Illegal to USE mags larger than 10 in MD?

[chilipeppermaniac]

​

“You may be interested to know that in 2010 Maryland expanded the Castle Doctrine to include immunity from civil lawsuits if the person reasonably believes that force or deadly force is necessary to repel an attack by the individual (in the home). 2010 Maryland Code COURTS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS TITLE 5 - LIMITATIONS, PROHIBITED ACTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES Subtitle 8 - Immunities and Prohibited Actions - Miscellaneous Section 5-808 - Civil immunity for defense of dwelling or place of business. § 5-808 Civil immunity for defense of dwelling or place of business. (a) Person.- In this section, "person" does not include a governmental entity. (b) Civil immunity.- A person is not liable for damages for a personal injury or death of an individual who enters the person's dwelling or place of business if: (1) The person reasonably believes that force or deadly force is necessary to repel an attack by the individual; and (2) The amount and nature of the force used by the person is reasonable under the circumstances. (c) Exception.- Subsection (b) of this section does not apply to a person who is convicted of a crime of violence under § 14-101 of the Criminal Law Article, assault in the second degree, or reckless endangerment arising out of the circumstances described in subsection (b) of this section. (d) Costs and attorney's fees.- The court may award costs and reasonable attorney's fees to a defendant who prevails in a defense under this section. (e) Other provisions not limited or abrogated.- This section does not limit or abrogate any immunity from civil liability or defense available to a person under any other provision of the Code or at common law. [2010, ch. 555.] Maryland follows several common law principles relating to self defense, which include: Duty to Retreat - In situations that take place outside of a person's home the individual defending themselves has the duty to retreat, unless doing so is unsafe or impossible. The Castle Doctrine - In a person's home they do not need to retreat, but can stand their ground and attempt to defeat or deter the invader. However, the use of force here must still be reasonable. The Castle Doctrine laws are designed to effectively answer the question under the common law and establish that any intruder can be treated as a threat to life — warranting the use of lethal force. Maryland does not have a specific Castle Doctrine statute. It is rather a common law doctrine supported by case decisions and a standard jury instruction. There is a law requiring retreat in self-defense outside of the home. However, the standard “castle doctrine” instruction makes clear “that a person in his own home has no duty to retreat before using reasonable force against his attacker.” The rule is [p]remised on the common law principle that a man’s home is his castle, indeed his ultimate sanctuary, [and] permits a person who is without fault and is attacked within his dwelling or its curtilage, to stand his ground and defend himself, even if retreat could be safely accomplished. Gainer v. State, 40 Md. App. 382, 388, 391 A.2d 856 (1978)"

Yes But.

1. This is Maryland
2. Perps/ Convicted Felons have more rights than Joe Public.
3. Lib MDGA will try to beat the letter of the above law and Feck the poor guy anyway who shoots a perp to protect himself or family.

 

[10mmAuto]

​

“You may be interested to know that in 2010 Maryland expanded the Castle Doctrine to include immunity from civil lawsuits if the person reasonably believes that force or deadly force is necessary to repel an attack by the individual (in the home). 2010 Maryland Code COURTS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS TITLE 5 - LIMITATIONS, PROHIBITED ACTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES Subtitle 8 - Immunities and Prohibited Actions - Miscellaneous Section 5-808 - Civil immunity for defense of dwelling or place of business. § 5-808 Civil immunity for defense of dwelling or place of business. (a) Person.- In this section, "person" does not include a governmental entity. (b) Civil immunity.- A person is not liable for damages for a personal injury or death of an individual who enters the person's dwelling or place of business if: (1) The person reasonably believes that force or deadly force is necessary to repel an attack by the individual; and (2) The amount and nature of the force used by the person is reasonable under the circumstances. (c) Exception.- Subsection (b) of this section does not apply to a person who is convicted of a crime of violence under § 14-101 of the Criminal Law Article, assault in the second degree, or reckless endangerment arising out of the circumstances described in subsection (b) of this section. (d) Costs and attorney's fees.- The court may award costs and reasonable attorney's fees to a defendant who prevails in a defense under this section. (e) Other provisions not limited or abrogated.- This section does not limit or abrogate any immunity from civil liability or defense available to a person under any other provision of the Code or at common law. [2010, ch. 555.] Maryland follows several common law principles relating to self defense, which include: Duty to Retreat - In situations that take place outside of a person's home the individual defending themselves has the duty to retreat, unless doing so is unsafe or impossible. The Castle Doctrine - In a person's home they do not need to retreat, but can stand their ground and attempt to defeat or deter the invader. However, the use of force here must still be reasonable. The Castle Doctrine laws are designed to effectively answer the question under the common law and establish that any intruder can be treated as a threat to life — warranting the use of lethal force. Maryland does not have a specific Castle Doctrine statute. It is rather a common law doctrine supported by case decisions and a standard jury instruction. There is a law requiring retreat in self-defense outside of the home. However, the standard “castle doctrine” instruction makes clear “that a person in his own home has no duty to retreat before using reasonable force against his attacker.” The rule is [p]remised on the common law principle that a man’s home is his castle, indeed his ultimate sanctuary, [and] permits a person who is without fault and is attacked within his dwelling or its curtilage, to stand his ground and defend himself, even if retreat could be safely accomplished. Gainer v. State, 40 Md. App. 382, 388, 391 A.2d 856 (1978)”

