First, a response to the basic question: The United States has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. So anything having to do with the transfer of possession or title to a firearm is fair game for them. But issues of simple possession, use, and transportation within one state by a resident of that state is a matter of state law. And, in Virginia you have to be eighteen to be in unsupervised possession of a handgun. Keep in mind that Maryland is a foreign state with an entirely different legal system, and when you cross borders, the rules change.
Colt1911, ...I would not even accept the word of a BATFE agent who showed me his badge and credentials. He is not the correct source of the law. The correct source of the law is the statute or ordinance itself, the text of the regulation, or a court opinion. Please memorize and apply that.
...
We are not your personal research assistants nor your secretaries. The problem is not that you have questions. The problem is that you are not taking responsibility to find your own answers before wanting us to do your research for you.
So,
1) Don't ask anybody--cops, BATFE, park rangers--what the law is. The only person it is relatively safe to ask is your lawyer.
2) Read the law for yourself. You are the one going to jail if someone else tells it to you sideways. If you need help finding the law, feel free to ask where to look, meaning if you have already looked for it yourself and can't find it, then ask for an internet resource where you can read the law for yourself. If, after reading the law, you are not sure you understand, or want to check your understanding, then feel free to ask us.
1. I'd say (and this applies to "law enforcement officers" generally)
especially not to rely on what they tell you the law is. Unless they're attorneys licensed in the state in which you're talking to them, it's illegal for them to give you legal advice, anyway ( a class one misdemeanor); and if they tell you wrong, you could sue them civilly for legal malpractice (you don't have to be a lawyer to give bad legal advice). Nevertheless, they often do make pronouncements about what the law is, but this is usually hokum for which the technical legal term is, "dust in the eyes." They will tell you what they want you to believe the law is, hoping that you'll act on it. It's hogwash or often outright lies.
2. I do function as a "research assistant", and will be happy to research any legal issue you like and write a formal memorandum of law on the subject. But that's work and I do charge for it, though at about half what I charge to appear in court. (Keep in mind that I'm only licensed in Virginia. I can and do research the laws of other states, but cannot give legal advice regarding foreign laws.) Oh, and by the way, I talk off the top of my head on web forums, and I don't supply cites to authority unless I happen to remember them. If someone wants to hire me to look 'em up, I'll be happy to do so. And, in such an event, I'll also tell you if I was wrong when I was spouting off to begin with.
3. It is a good idea to read the law for yourself; but there's a reason that it takes three to five years of law school to learn how to do that. Although the law is supposed to be interpreted according to the "plain meaning rule", it is not. And in Virginia, you have to be familiar with the common law of England as it was in 1607 to understand the context within which the code of Virginia and judicial opinions are taking place. It's all a vast, interlocking web of complexities and technical language. Here's a couple of examples. (a) What's the basic law of the use of a highway, commonly called, "right of way"? Answer: first come, first served. Where is that in the Code? BZZZT, thank you for playing! It ain't there! It's common law, going back to when the Romans first built roads in England almost two thousand years ago. Everything you read in the code (e.g., the person on the right has the right of way when two vehicles approach the intersection at about the same time) is an
exception to the basic rule. And, (b) What's a "signature"? Most folks think "signature" and "autograph" are pretty much the same thing. Error! A signature does not have to be handwritten, nor a name. A signature is "any sign or symbol used or adopted with the present intention to authenticate a writing." More common law, though it has been codified in the Uniform Commercial Code. An "autograph", on the other hand, has no authentication significance, but must be one's own name in one's own handwriting. So, in the Nineteenth Century, a guy in N.C. agreed to buy land in N.Y. and sent the owner a telegram, the court found that his act of causing his name to be transmitted in Morse code for subsequent printing constituted a "signature". (First instance I could find of an "electronic signature" when I was researching that stuff for the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, back in the early '80's.)
Point is, when you're reading a statute or a court opinion that uses the word, "signature", you have to be able to recognize that this is not an English word of common parlance, but a technical term in "legalese" having a special meaning in law. Consider the word, "gun", and how that's different from, "firearm"...
