MDGA 2021 - MSI Testimony in Support of SB560 - Theft of a Handgun

B5C94ED6 FC1A 453F 8866 AFF5B1195912 1 105 c


The Bill 

The purpose of this bill is to provide for greatly enhanced penalties for the theft of a firearm. Under current law, theft of a firearm is treated just like the theft of any other piece of personal property. For example, under MD Code Criminal Law § 7-104(g)(2), “a person convicted of theft of property or services with a value of at least $100 but less than $1,500, is guilty of a misdemeanor and: (i) is subject to: 1. for a first conviction, imprisonment not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding $500 or both; and 2. for a second or subsequent conviction, imprisonment not exceeding 1 year or a fine not exceeding $500 or both. The bill would change these penalties for theft of a firearm to a felony and would impose, on the first offense, a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years and/or a fine of $1,000. Subsequent offenses are punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years and/or a fine not exceeding $2,500. These punishments are similar to the provisions enacted last year (2020) by the Senate in SB 35 which likewise made theft of a firearm a felony and punished such theft with imprisonment for up to 5 years and a fine of $10,000. SB 35 further required the thief to restore the firearm to the owner or pay the owner the value of the firearm.

The Bill Is Necessary For the Public Safety:

Simply put, it is unbelievable that theft of a firearm is punishable so lightly under current law. The value of most firearms, including most handguns, falls into the range of between $100 and $1,500 and thus theft of such firearms is currently punished at most by 6 months in prison and/or a small fine. In reality, persons convicted of such a crime don’t see any jail time at all, as the Maryland Sentencing Guidelines classify this property crime as the least serious offense listed in the Guidelines and one that is actually punished by mere probation for the first and second offense. See Since this offense is currently a misdemeanor and is not punishable by imprisonment by more than two years, a conviction for this crime is not even sufficient to render the person a disqualified person under federal and state law.  See 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(20)(B), Public Safety, § 5-101(g)(3). In contrast, by changing the offense to a felony, this bill would render a person convicted of this crime a disqualified person under federal and state law and thus may not possess modern firearms or modern ammunition for life. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), MD Code, Public Safety, § 5-101(g)(2).

Subsequent possession of any modern firearm or ammunition by a person subject to this firearms disability is punishable by up to 10 years of imprisonment under federal law. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2). Maryland law likewise bans possession of a regulated firearm (handgun or assault weapon) by a disqualified person. MD Code, Public Safety, § 5-133(b)(1). Possession of a regulated firearm by such a disqualified person is punishable with up to 5 years of imprisonment and/or a fine of $10,000 under MD Code, Public Safety, § 5-144(b). By contrast, under Maryland law, possession of a regulated firearm by a felon previously convicted of a crime of violence is punished more severely; such possession is “subject to imprisonment for not less than 5 years and not exceeding 15 years.” MD Code, Public Safety, § 5-133(c)(2).  Similarly, simple possession of a rifle or a shotgun by any disqualified person is punishable by imprisonment of 3 years and/or a fine of $1,000.  See MD Code, Public Safety, § 5-205(d).

There is simply no incentive to actually prosecute this theft crime under current law and thus actual prosecution to conviction is rare. Compare this non-punishment for the thief to the $500 fine imposed on the victim of gun theft for a mere failure to report a theft of a firearm within 72 hours. See MD Code, Public Safety, § 5-146. A second offense of a failure to report is punished even more severely, with 90 days of imprisonment and/or a $500 fine. It should be obvious that thief is more culpable than the victim. Yet, what is the point of reporting the theft if nothing happens to the thief? Indeed, because this theft crime is punished so lightly under current law, the convicted thief remains free to legally buy and legally possess a firearm, including a handgun or assault weapon.

Stealing a firearm is a serious threat to the community and, as such, well deserving of actual punishment. The federal BATF has found that stolen firearms are a “threat to community safety as well as law enforcement,” and that “stolen firearms are crime guns; they fuel illicit trafficking and are used by violent criminals to terrorize our communities.” See also David J. Cherrington, Crime and Punishment: Does Punishment Work? at 4 (2007) (“Studies of punishment have shown that individuals who have observed others being punished change their behavior almost as much as those who were actually punished.”), available at

Indeed, the non-punishment accorded to the thief is particularly striking in light of the severe penalties that Maryland metes out to otherwise law-abiding citizens of Maryland who inadvertently happen to run afoul of one of the many criminal provisions of Maryland’s firearms law. For example, a new resident of Maryland who neglected to register his or her regulated firearm within 90 days of becoming a Maryland resident, as required by MD Code, Public Safety, § 5-143, risks imprisonment for 5 years and/or a $10,000 fine under MD Code, Public Safety, § 5-144(b). A law-abiding person who “receives” a handgun in Maryland without possessing a Handgun Qualification License issued under by MD Code, Public Safety, § 5-117.1, likewise risks 5 years imprisonment and/or a fine under Section 5-144.

