Overnight in MD

[Deadcheck]

Granted. Forgive the naivety, but the Sergeant I spoke to seemed competent. I understand the risks will be there no matter what, but it gave me peace of mind hearing it from the source. I could just take it and hope no one ever knows (which is likely to be the case anyway), but I'm trying to be a responsible owner just as the rest of you.

[Deadcheck]

Gun,

I'm unsure how to use the "Quote" feature yet, but I understand no one in this thread is telling me it is legal to transport to a hotel. However, no one is saying it is illegal either.

The confusion is with what is considered a "residence", and from what I was told by MDSP there are no issues with transporting to a hotel.

I suppose there are different perspectives, after all.

[gnbrotz]

Granted. Forgive the naivety, but the Sergeant I spoke to seemed competent. I understand the risks will be there no matter what, but it gave me peace of mind hearing it from the source. I could just take it and hope no one ever knows (which is likely to be the case anyway), but I'm trying to be a responsible owner just as the rest of you.

The point some of us are trying to make is that if the law is violated, it IS violated, regardless of your intentions, what MDSP has told you, or how much peace of mind you have about your decision.

Personally, I would rather be absolutely sure I was in violation of the law, and make a conscious decision to do so for my own safety, than to make some calls, believe I was in the clear, and then end up in a 'surprise' jam.

Either way, I believe it's correct that you won't have any issue, but don't mistake that for "What I did was completely legal," when it's been made pretty clear here that that is not the case - inaccurate info from the MDSP notwithstanding.

[gnbrotz]

However, no one is saying it is illegal either.

Based upon the info in post #8 (sourced from MDSP) and #9 (which seems to indicate the poster's personal experience), my own assessment, were I considering doing what you propose would be that it is indeed "illegal."

That's not to say I would or would not take a firearm, but if I did, I would do so under the assumption that my actions were not legal, unless I were a substantial owner/operator of the location within which I would be lodging.

[Deadcheck]

Understood. Thanks for the input.

The peace of mind I have does not see me through the gray area of the law, but it's a start. And, not to get too philosophical about it, but doesn't conceding to that gray area fail to perpetuate change?

Regardless of my call and information received, and how I decide to act upon it, the fact remains that there is confusion on what is considered a residence. That's all I'm trying to sort out.

[Deadcheck]

gnbrotz,

I interpreted the law distinguishing between two phrases: "between residences", and "between a residence and place of business if substantially owned and operated by the person".

It would seem that the hotel scenario is between residences, which the MDSP said is OK. The second phrase I interpreted as between a residence and a place of business, as in one that you own or substantially own. Are they not two separate scenarios?

Also, "For more information please contact our Licensing Division", was advised, and followed. What to do?

[gnbrotz]

And, not to get too philosophical about it, but doesn't conceding to that gray area fail to perpetuate change?

How does making one decision or another perpetuate change (or not). If it were that simple, why don't a bunch of us head down there to open carry - to perpetuate a change?

You certainly don't seem like an illiterate moron. If you read a statute for yourself, and statute (and possibly case law) define what qualifies as a residence/abode, why would the suit of clothes someone has on, or their job title convince you otherwise?

Which is the standard that you (or anyone) should be expected to be aware of and be in compliance with (philosophically speaking)?

What if the situation were reversed...if you wanted to do something that statute made clear was legal for you to do, but that a couple of LEO told you would get you arrested?

[Deadcheck]

Great point gnbrotz, and thanks for the compliment!

I suppose if it was in the books that something was legal, I would lean on that rather than what I was told by a LEO; after all, it's the word of the law.

"Between residence" is not clearly defined, however, so the info I received from MDSP doesn't actually contradict the law.

[knight0334]

A temporary stay at a motel is not a "bona fide residence".

If you were to move to a motel and stay there without another residence, and change your legal address to that motel room - then it would be "bona fide".

Just look up the definition of bona fide.

[Deadcheck]

Understood knight,

So there seems to be a disconnect between the written law and what MDSP actually considers a "bona fide" residence. Back to square one.

I'll add that I was explicitly clear in my phone conversation; cited the law word for word, and posed the question, "Is a hotel considered a 'bona fide residence' even if it's just for a night, or two?"