Can I defend myself with a handgun that has a magazine that Carrie’s more than 10 rounds?

[subman]

If you miss and hit a bystander, you may get the manslaughter charge, but it wasn't your intent to do that with a greater than 10 round mag. They aren't filing that. If they do, that's the least of your problems.

yes, as I mentioned that was clearly laid out in post #40.

 

[jrumann59]

We need a BGOS section of the forums so these BGOS questions can go there...

 

[Hit and Run]

So I am Wear and Carry Instructor and got tired of this discussion. Then a local Correction Department Sheriff (good guy) in researching for a boss who is not a Sheriff, one of them calls the MSP licensing division and was told 10 rd limit for carrying. Like most here I called B.S not a law. But as an instructor I wanted to ensure we put out valid information. Here is the full email exchange with AG Office. Hope this sticks a fork in it. No law prohibiting you from carrying a greater than 10rd magazine while legally carrying firearm with a Wear and Carry permit in MD. Just know the laws well enough to ensure you are not committing a potential felony but that is really regardless of magazine count or not. Email exchange:

"
Mr. Bourque,

I cited the only law I am aware of. There is nothing in Public Safety Article Title 5, Subtitle 3 that restricts the number of rounds that the holder of a carry permit may have in their handgun.

Do you know who you spoke to at the Licensing Division?

Mark H. Bowen
Assistant Attorney General


On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 2:44 PM Michael Bourque <mike.bourque@mtbgunworks.com> wrote:

Thanks. So the specific question was can a person with a Wear and Carry Permit carry a legally possessed greater than 10 round magazine. You restated one of two laws I know of that references 10 rd magazine.

The heart of issue is MSP licensing division when asked is saying it is illegal to carry greater than 10 rd magazines. Is there a specific law that limits a Wear and Carry permit or are they making it up.

Vr,
Mike Bourque

On Fri, Aug 19, 2022, 14:39 Mark H Bowen -State Police- <mark.bowen@maryland.gov> wrote:

Mr. Bourque,

Criminal Law Article § 4-305(b) states that, "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." The law does not prohibit the possession of a detachable magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds.

Mark H. Bowen
Assistant Attorney General

 

[jrumann59]

So I am Wear and Carry Instructor and got tired of this discussion. Then a local Correction Department Sheriff (good guy) in researching for a boss who is not a Sheriff, one of them calls the MSP licensing division and was told 10 rd limit for carrying. Like most here I called B.S not a law. But as an instructor I wanted to ensure we put out valid information. Here is the full email exchange with AG Office. Hope this sticks a fork in it. No law prohibiting you from carrying a greater than 10rd magazine while legally carrying firearm with a Wear and Carry permit in MD. Just know the laws well enough to ensure you are not committing a potential felony but that is really regardless of magazine count or not. Email exchange:

"
Mr. Bourque,

I cited the only law I am aware of. There is nothing in Public Safety Article Title 5, Subtitle 3 that restricts the number of rounds that the holder of a carry permit may have in their handgun.

Do you know who you spoke to at the Licensing Division?

Mark H. Bowen
Assistant Attorney General


On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 2:44 PM Michael Bourque <mike.bourque@mtbgunworks.com> wrote:

Thanks. So the specific question was can a person with a Wear and Carry Permit carry a legally possessed greater than 10 round magazine. You restated one of two laws I know of that references 10 rd magazine.

The heart of issue is MSP licensing division when asked is saying it is illegal to carry greater than 10 rd magazines. Is there a specific law that limits a Wear and Carry permit or are they making it up.

Vr,
Mike Bourque

On Fri, Aug 19, 2022, 14:39 Mark H Bowen -State Police- <mark.bowen@maryland.gov> wrote:

Mr. Bourque,

Criminal Law Article § 4-305(b) states that, "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." The law does not prohibit the possession of a detachable magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds.

Mark H. Bowen
Assistant Attorney General

Thanks for that.

 

[camo556]

This thread has taken a slightly different turn from the usual BGOS. The question is no longer "can you" but "should you" because if you are in a shooting there might be the tack-on charge of using a 11+round mag in a crime.

The whole discussion is silly. If you think that you will be railroaded and a prog DA will turn justified self-defense into manslaughter, dont carry a gun. Period. The 11 round mag is the least of your problems at that point. Your going in position to a self-defense situation should be survival - to be as least as armed as your attacker. You can hire a lawyer and argue with the DA after that, assuming you are alive.

 

[Hit and Run]

So mandatory sentences for greater than 10 rd magazine if convicted of a felony is virtually no different than language in S 4-204. That one says

"...the penalty for using a gun in the commission of a violent or felony crime....mandatory minimum sentences of five years with no possibility of parole"

Sort of makes 4-306 reference to greater than 10 rds minimum sentences a mute point.

Know the law and have a good lawyer if in a defensive shooting.

This thread has taken a slightly different turn from the usual BGOS. The question is no longer "can you" but "should you" because if you are in a shooting there might be the tack-on charge of using a 11+round mag in a crime.

The whole discussion is silly. If you think that you will be railroaded and a prog DA will turn justified self-defense into manslaughter, dont carry a gun. Period. The 11 round mag is the least of your problems at that point. Your going in position to a self-defense situation should be survival - to be as least as armed as your attacker. You can hire a lawyer and argue with the DA after that, assuming you are alive.

 

[AliasNeo07]

I hate to be a pessimist but I think this is moot because I'm pretty sure they're going to fix this next year and ban possession, because they're going to go nuts and try to screw us into the wall after this ruling. They're just going to try to restrict as many things as they possibly can, just because they have a supermajority and can do whatever the hell they want.

The standard magazine for my preferred carry guns is 10 rounds so this doesn't come up for me. But if it was a gun that held 15 or 17, I would carry that currently with no fear. It seems to be perfectly legal, as long as the magazines are obtained in a manner that doesn't run afoul of the law.

 

[jrumann59]

I hate to be a pessimist but I think this is moot because I'm pretty sure they're going to fix this next year and ban possession, because they're going to go nuts and try to screw us into the wall after this ruling. They're just going to try to restrict as many things as they possibly can, just because they have a supermajority and can do whatever the hell they want.

The standard magazine for my preferred carry guns is 10 rounds so this doesn't come up for me. But if it was a gun that held 15 or 17, I would carry that currently with no fear. It seems to be perfectly legal, as long as the magazines are obtained in a manner that doesn't run afoul of the law.

With various magazine bans heading towards the SC I doubt they will go that route. If they do it screws me, M17 has a 17 and two 21s

 

[Bullfrog]

Sort of makes 4-306 reference to greater than 10 rds minimum sentences a mute point

I hate to be a pessimist but I think this is moot

 

[Batt816]

So I am Wear and Carry Instructor and got tired of this discussion. Then a local Correction Department Sheriff (good guy) in researching for a boss who is not a Sheriff, one of them calls the MSP licensing division and was told 10 rd limit for carrying. Like most here I called B.S not a law. But as an instructor I wanted to ensure we put out valid information. Here is the full email exchange with AG Office. Hope this sticks a fork in it. No law prohibiting you from carrying a greater than 10rd magazine while legally carrying firearm with a Wear and Carry permit in MD. Just know the laws well enough to ensure you are not committing a potential felony but that is really regardless of magazine count or not. Email exchange:

"
Mr. Bourque,

I cited the only law I am aware of. There is nothing in Public Safety Article Title 5, Subtitle 3 that restricts the number of rounds that the holder of a carry permit may have in their handgun.

Do you know who you spoke to at the Licensing Division?

Mark H. Bowen
Assistant Attorney General


On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 2:44 PM Michael Bourque <mike.bourque@mtbgunworks.com> wrote:

Thanks. So the specific question was can a person with a Wear and Carry Permit carry a legally possessed greater than 10 round magazine. You restated one of two laws I know of that references 10 rd magazine.

The heart of issue is MSP licensing division when asked is saying it is illegal to carry greater than 10 rd magazines. Is there a specific law that limits a Wear and Carry permit or are they making it up.

Vr,
Mike Bourque

On Fri, Aug 19, 2022, 14:39 Mark H Bowen -State Police- <mark.bowen@maryland.gov> wrote:

Mr. Bourque,

Criminal Law Article § 4-305(b) states that, "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." The law does not prohibit the possession of a detachable magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds.

Mark H. Bowen
Assistant Attorney General

Thanks for this. This is what some Of us already knew, but this verified it.

Carrie on.

 

[Brychan]

Ok, just to keep beating the horse, that died a few pages back.

You and your buddy both have carry permits.
You both are carrying a Glock 19
He has 10rd mags, you are carrying std capacity mags.
You get caught in a situation that devolves into a fire fight.
He yells that he has emptied his mags, you still have 2 spares.
Question would it be illegal to transfer 1 of your std capacity mags to him, since it is greater than 10rds?

 

[rbird7282]

Oh FFS, there is so much BGOS in this thread it’s insane. It’s like people are dreaming up sh*t to worry about


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jrumann59]

Ok, just to keep beating the horse, that died a few pages back.

You and your buddy both have carry permits.
You both are carrying a Glock 19
He has 10rd mags, you are carrying std capacity mags.
You get caught in a situation that devolves into a fire fight.
He yells that he has emptied his mags, you still have 2 spares.
Question would it be illegal to transfer 1 of your std capacity mags to him, since it is greater than 10rds?

Depends who is going to tell the police who's mags are who's?

 

[Brychan]

Depends who is going to tell the police who's mags are who's?

Well played sir, well played.

 

[teratos]

Thanks for this. This is what some Of us already knew, but this verified it.

Carrie on.

Sgt Pickles also confirmed in his 2 Maryland interview.

 

[hodgepodge]

Ok, just to keep beating the horse, that died a few pages back.

You and your buddy both have carry permits.
You both are carrying a Glock 19
He has 10rd mags, you are carrying std capacity mags.
You get caught in a situation that devolves into a fire fight.
He yells that he has emptied his mags, you still have 2 spares.
Question would it be illegal to transfer 1 of your std capacity mags to him, since it is greater than 10rds?

Yes. You would both have to drive to Delaware or another adjoining state, transfer the magazines, and return to the fight. FOPA rules would apply during the interstate travel.

On second thought, avoid Delaware. They are doing odd things with magazines.

 

[rseymorejr]

Depends who is going to tell the police who's mags are who's?

My lawyer will be the one talking for me. I hope he'll be smart enough to say the right thing!

 

[holesonpaper]

One last comment and I’m tapping out of this conversation.

In the world I live in, details matter and yes, some of us consider as much input as possible. I’ve been through enough situations and hate the “if I had done ________”. AAR’s are there for a reason. Just trying to avoid the first A.

I suspect, with all the new carry permits, that in the next 2-3 years, someone who said this is silly, larger problems, etc. will be a test case. I’d like to talk to that guy afterwards and seek his perspective.

 

[teratos]

One last comment and I’m tapping out of this conversation.

In the world I live in, details matter and yes, some of us consider as much input as possible. I’ve been through enough situations and hate the “if I had done ________”. AAR’s are there for a reason. Just trying to avoid the first A.

I suspect, with all the new carry permits, that in the next 2-3 years, someone who said this is silly, larger problems, etc. will be a test case. I’d like to talk to that guy afterwards and seek his perspective.

I suspect in the next 2-3 years magazine restrictions will be found unconstitutional (lawsuits already GVR’d) and the issue will be moot. It’s on SCOTUS’ doorstep. Until then, I will continue to live as a free man.

Justices Send Assault Weapon, Magazine Bans Back to Lower Courts

Several challenges to state gun laws were sent back to lower courts in light of the US Supreme Court’s landmark Second Amendment ruling limiting restrictions on firearm possession outside the home.

news.bloomberglaw.com

 

[camo556]

I suspect in the next 2-3 years magazine restrictions will be found unconstitutional (lawsuits already GVR’d) and the issue will be moot. It’s on SCOTUS’ doorstep. Until then, I will continue to live as a free man.

Justices Send Assault Weapon, Magazine Bans Back to Lower Courts

Several challenges to state gun laws were sent back to lower courts in light of the US Supreme Court’s landmark Second Amendment ruling limiting restrictions on firearm possession outside the home.

news.bloomberglaw.com

this....however people in this thread will still invent things to worry about.

Bottom line, it's better to be alive after the 11th bullet to hire a lawyer to defend yourself than dead satisfied you won't be charged.