virginiatuck
Regular Member
imported post
Since reading another post on here, I think, about gambling on piers extending from Virginia to the Maryland State line on the Potomac River, I've been reading lately of the long history of Virginia-Maryland border disputes, more specifically with Virginians' (and West Virginians') rights to the Potomac River.
I'm intrigued by the Compact of 1785, the Black-Jenkins Award, and how they may pertain to a Virginian Citizen's right to bear arms. Unfortunately I have not found an unabridged copy of either document on the Internet. I suppose I'll have to make my way to a library unless someone out there knows where to find on-line copies.
From the Black-Jenkins Award:
VIRGINIA V. MARYLAND
My early impressions are that a Virginian Citizen may lawfully carry a firearm while on or otherwise using the Potomac River, where such part of the river is between Virginia and Maryland, as opposed to between Virginia and the District of Columbia.
More research and deliberation is imperative. I can hear in my head another side of the argument, though I do not agree with it, that possession of a firearm on the Potomac River is not necessary for the full enjoyment of the river. And access to the full texts of those documents could quickly change or reaffirm my mind, as could re-reading any of the long Court opinions; or anything that one of you posts.
At this moment here's how I see it:
Carrying a firearm is not outright illegal in the State of Maryland; only a permit is required. If a licensed Citizen of Maryland may carry a firearm on the Potomac River, then considering the aforementioned agreements between Maryland and Virginia and relevant case law, it stands to reason that a Citizen of Virginia may carry a firearm on the Potomac River without obtaining a permit from Maryland because carrying such is legal for Virginians* in Virginia and does not impede the navigation or otherwise interfere with the proper use of the river by Maryland. For all I can fathom, a Citizen of Virginia could still lawfully carry even if it was outright illegal in Maryland. The fact that it's not illegal just makes the case easier to make.
* (The asterisk acknowledges that there may be Virginians who can not legally possess firearms.)
If I'm wrong then at the very least one may legally carry a firearm if one keeps his boat on the Virginia side of the low-water mark on the south shore.
I'm eager to hear others' thoughts.
Since reading another post on here, I think, about gambling on piers extending from Virginia to the Maryland State line on the Potomac River, I've been reading lately of the long history of Virginia-Maryland border disputes, more specifically with Virginians' (and West Virginians') rights to the Potomac River.
I'm intrigued by the Compact of 1785, the Black-Jenkins Award, and how they may pertain to a Virginian Citizen's right to bear arms. Unfortunately I have not found an unabridged copy of either document on the Internet. I suppose I'll have to make my way to a library unless someone out there knows where to find on-line copies.
From the Black-Jenkins Award:
Virginia has won in Court against Maryland recently after Fairfax County was denied a permit by Maryland to extend its water inlet pipe into the middle of the river. The Court held that Virginia did not need to obtain a permit from Maryland.Virginia is entitled not only to full dominion over the soil to low-water mark on the south shore of the Potomac, but has a right to such use of the river beyond the line of low-water mark as may be necessary to the full enjoyment of her riparian ownership, without impeding the navigation or otherwise interfering with the proper use of it by Maryland, agreeably to the compact of seventeen hundred and eighty-five.
VIRGINIA V. MARYLAND
My early impressions are that a Virginian Citizen may lawfully carry a firearm while on or otherwise using the Potomac River, where such part of the river is between Virginia and Maryland, as opposed to between Virginia and the District of Columbia.
More research and deliberation is imperative. I can hear in my head another side of the argument, though I do not agree with it, that possession of a firearm on the Potomac River is not necessary for the full enjoyment of the river. And access to the full texts of those documents could quickly change or reaffirm my mind, as could re-reading any of the long Court opinions; or anything that one of you posts.
At this moment here's how I see it:
Carrying a firearm is not outright illegal in the State of Maryland; only a permit is required. If a licensed Citizen of Maryland may carry a firearm on the Potomac River, then considering the aforementioned agreements between Maryland and Virginia and relevant case law, it stands to reason that a Citizen of Virginia may carry a firearm on the Potomac River without obtaining a permit from Maryland because carrying such is legal for Virginians* in Virginia and does not impede the navigation or otherwise interfere with the proper use of the river by Maryland. For all I can fathom, a Citizen of Virginia could still lawfully carry even if it was outright illegal in Maryland. The fact that it's not illegal just makes the case easier to make.
* (The asterisk acknowledges that there may be Virginians who can not legally possess firearms.)
If I'm wrong then at the very least one may legally carry a firearm if one keeps his boat on the Virginia side of the low-water mark on the south shore.
I'm eager to hear others' thoughts.