Ellis, thanks. It's a little too late (11pm) for me to digest in toto right now, but I appreciate your posting this and will review tomorrow. Semper Fi.

 

[ras_oscar]

is this "mag in excess of 10 rounds ... in commission of a crime..." statute a Baltimore city ordinance or a state law? If city I'm thinking state preemption.

 

[rbird7282]

is this "mag in excess of 10 rounds ... in commission of a crime..." statute a Baltimore city ordinance or a state law? If city I'm thinking state preemption.

State law


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DC-W]

State law: View Document - Maryland Code and Court Rules

 

[dblas]

If you went to a MD FFL to buy this Glock 17, the FFL (seller) would not have (2) 17 rounds in the case, b/xc when they order the gun from the distributor, and they see they are located (selling) in MD, they will make sure the mags included w/ the pistol are State compliant -- in this case, 10-round (max) mags. Same as CA, NJ, NY, etc. It protects the mfg, distributor, seller (FFL) and buyer from legal hassles.

Sincethe MD seller (FFL) knows they are liable for following State law, they would not show a buyer any semi-auto+mag combo with more than 10 round mags, as they would be liable if they sold an over 10 mag to a buyer, and there was ever an issue. In this case, shit flows backwards, from buyer, to seller, to distributor, etc. until the law finds out "who did it". No FFL would risk a legal issue for a $20 mag.

BTW, the limit of rounds in a mag is simply done by the mfg crimping the magazine sides, so it cannot physically hold more than X rounds. Been done this way for 20+ years.

In answer to your question "I should ..." I would point out the error to the seller, and keep you both safe. He may give them to you under the table, but also give you compliant 10-round mags. Later, if you wanted (more) 10+ mags, go up to PA, or the Internet and buy them.

You are assuming it is an FFL, you forget face to face sales. You are also incorrect in what FFLs in Maryland receive since they can sell firearms to anyone in the US and that LE is exempt from the 10 round limit on transfer. FFLs is Maryland absolutely can and do receive firearms from manufacturers and distributors with standard magazines.

 

[BeachLiving2021]

Whole story is typical baltimore. Nick Mosby is a total dirtbag

 

[Hibs]

You are assuming it is an FFL, you forget face to face sales. You are also incorrect in what FFLs in Maryland receive since they can sell firearms to anyone in the US and that LE is exempt from the 10 round limit on transfer. FFLs is Maryland absolutely can and do receive firearms from manufacturers and distributors with standard magazines.

And if you're lucky, you have a good FFL that will receive standard mags with the firearm and charge a minimal fee (or nothing) to block/pin the mags to 10 rounds making it MD compliant.

 

[lazarus]

If you went to a MD FFL to buy this Glock 17, the FFL (seller) would not have (2) 17 rounds in the case, b/xc when they order the gun from the distributor, and they see they are located (selling) in MD, they will make sure the mags included w/ the pistol are State compliant -- in this case, 10-round (max) mags. Same as CA, NJ, NY, etc. It protects the mfg, distributor, seller (FFL) and buyer from legal hassles.

Sincethe MD seller (FFL) knows they are liable for following State law, they would not show a buyer any semi-auto+mag combo with more than 10 round mags, as they would be liable if they sold an over 10 mag to a buyer, and there was ever an issue. In this case, shit flows backwards, from buyer, to seller, to distributor, etc. until the law finds out "who did it". No FFL would risk a legal issue for a $20 mag.

BTW, the limit of rounds in a mag is simply done by the mfg crimping the magazine sides, so it cannot physically hold more than X rounds. Been done this way for 20+ years.

In answer to your question "I should ..." I would point out the error to the seller, and keep you both safe. He may give them to you under the table, but also give you compliant 10-round mags. Later, if you wanted (more) 10+ mags, go up to PA, or the Internet and buy them.

