MD law Section 4-203

[swinokur]

Which is why in this situation you have a right to decline answering questions and it may be the prudent thing to do.

Without case law it’s open to interpretation until decided by a court.

I don’t understand how it can generally be interpreted until a court rules. But I am not LE or a lawyer

 

[Laj]

The senseless argument and disagreement and people calling other people liars is destroying this forum. This BS infighting and personal attack is going to cost all of us our rights and freedoms. I can't believe all you people want to condemn me and accuse me of misinformation when all I'm trying to do is help other gun-owners to be on the lookout for this crap from possibly misinformed LE. I simply tried to provide info so we can all more easily prevent these inconveniences and people are randomly calling "BS" and assuming this poor kid lied to me. Is it just because Fabs got involved? Is that why everyone is calling BS? Just because Fabs believed me? Last time I ever try to help anyone on this godforsaken sesspool of hate and and argument that charades itself as a place for "like minded people" to engage in "discussion". You people disgust me.

 

[ironpony]

It's a trap!

Bad question to ask here?

 

[fabsroman]

The way statutes are constructed is to tell you what you cannot do. So if it's not prohibited, it's allowed.

Some states's statutes specifically prohibit stops. MD 4-203 does not.

Lawyers may tell me I'm wrong but it's a personal choice until we have case law.

Part (a) of the statute says you cannot, and then part (b) carves out when you can:

(a) (1) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person may not:
(i) wear, carry, or transport a handgun, whether concealed or open, on or about the person;
(ii) wear, carry, or knowingly transport a handgun, whether concealed or open, in a vehicle traveling on a road or parking lot generally used by the public, highway, waterway, or airway of the State;
(iii) violate item (i) or (ii) of this paragraph while on public school property in the State; or
(iv) violate item (i) or (ii) of this paragraph with the deliberate purpose of injuring or killing another person.

So, the carve out does not have anything in it for personal choice or stops between going to and from the range, hunting venue, etc. So, not really a "personal choice".

 

[swinokur]

No one insulted anyone or called anyone a liar. The facts are the facts. If you choose to get upset when someone differs with you that’s your issue

A forum is a two way exchange of ideas . You don’t need to feel slighted when someone disagrees with you.

In this thread everyone has been polite and civil

 

[ironpony]

Don't quote his post in case he wants to change it.
I really don't think anyone is against "you" LAj

 

[swinokur]

Part (a) of the statute says you cannot, and then part (b) carves out when you can:

(a) (1) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person may not:
(i) wear, carry, or transport a handgun, whether concealed or open, on or about the person;
(ii) wear, carry, or knowingly transport a handgun, whether concealed or open, in a vehicle traveling on a road or parking lot generally used by the public, highway, waterway, or airway of the State;
(iii) violate item (i) or (ii) of this paragraph while on public school property in the State; or
(iv) violate item (i) or (ii) of this paragraph with the deliberate purpose of injuring or killing another person.

So, the carve out does not have anything in it for personal choice or stops between going to and from the range, hunting venue, etc. So, not really a "personal choice".

The personal choice is deciding if you think you will be prosecuted.

A court will decide on the meaning of “on the way to or returning from”

 

[rseymorejr]

on the way to, or returning from that activity with only minor deviations between the home and the activity or the activity and the home if each handgun is unloaded and carried in an enclosed case or an enclosed holster;

That is how I would like it to read.

Horse shit!
The only fair, reasonable and just way for that law to read is:

"Do not commit and felonies on the way to and from the range"

This constant need to control other people is ridiculous

 

[budman93]

Horse shit!
The only fair, reasonable and just way for that law to read is:

"Do not commit and felonies on the way to and from the range"

This constant need to control other people is ridiculous

 

[swinokur]

on the way to, or returning from that activity with only minor deviations between the home and the activity or the activity and the home if each handgun is unloaded and carried in an enclosed case or an enclosed holster;

Please point me to the portion where the phrase “minor deviations” is in the statute

 

[Laj]

Please point me to the portion where the phrase “minor deviations” is in the statute

He didn't say it was...

