Rifle Question

[Hank]

Ok.. A few friends have a bet going on... See if anyone on here knows the law...

A DC resident wants to go by his Father's house in Maryland, pick up a .22 rifle and go target shooting at another house in Maryland. Is this legal?

 

[General Lee]

Ok.. A few friends have a bet going on... See if anyone on here knows the law...

A DC resident wants to go by his Father's house in Maryland, pick up a .22 rifle and go target shooting at another house in Maryland. Is this legal?

Yes. As long as the "DC resident" isn't prohibited from possessing firearms, and transports the rifle secured in a case separated from ammo.

Edited to add - Doesn't necessarily have to be in a case but I would imagine it would please the authorities a little better. Put rifle in the back, ammo up front

 

[vraiblonde]

Yes. As long as the "DC resident" isn't prohibited from possessing firearms, and transports the rifle secured in a case separated from ammo.

Because transported ammo has been known to jump into transported rifles and start picking off random street people. So you have to store them in separate cases so they aren't aware of each other and start getting ideas.

Our lawmakers are so smart and they just want the best for us.

 

[Ken King]

Ok.. A few friends have a bet going on... See if anyone on here knows the law...

A DC resident wants to go by his Father's house in Maryland, pick up a .22 rifle and go target shooting at another house in Maryland. Is this legal?

Pretty sure shooting at another house is illegal.

Now, if you mean another persons property it might not be legal (depending on county) if the person doing the shooting does not have written permission from the property owner or possessor of the property.

 

[Hank]

Pretty sure shooting at another house is illegal.

Now, if you mean another persons property it might not be legal (depending on county) if the person doing the shooting does not have written permission from the property owner or possessor of the property.

It would be at the DC resident's, friend's property. Legit/legal place to shoot targets.

 

[Ken King]

It would be at the DC resident's, friend's property. Legit/legal place to shoot targets.

Still would depend on county. Section 4-108(a) of the Criminal Code states; Prohibited - in Anne Arundel County, Caroline County, and St. Mary's County a person may not target practice with a gun or weapon or discharge a gun or weapon on the land of another without first obtaining written permission from the owner or possessor of the land.

 

[Hank]

Still would depend on county. Section 4-108(a) of the Criminal Code states; Prohibited - in Anne Arundel County, Caroline County, and St. Mary's County a person may not target practice with a gun or weapon or discharge a gun or weapon on the land of another without first obtaining written permission from the owner or possessor of the land.

Ok. So if the DC resident's Father lived in Charles (where the .22 is) and the friend's property is in Charles, then all good.

 

[Ken King]

Ok. So if the DC resident's Father lived in Charles (where the .22 is) and the friend's property is in Charles, then all good.

Unless otherwise prohibited from possessing the weapon.

 

[Bonehead]

But again transport the rifle and ammunition well separated from one another. The idea is that the rifle and ammunition cannot be accessed by the vehicle operator or passenger.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Yes. As long as the "DC resident" isn't prohibited from possessing firearms, and transports the rifle secured in a case separated from ammo.

Edited to add - Doesn't necessarily have to be in a case but I would imagine it would please the authorities a little better. Put rifle in the back, ammo up front

And keep the mags (assuming they exist) unloaded.

 

[warneckutz]

And keep the mags (assuming they exist) unloaded.

That was disproved the other night during training. You can have the magazines loaded, but the magazines cannot be loaded in the firearm.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

That was disproved the other night during training. You can have the magazines loaded, but the magazines cannot be loaded in the firearm.

That's how it should be, and that's what our old AG Fansler said.
https://handgunlaw.us/documents/agopinions/MDAGOpinionLoadedMagInVehicle.pdf

However, that's not legal precedent, we don't have a court case or judge's decision to settle this issue. We have a new AG who has stated that he would prosecute people under Md Natural Resources Code § 10-410 (even if someone was not hunting). You may win that case, but IMO, I'm not going to run the risk of some cop who doesn't want to hear a legal argument on the side of the road and god forbid it turns into a multi-year, expensive, legal battle.

410 says:

(c)(1) A person may not shoot at any species of wildlife from an automobile or other vehicle or, except as provided in § 4-203(b) of the Criminal Law Article and Title 5, Subtitle 3 of the Public Safety Article, possess in or on an automobile or other vehicle a loaded handgun or shotgun, or a rifle containing any ammunition in the magazine or chamber.

https://codes.findlaw.com/md/natural-resources/md-code-nat-res-sect-10-410.html

To me, that says one can't posses a gun "containing" any ammo (not necessarily the magazine containing the ammo), but IANAL and don't want to pay for one.

 

[warneckutz]

That's how it should be, and that's what our old AG Fansler said.
https://handgunlaw.us/documents/agopinions/MDAGOpinionLoadedMagInVehicle.pdf

However, that's not legal precedent, we don't have a court case or judge's decision to settle this issue. We have a new AG who has stated that he would prosecute people under Md Natural Resources Code § 10-410 (even if someone was not hunting). You may win that case, but IMO, I'm not going to run the risk of some cop who doesn't want to hear a legal argument on the side of the road and god forbid it turns into a multi-year, expensive, legal battle.

410 says:

https://codes.findlaw.com/md/natural-resources/md-code-nat-res-sect-10-410.html

To me, that says one can't posses a gun "containing" any ammo (not necessarily the magazine containing the ammo), but IANAL and don't want to pay for one.

From the course I took the other night, they were going over a few ins and outs of the Maryland laws and I guess they did a few blind questions to the officers and most didn't know the basic laws for transporting a handgun and ammo.

Definitely better to be safe than sorry... I'm grabbing a few speed loaders to compensate when I get to the destination

 

[Scat]

That's how it should be, and that's what our old AG Fansler said.
https://handgunlaw.us/documents/agopinions/MDAGOpinionLoadedMagInVehicle.pdf

However, that's not legal precedent, we don't have a court case or judge's decision to settle this issue. We have a new AG who has stated that he would prosecute people under Md Natural Resources Code § 10-410 (even if someone was not hunting). You may win that case, but IMO, I'm not going to run the risk of some cop who doesn't want to hear a legal argument on the side of the road and god forbid it turns into a multi-year, expensive, legal battle.

410 says:

https://codes.findlaw.com/md/natural-resources/md-code-nat-res-sect-10-410.html

To me, that says one can't posses a gun "containing" any ammo (not necessarily the magazine containing the ammo), but IANAL and don't want to pay for one.

Must be rough extenuating things to always try and prove youre right. Now, where is the actual proof that your opinion is correct?