Not for a Glock or a couple of other manufacturers. Glock magazines are a completely different design internally than their standard capacity magazines. It isn't just a crimped side or a rivet or anything else like that. Take off the base plate and take a look.

Otherwise I am in complete agreement. As for used sales, it depends on the FFL. MD statute and COMAR are silent on the method of ensuring a magazine is only 10 rounds or less capacity. So some FFLs just drop something into the magazine body under the follower to limit the capacity to <=10 rounds. Some will rivet the magazine. Others just won't transfer the magazine at all or ship it out of state to wherever you'd like it to go.

 

[Bob A]

It's interesting to see a pair of 10-round AR mags for sale in the Classifieds.

I suspect that they will be collectable in future, as historical oddities.

 

[lazarus]

It's interesting to see a pair of 10-round AR mags for sale in the Classifieds.

I suspect that they will be collectable in future, as historical oddities.

There are some good reasons to have small capacity magazines for almost any gun.

Hunting for example. Most states limit capacity either loaded in or maximum of the magazines. I am pretty sure SCOTUS isn't going to declare it unconstitutional to only have 2+1 in your shotgun for waterfowl hunting or only 8 for deer and bear. Though I guess you could make an argument it is hunting AND self-defense for bear hunting.

I'd rather a 10 round mag with only 8 in it for deer hunting than the extra weight and bulk of a 20 or a 30 with only 8 in it.

 

[Allen65]

It's interesting to see a pair of 10-round AR mags for sale in the Classifieds.

I suspect that they will be collectable in future, as historical oddities.

They're useful for the range, firing off a sandbag. But for non-range use, yeah, worthless.

 

[lazarus]

They're useful for the range, firing off a sandbag. But for non-range use, yeah, worthless.

That too. Other than function checking I only run 10s in my ARs (10/15) at the range because of running off sandbags and low bipods.

 

[urbantchr]

So, no surprise, a Balitmore council member has staff that got in trouble. But I don’t want to get into that. This woman had a handgun with her, in her car, apparently distributing pot, and no CCW. The gun had two 16 capacity mags. One fully loaded in the gun and a second with 14 rounds. The Sun article says:

“Johnson was charged with utilizing a magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition, a misdemeanor that carries a maximum penalty of three years incarceration, a $5,000 fine or both.”

I know we cannot manufacture, alter, transfer, buy or sell mags with capacity greater than 10 here in Md. But we can own them, if acquired elsewhere. These charges make it sound like we are prohibited from USING the larger mags in MD. I was not aware of this. Can someone with knowledge of this law (even if you’re not a lawyer) educate me on this? If one were to (hypothetically) own larger mags and had a CCW, would that person not be allowed to carry with them? And what about at the range? Would this same hypothetical person be in violation if they were training with (and this, utilizing) a larger capacity mag?

Sorry if this has been discussed before. I did a quick scan of recent posts but didn’t see anything related.

Full article here:

City Council President Nick Mosby’s assistant arrested on gun, drug charges in Baltimore County

An assistant for Baltimore City Council President Nick Mosby was arrested on gun and marijuana distribution charges in Baltimore County earlier this month, and released from jail Friday, court reco…

www.baltimoresun.com

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So, no surprise, a Balitmore council member has staff that got in trouble. But I don’t want to get into that. This woman had a handgun with her, in her car, apparently distributing pot, and no CCW. The gun had two 16 capacity mags. One fully loaded in the gun and a second with 14 rounds. The Sun article says:

“Johnson was charged with utilizing a magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition, a misdemeanor that carries a maximum penalty of three years incarceration, a $5,000 fine or both.”

I know we cannot manufacture, alter, transfer, buy or sell mags with capacity greater than 10 here in Md. But we can own them, if acquired elsewhere. These charges make it sound like we are prohibited from USING the larger mags in MD. I was not aware of this. Can someone with knowledge of this law (even if you’re not a lawyer) educate me on this? If one were to (hypothetically) own larger mags and had a CCW, would that person not be allowed to carry with them? And what about at the range? Would this same hypothetical person be in violation if they were training with (and this, utilizing) a larger capacity mag?

Sorry if this has been discussed before. I did a quick scan of recent posts but didn’t see anything related.

Full article here:

City Council President Nick Mosby’s assistant arrested on gun, drug charges in Baltimore County

An assistant for Baltimore City Council President Nick Mosby was arrested on gun and marijuana distribution charges in Baltimore County earlier this month, and released from jail Friday, court reco…

www.baltimoresun.com

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[urbantchr]

sorry for the above useless post still figuring this out. Seems to me 3 years and $5000 is excessive for a misdemeanor is a little excessive

 

[lazarus]

sorry for the above useless post still figuring this out. Seems to me 3 years and $5000 is excessive for a misdemeanor is a little excessive

Of course, it is. But Maryland being Maryland, there is no way she'll be convicted of that much. And even if she was, it was pointed out to me recently she'd serve 1/4th of that with good behavior in state prison or 1/2 in county jail.