 

[swinokur]

Precisely the point. It’s not defined or specifically prohibited so until a case is decided it’s actual meaning and intent is not quite known so “on the way to or returning from” is not defined, which is why I said deciding is a personal decision.

If you stop for gas, are you not not still on your way” if the range is still your destination?

And isn’t the reverse true if you stop for gas while returning from the range if your destination is still home?

The Judge will decide, not us

 

[PJDiesel]

It is kinda funny (not haha) how people here tend to "call BS",.... based on nothing.

The guy is re-telling a story he was told, while it might tend to shed a negative light on LE, why in the world would anyone really be surprised if it were true? I think a lot of Members here would have benefited from sitting in on a HPRB meeting. If you haven't seen what the MSP (for instance) is up to when it comes to being complete and total condescending dick wads, it's very possible you just aren't looking at it from an informed perspective.

I just don't see what would be "in it" for him (anyone) to tell (and repeat) the story.

 

[danb]

Clarity in a MD statute... I should live so long.

The subject of what the transport statue does (or does not) cover has been beaten to death. Whether you want to be the test case is an expensive and personal decision. Yes, I stop for gas and food and to take a piss because running out of gas or exposing myself on the side of the road is more risky than running into the po-po at the Royal Farms

 

[swinokur]

I agree

 

[rbird7282]

To answer the questions:

1. Most cops do not know every letter of every law in this state.



2. The "no stops" during transport is not clearly stated in law but as Fabs stated (Please don't hate me for agreeing with Fabs) the law is generally enterpreted to mean DIRECT from point to point, no stops.



3. Yeah, it's a gas station and maybe it would have been different if he was stopping for gas but he actually stopped to go inside and get a drink. The cop approached him and asked some questions. There was no Traffic stop or confrontation. The cop was absolutely fishing.



4. I did check him out on case search and I do believe his story. He's a good dude who made the mistake of being honest and respectful and allowing a police officer to check the gun after admitting it was in his trunk.



Again. I'm not here to argue. I'm not here to analyze what the law says. I simply did this to warn you people that police are doing this. Clearly the judge/prosecutor recognized the kid hadn't done anything wrong. So yeah, we're all right. The law doesn't say no stops. The kid was not convicted of a crime. But a cop did approach him expecting to find a violation.

Please stop with the “generally interpreted” nonsense. Who is interpreting this? First I don’t think your student is giving you the whole story. Second, find ONE other example of someone only being charged with unlawful transportation of a handgun while making a stop to or from the range.
There has never been one case presented on this board or in the news that I’ve ever heard of.
Think of the people who were followed home from ranges, stopped to get food and had a weapon stolen. Were any of them charged?
No.
To those that don’t wish to stop at all that’s perfectly fine, but we need to stop with the BGOS and telling people certain things are illegal when they’re not.
BTW, I just saw your post above. I’m not calling you a liar at all, simply saying you might not have been given all of the information. It’s certainly possible that an officer was on a fishing expedition and that is where knowing your rights is paramount. He never should have said he had guns or allowed a search, probably would’ve avoided the whole issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[swinokur]

Until a court decides, there are no interpretations.

There are understandings, but they are not interpretations in a legal sense but

IANAL

 

[swinokur]

.

 

[danb]

There has never been one case presented on this board or in the news that I’ve ever heard of.

Lots of stuff happens that is never reported, not even on MDS. MDS these days has mostly become news about chupacabra sightings**, with 3% actual news these days. And even if it did happen, to an MDS member, few here are dumb enough to post incriminating info about their own case in a public forum. I mean, do you really think thats my actual FL CCW card there?

**and dead horse beatings, like this thread.

 

[swinokur]

He also said “in the “news” and an arrest might make the news in this 24 hour news cycle

So that’s a significant point