly previous to this exempts LEOs from this provision themselves, nowhere in there is an exception for people transferring or selling to a LEO. Therefore, while a LEO could not be prosecuted for either buying or selling a magazine of 10+ rounds, a regular citizen certainly could be.

Therefore it is NOT a "technical violation of the law".

Yes, it is. You and MSP are inserting things into the text of the statute that's not there.

BGOS... it lives large around these parts.

Toss that one at me if you want, but I don't see it that way. What I am arguing here is that this is yet another example of MSP overstepping their authority in interpretation of the law. This time it worked out in our favor, but that doesn't make them less wrong.

 

[RoadDawg]

I think you have me confused with some guy who rides a white horse and shoots silver bullets there...

I'll happily cruise past a speed camera doing 11 over the limit.

That said, why you felt the need to bring up a straw argument and toss snide comments and eye rolling in my direction I have no idea. Did you think I was attacking you or something? What I was posting about was interpretation of the law. I believe what you say when you say that you have this in writing from someone at MSP. All I am saying is that I believe that MSP is wrong when they interpret this section of the law this way.

No snide comments, as I said, "...this is NOT personal" and the eye roll was because this forum has no "Toungue-in-Cheek" emoticon.

No straw argument... The example was LAW Vs. LAW and how one follows the letter of.

Look at it this way: if Joe Citizen has a mag to sell, and Joe LEO is his buyer, there are two parties involved in the transaction. Joe LEO is exempt from the prohibition on buying a 10+ mag, but Joe Citizen is not exempt from the "offer for sale" part of the law. I just think it's an example of an asinine law, but even worse, here we have yet another example of MSP taking it upon themselves to come up with an incorrect interpretation of it. It's emblematic of the problems we as gun owners face in dealing with the government in this state.

Go back and read my example. NO LEO is going to arrest you for giving a >10 magazine to any LEO who is exempted in the written law. It is NOT going to happen as long as YOU know that the person is a LEO and exempt as per the legal qualification. NONE... because it is NOT illegal for you to do so.

Who issued it? Did you write to them specifically to ask about this question? I'm genuinely curious here, because this whole thing just reeks of a situation that could really end up sucking for someone who sells a mag based on it and then later there's some junior assistant AG who wants to score points with Frosh who gets wind of it and wants to prosecute.

If you go back and read what I posted in this thread... you will have your answer to that question.

Except that that's not how the statute reads. It doesn't say "offer to sell/transfer to a prohibited person. It's as follows:



While the subsection directly previous to this exempts LEOs from this provision themselves, nowhere in there is an exception for people transferring or selling to a LEO. Therefore, while a LEO could not be prosecuted for either buying or selling a magazine of 10+ rounds, a regular citizen certainly could be.



Yes, it is. You and MSP are inserting things into the text of the statute that's not there.

Whoa Nellie... I did NOT insert anything anywhere. I simply made a statement in brackets for emphasis.

Toss that one at me if you want, but I don't see it that way. What I am arguing here is that this is yet another example of MSP overstepping their authority in interpretation of the law. This time it worked out in our favor, but that doesn't make them less wrong.

It is obvious that the MDSP DOES have authority to choose what discretion they will choose as their policy in this matter. And it would be EXTREMELY silly if not down right stupid to arrest and charge someone with handing you something that is perfectly legal for them to hand to you.

See it how ever you wish. You have already been told by an IP-FFL that it IS legal.
I have (as I stated in a prior post in this thread) reported what I was TOLD PERSONALLY AND CONFIRMED VIA E-MAIL from MDSP.

As I have said to many... YOU do what YOU feel comfortable doing within the law. If you choose to only drive 50 in a 55... you will never get a citation for speeding... BUT, you will probably pizz off a lot of people behind you. I would never advise ANYONE to break ANY law.

And please don't rattle on about folks obeying technicalities in one law while you intentionally break another. It is false piety at best.

Peace

 

[A1Uni]

Not that it matters, but just outta curiosity... Has this always been?

Or did somethin' change since I been to yer place fer them four transfers?

It has been that way since the new laws went into effect in 2013 , but some dealers, us included, were not completely up to speed on the new laws. We have since become enlightened.

 

[Hawkeye]

If you go back and read what I posted in this thread... you will have your answer to that question.

I was asking you to be more specific. Who at MSP told you this?

 

[RoadDawg]

I was asking you to be more specific. Who at MSP told you this?

• It was confirmed by a supervisor in the Firearms Unit.
• More than one person working in the unit was involved in the research.

Rest assured that it is not a fleeting interwebs opinion.

 

[Hawkeye]

• It was confirmed by a supervisor in the Firearms Unit.
• More than one person working in the unit was involved in the research.

Rest assured that it is not a fleeting interwebs opinion.

Who are these people? Can you please be specific?
Do you have this in writing?

 

[RoadDawg]

Who are these people? Can you please be specific?
Do you have this in writing?

Yes I do have it in writing.

And another member here can vouch for that. (Actually 2 members have seen it.)


And that's as far as I am going with this on the Internet.

 

[chesapeakeIRON]

It may be legal for him to buy it. It is not legal for you to sell it or transfer it in Maryland.

Yup. Hit the nail on the head

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[chesapeakeIRON]

We may have all broke the law by simply reading this thread.

That's funny right there

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[jakbob]

I wouldn't sell an LEO a mag over 10 rounds. What's in the law books is what I may be prosecuted for. No thanks.

The law doesn't say I can, so I can't.

 

[squirrels]

 

[Doobie]

A buddy/co worker of mine sent an email to MSP licensing division inquiring about LEOs being exempt from mag restrictions. The reply he received back was from a trooper and states just as RD says "LEO is exempt."
I sent an email and I received a genetic response ""Maryland does not allow the purchase, transfer or receipt of magazines greater than 10 rounds within the State's borders. Possession and use of magazines greater than 10 rounds is not against the law." My email did not have the name of who replied. Ask 3 different officers, get 3 different answers I guess.

 

[Boom Boom]

I wouldn't sell an LEO a mag over 10 rounds. What's in the law books is what I may be prosecuted for. No thanks.

The law doesn't say I can, so I can't.

I'm with you. Not worth the risk of a criminal record and being disqualified for life. Prosecutors in this state are happy to go the extra mile to enforce anti-gun law as restrictively as possible.

 

[Pinecone]

Ask 3 different officers, get 4 different answers I guess.

FTFY

 

[Doobie]

FTFY