Regulated transportation and the drive-thru

[IanCaw]

Hello,

I don't post much because most of my questions are usually already asked and answered, so I have mostly just tried to absorb everything you guys post.

I haven't seen this transportation question asked much, though, so here goes: When transporting a regulated firearm, I get that you must be going straight to the range/straight home from the range, or to a FFL/gunsmith, whatever.

I like to go to Myrtle Grove, though, which is a fair ways away from my house, and I do like to try to go in the mornings when I go (...not often enough, I might add, but that's another story).

So say I wanted coffee to drink to get myself going, and I hate the stuff I make at home. I understand that technically the law says I can't stop at Dunkin Donuts with my gear in my trunk. Is it any different, however, if I do the drive-thru at dunkin donuts instead? I never get out of the vehicle, the vehicle never gets put in Park, in fact the entire point of a drive-thru is that you don't have to actually "go" to that place.

What's your take on this kind of situation? I don't plan on being a test case for this, as I tend to take this kind of thing very by-the-book, but I'm quite curious -- and in need of coffee.

Thanks!

 

[teratos]

I guess technically, you are violating the law. I can't imagine any office would want the nightmare of arresting you for this, as they would make national news and really piss off an awful lot of Americans. The State would get all kinds of crap for pressing charges, and the case would make it to SCOTUS you were convicted and appeals courts upheld the conviction. Too much trouble to prosecute a law abiding citizen getting a cup of Joe while heading out to exercise his 2A rights in a safe and peaceful manner.

 

[novus collectus]

The way the law is written they could arrest you and might even be able to get convicted, but you could also just as easily beat it IMO. The law says "transporting to or from" and even if you stop your primary destination is home and so you could argue you are still transporting to home.
Also there is the argument using something called reductio ad absurdum where you point out that if someone travelling from the furthest Western point of MD going to a MD gun range on the Eastern Shore would not have enough gas in the vehicle to make the round trip and would therefore have to stop at least once for gas, and since humans have to eat and much more a diabetic, it would be biologically necessary to stop to eat and possibly necessary to stop for a bathroom break. For this reason I think almost no police would hold it against you for stopping at a drive through, but if they did I am sure they will end up with egg on their face pretty damn quick.

By the way, that law only applies to non-antique handguns, short barreled shotguns, short barreled rifles and short barreled AOWs transport. It does not apply to all regulated firearms. In other words, for that unloaded regulated AR15 you only have in your car there is no state restriction on transport of it (except for across public school property).

 

[IanCaw]

By the way, that law only applies to non-antique handguns, short barreled shotguns, short barreled rifles and short barreled AOWs transport. It does not apply to all regulated firearms. In other words, for that unloaded regulated AR15 you only have in your car there is no state restriction on transport of it (except for across public school property).

I did not realize this! Although I do not own any regulated long guns, but that's good to know in case I do find a good deal on one (some day..).

Thanks for the details otherwise, although my trip to MG today went without having to stop at anything but stoplights (in case anyone from here was there today). I did have a slight scare, though, in that my gas tank was running pretty low, but it made it home without issue -- I suppose that would be a similar situation to what you describe, though, in that it's absurd to think I can't stop for gas if it's actually necessary. Then again, defining "necessary" is the challenge, isn't it?

 

[crfakm4]

I guess technically, you are violating the law. I can't imagine any officer would want the nightmare of arresting you for this, as they would make national news and really piss off an awful lot of Americans. The State would get all kinds of crap for pressing charges, and the case would make it to SCOTUS you were convicted and appeals courts upheld the conviction. Too much trouble to prosecute a law abiding citizen getting a cup of Joe while heading out to exercise his 2A rights in a safe and peaceful manner.

Well put. I think as long as you dont make a day trip of shopping, running errands or whatever, it would be fine. I for one wouldnt do that with a vehicle containing a firearm even if there weren't laws saying so cause that would be the time my truck gets stolen...I'm lucky that way..

 

[Markp]

Hello,

I don't post much because most of my questions are usually already asked and answered, so I have mostly just tried to absorb everything you guys post.

I haven't seen this transportation question asked much, though, so here goes: When transporting a regulated firearm, I get that you must be going straight to the range/straight home from the range, or to a FFL/gunsmith, whatever.

No, the law DOESN'T say that. It says you must be enroute, but not directly enroute like the law in Californistan.

I like to go to Myrtle Grove, though, which is a fair ways away from my house, and I do like to try to go in the mornings when I go (...not often enough, I might add, but that's another story).

So say I wanted coffee to drink to get myself going, and I hate the stuff I make at home. I understand that technically the law says I can't stop at Dunkin Donuts with my gear in my trunk. Is it any different, however, if I do the drive-thru at dunkin donuts instead? I never get out of the vehicle, the vehicle never gets put in Park, in fact the entire point of a drive-thru is that you don't have to actually "go" to that place.

What's your take on this kind of situation? I don't plan on being a test case for this, as I tend to take this kind of thing very by-the-book, but I'm quite curious -- and in need of coffee.

Thanks!

The law is specific, you must be enroute, it does not state that you must proceed directly to and from. If they wanted the law to read like California's law, they would have enacted it that way.

