The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 20, 2013, 02:48 PM   #1
welshgal2001
Member
 
Join Date: June 20, 2013
Location: upper marlboro md
Posts: 21
confused maryland owner of, .22 rifle

Confused owner

Ok in md the mags have been restricked to less than 10 rounds per mag, Here's the confusing part according to dnr.state it doesn't apply to. 22 rifles

I'm wondring why is this? And if the state ever changes this will it affect my new semi auto mag of 10 rounds?

New to owning a rifle always owned shotguns
welshgal2001 is offline  
Old June 20, 2013, 03:33 PM   #2
Dixie Gunsmithing
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 957
Evidently, they think a .22 LR will not kill a person, when in fact, the CIA used Hi-Standard .22 auto pistols, with silencers, for hits before assassinations were outlawed under Carter, I believe. The only reason I can actually think of, is that some .22 rifles, that have tubular magazines, can hold more than 10 rounds.

I would look for that law to change, hopefully, if the NRA-ILA and the SAF have their way.
Dixie Gunsmithing is offline  
Old June 20, 2013, 03:41 PM   #3
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,673
Quote:
Here's the confusing part according to dnr.state it doesn't apply to. 22 rifles... I'm wondring why is this?
I've never heard a definitive answer, but I presume these exemptions are intended to prevent magazine bans from encompassing a proverbial bazillion Marlin / Glenfield Model 60's, 75's, and 99's. These rifles are very similar, differing only in minor cosmetic details, and have been produced since 1960. Most versions have 14 or 17-round integral tubular magazines. They are claimed to be the most popular rimfire rifle line in history, with total production well into the millions.

IOW the exemption is presumably intended to avoid criminalizing possession of Grandpa's squirrel gun and Farmer Julie's varmint gun. Remember, mag bans only affect machine guns owned by right-wing wacko nutjobs.
Quote:
And if the state ever changes this will it affect my new semi auto mag of 10 rounds?
It could. And then they could go after your compliant 7rd mag. Then the 5-rounder. And then your 3rd mag.

You get the picture.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is online now  
Old June 20, 2013, 06:10 PM   #4
wogpotter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 27, 2004
Posts: 3,447
You've slightly misunderstood the law. Hardly surprising when you read how much of a dog's dinner of contradictions it is.

FIXED magazine .22 rimfires (such as "cowboy lever action tube fed") .22s are exempted, not ALL .22's are exempted. If the magazine is detachable it's covered (unless you either bought it out of state or owned it already & can prove it.)

Example:
You have a Ruger 10/22 & you BUY, ASSEMBLE, or TRANSFER a detachable magazine (regulated high capacity bullet feeding device) its illegal IN THE STATE OF MARYLAND. (The limit is 20 rounds untill Oct 1St after that it drops to 10 rounds) It is NOT ILLEGAL to own, use or import such a magazine (unless you broke other laws creating it).

*notice my carefull use of highlighting, its intentional.*

Now Its not illegal to own, posess, or use magazines with a capacity above the current limit. Any magazines you CURRENTLY LEGALLY own are grandfathered in perpetuity (or untill the change the limit again)

The idea was to protect lever action .22s from becoming quasi-semi-demi illegal, but they messed it up as usual. If you want 20-round detachable magazines get them before Oct 1st then they're legal to get within the State of Maryland. . After that you can only get 10 rounders legally BY PURCHASING TRANSFERRING OR MANUFACTURING them IN THE STATE OF MARYLAND.

*wink* wink* Nudge* nudge*
__________________
Allan Quatermain: “Automatic rifles. Who in God's name has automatic rifles”?

Elderly Hunter: “That's dashed unsporting. Probably Belgium.”

Last edited by wogpotter; June 22, 2013 at 10:06 AM.
wogpotter is offline  
Old June 22, 2013, 09:01 AM   #5
Rifleman1776
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 25, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 3,309
If you are looking for logic in legislation you will have a long and fruitless journey.
Rifleman1776 is offline  
Old June 22, 2013, 09:03 AM   #6
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
If you are looking for logic in legislation you will have a long and fruitless journey.
Ain't dat da troof!

I have a feeling we'll see "clarifying" legislation in Maryland's next legislative session that will only muddy the waters further.
csmsss is offline  
Old June 23, 2013, 12:10 PM   #7
godot
Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2004
Posts: 84
Actualy logical

This is one of those cases in which the law makes a little sense. There was a case a few years ago in which a New Jersey person was arrested under the theory that their 10 shot 22 caliber rifle could be loaded with 11 or more 22 shorts and thus break the law. For better or worse, I'm thinking that someone actually thought about this one.
godot is offline  
Old June 24, 2013, 07:15 AM   #8
wogpotter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 27, 2004
Posts: 3,447
"little" would be the correct term. Theres nothing illegal in buying a 50 round .22 magazine in PA where its legal, & then legally bringing it into MD which is also legal. The whole thing is smoke & mirrors.
__________________
Allan Quatermain: “Automatic rifles. Who in God's name has automatic rifles”?

Elderly Hunter: “That's dashed unsporting. Probably Belgium.”
wogpotter is offline  
Old July 1, 2013, 02:34 PM   #9
welshgal2001
Member
 
Join Date: June 20, 2013
Location: upper marlboro md
Posts: 21
Thanks guys
Crazy old md, I always thought that any cal of ammo including air pellets if you catch the person in the right spot, stone dead

So i think its all smoke to cloud the veiw of the gun carrying ppl. I think texas maybe the place to go. Sorry fella's i just like the cowboys.
welshgal2001 is offline  
Old July 1, 2013, 03:30 PM   #10
wogpotter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 27, 2004
Posts: 3,447
I think the goal is to appease the gun banners while at the same time not irritate the gun owners.

What they do is pass something that sounds good at a fast glance, but doesn't actually achieve much. Whats more I think they know this. If they wanted to "close a loophole" they had the 100% perfect oppertunity when they passed legislation reducing the capacity limit from 20 to 10. But they didn't. Because of that I believe they are trying (oh so poorly) to please both sides of the discussion.
__________________
Allan Quatermain: “Automatic rifles. Who in God's name has automatic rifles”?

Elderly Hunter: “That's dashed unsporting. Probably Belgium.”
wogpotter is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.08314 seconds with 9 queries