As a MD FFL holder, I just got a new advisory from the MSP. They are interpreting CR 4-305(a) which bans the transfer or sale of high capacity mags to also include the transfer of the mag OUTSIDE of MD if it is related to the original sale/transfer of the firearm. In the past, many dealers (which can legally accept a firearm with hi-cap mags) would send the mags to a location outside of MD for the purchaser/transferee to pick up and bring back into MD as the possession and use is still legal. You can go to the Dulles Expo Gun Show and purchase all you want and bring them back into MD. This new interpretation seems to be a real stretch as the law only addresses the transfer and sale within state boundaries. The MSP are now saying the law crosses state boundaries.
This message has an attachment file. Please log in or register to see it.
As a private citizen, I cannot write to the Attorney General's office as they have already told me they only respond to other MD Gov't entities. Private individuals must write to the MSP and ask them to ask the AG for an official interpretation. I plan on writing a letter to the MSP but firmly believe that they will not take action on it as it would not be in their best interest. Short of another court battle, there really needs to be other means for citizens to fight back other than asking the MSP. Point in question: Title 5, Public Safety, defines a handgun as a firearm with a barrel less than 16" in length, then states that a HQL is required to receive a handgun. Yet the MSP require an HQL to receive a frame but not a receiver. Their interpretation is that the recipient intends to build the frame into a pistol and a receiver into a rifle, when in reality, either can be built into both. This is another example of where the MSP have, IMO, gone beyond the intent of language of the law.
In a huge decision authored by Judge O'Scannlain, a split panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that Hawaii's ban on open carry outside the home in that state violates the Second Amendment under any level of scrutiny. The decision, Young v. Hawaii, can be found here. The decision is very scholarly, carefully reasoned and a powerful statement that the Second Amendment is not a "second-class" right or a constitutional "orphan."