I don't see Byron advocating anyone take any chances with the law (whatever the interpertation of it is.) Nor is he the kind of guy that would take chances either. Sooo... I'm not sure where you were going with that one.Originally Posted by GardoneVT
I don't know if you're not reading what I'm writing, or you're not understanding it, or what. My rear is absolutely on the line. I live in Maryland. I have lived in Maryland my entire life. I own firearms. I own magazines with capacities greater than ten rounds. My ownership of these items is perfectly legal.
Were it illegal to own/use magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds, law enforcement around here wouldn't need to pull anyone over: they could just walk into any shooting range in the state and arrest most of the people there.
Your attitude of 'better safe than sorry' is meaningless when applied to a legal activity in which you fear that you'll run into a law enforcement officer who has concocted a non-existent law.
By the same logic, I could just as easily say that you might as well not own guns at all. A LEO in your area might mistakenly believe that it's illegal. And then what will you do? OMG!
Show me the law where it says that 11+ mags cannot be possessed in this state. Until then you are just scaring people needlessly. You seem to have a great hobby of this: overstating the restrictiveness of state gun control laws. I've seen you stepping on people's toes from California to New Jersey. I guess now Maryland is the next lucky winner, huh?
"If you run into an a**hole in the morning, you ran into an a**hole. If you run into a**holes all day, you're the a**hole." - Raylan Givens
Jammed up for NOT breaking a law?
Nobody is impressed by what you can't do. -THJ
Except police arresting people in direct violation of the FOPA has actually happened.
See Revell vs NJ/NY Port Authority.
Court case not enough proof?
"The officer came back to John. “You're a liar. You're lying to me. Your family says you have it. Where is the gun? Tell me where it is and we can resolve this right now.”
Of course, John couldn't show him what didn't exist, but Kally's failure to corroborate John's account, the officer would tell them later, was the probable cause that allowed him to summon backup — three marked cars joined the lineup along the I-95 shoulder — and empty the Expedition of riders, luggage, Christmas gifts, laundry bags; to pat down Kally and Yianni; to explore the engine compartment and probe inside door panels; and to separate and isolate the Filippidises in the back seats of the patrol cars."
Last I checked, it wasn't illegal to drive through Maryland with a firearm locked in the trunk. That legal fact didn't do John Filippidis much good on the side of the road as his car was being disassembled by Maryland's finest-and he didn't even HAVE a gun in the vehicle.
The Minority Marksman.
"When you meet a swordsman, draw your sword: Do not recite poetry to one who is not a poet."
-a Ch'an Buddhist axiom.
To put this politely, you're talking way out of your lane.
Last edited by Dan_S; 04-20-2014 at 12:17 AM.
Your example seems to be arguing a case for making sure all occupants are all informed as to the number and nature of any and all legal firearms and legal magazines are carried in the vehicle. So long as a police officer doesn't get conflicting stories, there's no more probable cause. Remember that Mr. Filippidis wasn't suspected of possessing a giggle-switch AK or even a standard capacity magazine - that LEO was simply looking for a GUN.
Everyone on this forum understands fully just how important it is to be firmly and decisively lawful in all things regarding firearms.
But if you're travelling through a generally anti-gun state while carrying firearms, and you get pulled over by a local LEO with a hate-on for privately owned firearms, 10 round magazines will NOT spare you a serious headache.
But making sure that everyone's singing from the same sheet of accurate and truthful music, though, will prevent it from being any worse than it has to be.
Rule #1, as ever, is be within the bounds of law. Also, have knowledge of the specific laws that might be particularly germane to preventing a misunderstanding.
If a misunderstanding occurs, and your explanations or references to law combined with your credentials, home state CHL, etc. doesn't clear things up, politely comply with all lawful orders, shut up, and wait for your lawyer.
Yes, that'd be a mother-kittening huge headache to deal with. But if you don't have the minerals to deal with such a process, just how the heck would you handle the circus that comes with actually *using* your firearm defensively against another human being?
Again, emphatically, be within the bounds of law. That makes for a much easier defense against any potential prosecution - or persecution, as it may seem.
Unfortunately, this is a debate that comes down to the lack of trust that some officers in Maryland would know what the law actually says, and would enforce it properly. What other officers do in the course of more routine interactions with folks in some situations may not always be the best measure of how some may react during a vehicle stop or other less conversational encounter. There are a number of regrettable cases from MD, and even more from NJ and NY (where many now transplanted MD officers hail), that give rise to caution.
I personally have switched to single stack platforms when forced to transit MD with personally owned weapons in a compliant transport condition. This is particularly galling when my destination is not in the state (and when transit through the MD is merely a short few hours at best, but detours are not practical - particularly given the alternative of hard winter weather in the mountains of WV). But this lack of trust is the reason. We can cite stories where these lessons have been learned by others, but for me it is also borne out of personal experience with the subset of those kinds of officers who frankly should not be on the job at all, and the very real existence of an uncaring bureaucracy that will without thought or discretion ruin livelihoods and trample protected rights solely to protect revenue generation opportunities, personal egos, prosecution theories across other cases, biases, utopian visions, or any of a hundred other entirely arbitrary and capricious motivations.
I make the same decision in a number of other jurisdictions where the local governments' many abuses have strongly indicated that the law abiding citizens of those states which remain free are not welcomed. And the first part of that decision is to avoid these places whenever possible, although this is not always as easily done as it is said.
Maybe this is not the advice for everyone. After all, I am certainly not a lawyer. Maybe it is an over abundance of caution. On the other hand, in a past life I have seen more than a few warrants for subjects originally encountered in highway stops where the fact pattern clearly suggests what should have been entirely FOPA protected transport of weapons; leading to long and costly court cases compounded by difficulties in responding with an effective defense where notification to the subject's out of state home was more than a bit deficient (and while I would not say deliberately so absent direct evidence of malicious intent, the trend is perhaps not coincidence.) As a result, speaking for me and mine, I do not trust and will take precautions accordingly.
So out of all the above threads I have picked out the following:
---It is legal to transport unloaded magazines over 10 rounds through Maryland to a destination point beyond.
---Some would say don't do it at all.
Byron spoke specifically about Maryland law...which is relevant given that the original question was asked specifically about Maryland. Given that Byron hasn't yet been assaulted by any police officers, nor have any of the number of other members on our board who live in Maryland, I'd say he's offering pretty sound advice.
3/15/2016
You don't say.....
Reply With Quote