An otherwise innocent “transport” or possession in Maryland of a so-called “assault weapon” banned by MD Code Criminal Law §4-303, is punishable by up to 3 years imprisonment and/or a fine of $5,000 under MD Code Criminal Law §4-306, regardless of whether the person, including a non-resident, even knew of the prohibition. Under MD Code Criminal Law § 4-203, a person is “subject to imprisonment for not less than 30 days and not exceeding 3 years or a fine of not less than $250 and not exceeding $2,500 or both” for as little as leaving an unloaded handgun in the car’s trunk while doing grocery shopping on the way home from the range. No mens rea showing is required for any of these “crimes.”

And severe punishment is not restricted to firearms. Absentmindedly taking a penknife (e.g., a Swiss Army knife) anywhere onto school “property” is a violation of MD Code Criminal Law §4-102, and that crime is punishable by imprisonment not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding $1,000 or both, regardless of scienter. Under MD Code Criminal Law, § 4-101(c)(1),(d), merely carrying pepper mace in one’s pocket can be punished by 3 years of imprisonment and/or a $1,000 fine. Again, no mens rea required.

Maryland should not be punishing mistakes by otherwise innocent persons so severely while letting actual thieves of firearms off the hook with the proverbial “slap on the wrist.” After all, thieves actually know that stealing is criminal. Nothing good can come from stealing a firearm. In 2020, this Committee favorably reported on the comprehensive provisions of SB 35 by a vote of 10-1 with only Senator Carter casting a nay vote. We urge a unanimous favorable report on this stand-alone bill.


Mark W. Pennak
President, Maryland Shall Issue, Inc.

Latest News

Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. et al v. Montgomery County, Maryland

On May 28, 2021, Maryland Shall Issue, Engage Armament, ICE Firearms & Defensive Training, and several residents of Montgomery County, Maryland, filed suit against the County, challenging its enactment of Bill 4-21. That Bill criminalizes the mere possession of privately made firearms without providing compensation and redefines the meaning of "place of public assembly" to encompass virtually the entirety of Montgomery County just in order to criminalize otherwise perfectly lawful firearms possession in the home and elsewhere. The suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of damages, including punitive damages. 

You can read the complaint HERE.

Read more ...

Hulbert v. Pope goes to Trial!

We at Maryland Shall Issue send our deepest condolences to the family and friends of Jeff Hulbert. Jeff passed this morning (5/3/2021) surrounded by his loved ones after a lengthy and valiant battle against cancer. He was an outspoken and stalwart proponent of individual rights and a fierce supporter of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Jeff founded the Patriot Picket, a group that "hits the bricks" with stylized signs and pointed political messages in promotion and defense of those rights. Please keep the Hulbert family in your thoughts and prayers as we remember and honor Jeff.

A Decision Three Long Years in the Making (and it still isn't over)

The First Amendment protects the right to advocate so in fundamentally important ways, the First Amendment helps protect the Second Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, including unlawful arrests. So when two MSI members, Jeff and Kevin Hulbert, were arrested on the sidewalks of Annapolis on the evening of February 5th, 2018 for holding edgy signs that criticized the powers that be in the General Assembly, MSI and the Hulberts swiftly filed suit in federal court in Baltimore for a violation of their First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights. The arresting officers were named as defendants, but they are represented by counsel from the State Attorney General's Office.

Video of arrests on 2/5/2018 - "1st Amendment Under Attack"

In an opening gambit, the defendants first moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, but that effort failed when the Court didn't buy it. Then extensive discovery ensured, which was delayed with the pandemic. That discovery showed that the arrests that night stemmed from a call from the Governor's mansion to have the group moved because the "mansion" did not want to be bothered with questions or attempts at conversations by the protestors. Everyone (including the defendants and other officers at the Capitol Police) admitted that these orders came from the "mansion," but, amazingly, no one at the "mansion" could identify who gave the orders. We did discover that such orders happen as often as twice a month, or whenever someone at the "mansion" decides that the "mansion" does not want to deal with completely peaceful protestors lawfully exercising their First Amendment rights. We can only wonder at the identity of this "mansion" person.

Read more ...

Contact Info


Maryland Shall Issue®, Inc.
9613 Harford Rd
Ste C #1015
Baltimore, MD 21234-2150

Phone:  410-849-9197