Here is the Law in MD:


(4) the wearing, carrying, or transporting by a person of a handgun used in connection with an organized military activity, a target shoot, formal or informal target practice, sport shooting event, hunting, a Department of Natural Resources-sponsored firearms and hunter safety class, trapping, or a dog obedience training class or show, while the person is engaged in, on the way to, or returning from that activity if each handgun is unloaded and carried in an enclosed case or an enclosed holster;


Here is the more restrictive Californistan Law:

"12026.2 (9) The transportation of a firearm by a person when going directly to, or coming directly from, a target range, which holds a regulatory or business license, for the purposes of practicing shooting at targets with that firearm at that target range."

If they meant directly, they should have added it in! Too bad. The law is the law, the California statute predates the MD one IIRC, so they know better.

I am not a lawyer but I learned how to read on Sesame Street. My advice is not legal advice. DON'T READ ANYTHING INTO THE LAW THAT IS NOT THERE.

Mark

 

[Koszmar]

I carry my weapons all the time back and forth from wherever I am shooting/buying and trading and I make all kind of stops with no problem. I do not advertise that I'm carrying or do anything that would provoke a traffic stop. I've been doing this comfortably for a long time and don't feel like I'm breaking the law.

 

[MDFF2008]

I'm assuming he never leaves the state of md right.

 

[bpSchoch]

And I think if you have C&R you can be going to a friends house for an "exhibition"

 

[zoostation]

My personal opinion is you're not going to have a problem stopping for gas, going potty, even going through a drive through to get something to eat. Those things can all be construed as being part of the process of transporting to and from an allowed destination. I think it's more like if you stop at the mall with your gun in the car, and go in for two hours and come out and find your car stolen, well, that might be bad. Or more often what I've seen (and yes people really do this), riding around with a handgun in the trunk for months because you forgot about it being back there.

MD law does say a "bona fide collector" can transport his handguns for a public or private showing. It doesn't define "bona fide collector," I would assume having a C&R or MSP Designated Collector's Status would certainly meet the standard, but probably isn't required. However, I'd be careful to follow the law and genuinely be transporting for the specified purpose, and not use it as an excuse to be pulled out if needed.

I don't like it either, I'm just saying how I read it. Hopefully one day MD will change these laws and folks won't have to worry about these stupid rules. I know that's like hoping for a frog to grow wings so that he won't bump his ass when he hops, but who knows.

 

[BenL]

No, the law DOESN'T say that. It says you must be enroute, but not directly enroute like the law in Californistan.



The law is specific, you must be enroute, it does not state that you must proceed directly to and from. If they wanted the law to read like California's law, they would have enacted it that way.

Here is the Law in MD:


(4) the wearing, carrying, or transporting by a person of a handgun used in connection with an organized military activity, a target shoot, formal or informal target practice, sport shooting event, hunting, a Department of Natural Resources-sponsored firearms and hunter safety class, trapping, or a dog obedience training class or show, while the person is engaged in, on the way to, or returning from that activity if each handgun is unloaded and carried in an enclosed case or an enclosed holster;


Here is the more restrictive Californistan Law:

"12026.2 (9) The transportation of a firearm by a person when going directly to, or coming directly from, a target range, which holds a regulatory or business license, for the purposes of practicing shooting at targets with that firearm at that target range."

If they meant directly, they should have added it in! Too bad. The law is the law, the California statute predates the MD one IIRC, so they know better.

I am not a lawyer but I learned how to read on Sesame Street. My advice is not legal advice. DON'T READ ANYTHING INTO THE LAW THAT IS NOT THERE.

Mark

That's very interesting.

What say yee, Novus? Sounds logical to me. Is there any example of a person being charged/convicted of stopping for a Big Mac on the way home from the range?

 

[CharlieFoxtrot]

Certainly it’s a grey area. Not that you can use this as any sort of legally binding precedent but I had a client who went target shooting in the afternoon and then went to the bar. Sometime between when he arrived and when he left (0100) someone broke in and stole among other things his two pistols. He called the police immediately. We did manage to persuade the police not to charge him with anything, but it could've gone either way IMO.

 

[K31]

If you are caught for going into an establishment, instead of using the drive thru, just tell the judge, "Your Honor, it's a well know fact that they f*ck you at the drive thru."

 

[BurtonRW]

To the best of my knowledge, there has been no case in Maryland involving prosecution for such a "violation". This is likely due to some combination of the following:

1) One would have to be caught (or revealed to be) in possession while not under the exemption. This lessens the odds of such a case arising by 99% if you figure that 99% of the time the drive to/from is completely uneventful.

2) One would have to be caught by a LEO who gave a rat's ass about such a technical infraction that, in the scenarios above (stopping for gas, coffee, etc.) would be arguably non-violations anyway. Remember, a good portion of the rank and file are on our side to begin with and aren't looking for that kind of trouble.

3) This is a one-size-fits-all "illegal possession/carry of a deadly weapon or firearm" charge. The law doesn't separate good guys from bad guys. This means that anyone charged with this particular violation is most likely being charged with several larger crimes (armed robbery, 1st degree assault, etc.) and the weapon charge is likely to be merged upon conviction or tossed in a plea.

That said, if any of you want to volunteer to be a test case and figure out how to get caught without otherwise committing a crime, I'd be happy to represent you.

-Rob