I am sure MGA knows this too. Which is why so many of our misdemeanors have 2, 3, 4, 5 year potential prison sentences. Because no one serves that. But they can claim with a straight face, LOOK! I am putting someone away for FIVE YEARS. Now, they might only serve a little over a year before they get let out. But the case numbers and sentencing numbers look fantastic.

I'd rather we flipped that and everyone served every second of their sentence and we reduced sentences for misdemeanors that same amount. Make it a 9 month misdemeanor maximum for the mag possession (it shouldn't be a crime, I am just using the example of the sentence amounts). You could be sentenced to less, but you'll serve every second of that sentence.

I don't believe in this good behavior parole stuff. If you have BAD behavior in prison, then it sounds like you need to be indicted for another crime and tried. Otherwise, your "administrative punishment" is more prison time. Which to me is the antithesis of a free and fair society. You are effectively being punished without a trial. It would be one thing to take away prison privileges for bad behavior that doesn't rise to the level of new criminal charges. But you assault a prison guard? Smuggle in contraband? Sounds like criminal charges to me and the prisoner needs to be charged with such and offered competent defense counsel.

 

[KIBarrister]

sorry for the above useless post still figuring this out. Seems to me 3 years and $5000 is excessive for a misdemeanor is a little excessive

Of course, it is. But Maryland being Maryland, there is no way she'll be convicted of that much. And even if she was, it was pointed out to me recently she'd serve 1/4th of that with good behavior in state prison or 1/2 in county jail.

I am sure MGA knows this too. Which is why so many of our misdemeanors have 2, 3, 4, 5 year potential prison sentences. Because no one serves that. But they can claim with a straight face, LOOK! I am putting someone away for FIVE YEARS. Now, they might only serve a little over a year before they get let out. But the case numbers and sentencing numbers look fantastic.

I'd rather we flipped that and everyone served every second of their sentence and we reduced sentences for misdemeanors that same amount. Make it a 9 month misdemeanor maximum for the mag possession (it shouldn't be a crime, I am just using the example of the sentence amounts). You could be sentenced to less, but you'll serve every second of that sentence.

I don't believe in this good behavior parole stuff. If you have BAD behavior in prison, then it sounds like you need to be indicted for another crime and tried. Otherwise, your "administrative punishment" is more prison time. Which to me is the antithesis of a free and fair society. You are effectively being punished without a trial. It would be one thing to take away prison privileges for bad behavior that doesn't rise to the level of new criminal charges. But you assault a prison guard? Smuggle in contraband? Sounds like criminal charges to me and the prisoner needs to be charged with such and offered competent defense counsel.

Second degree assault (which is the lowliest form simple battery - e.g. pushing on someone, spitting on someone, etc.) carries a maximum of 10 years in prison. N.B., it is not just convicted felons, but those convicted of misdemeanors carrying a maximum sentence of more than 365 days in jail (even if you are sentenced to even a single day in jail). Your government hates you and will happily take any excuse to revoke your 2A rights.

 

[Mark75H]

... Make it a 9 month misdemeanor maximum for the mag possession (it shouldn't be a crime, I am just using the example of the sentence amounts)...

It's only a crime when in conjunction with a felony.

 

[Darkemp]

Looks like the magazine capacity charge wasn’t pursued and probably irrelevant with the larger offenses from court records however loaded handgun in vehicle, CDS of a certain weight, CDS distribution, and possession of Firearm in a Drug Trafficking crime are going forward. If the stop and PC is legit as it likely would be it won’t be a good outcome for this young lady.

 

[roadking]

If your action would otherwise be legal with a 10-round mag, no crime.

Burglar enters your house, shoots at you/family with a handgun. You return fire with your 10-round mag gun. No crime.

Burglar (armed or not) enters your house, sees you armed, leaves your house and starts running away. You shoot him in the street with your 10-round mag gun. Crime.

This is the crux is what I was asking about. Either way, 10 mag or higher, you’re at the mercy of the local states attorney as to whether or what charges are filed. So the key is to make sure if one draws and fires, it’s an appropriate use of force. If that’s true, then there’s no crime and you wouldn’t be using a larger capacity mag in the commission of a crime (because no crime was committed).

This was exhausting to discuss and consider. Such is life in Md, however. Thanks for all the discussion!



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk