Title: Chow v. State

State: maryland

Issuer: Maryland Supreme Court

Document:

Todd Lin Chow v. State of Maryland
No. 99, September Term, 2005
Headnote: The temporary gratuitous exchange or loan of a regulated handgun between two
adult individuals, who are otherwise permitted to own and obtain a regulated handgun, does
not constitute an illegal “transfer” of a firearm in violation of Maryland Code (1957, 1996
Repl. Vol., 2002 Supp.), Art. 27, § 442, in particular, subsection (d).  The plain language of
§ 442(d), when construed in harmony with the rest of the subheading, reveals that “transfer”
refers to a gratuitous permanent exchange of title or possession and does not include
temporary exchanges or loans.
The inclusion of the word “knowingly” in Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl. Vol., 2002
Supp.), Art. 27, § 449(f), placed in context with the statute as a whole, indicates a specific
intent mens rea.  Therefore, we find that a violation of § 442(d) and imposition of a penalty
under § 449(f) requires that one have a specific intent and requires that a defendant “know”
that the sale, rental, transfer, purchase, possession, or receipt of a regulated firearm of which
they are a participant in is illegal.  
Circuit Court for Prince  George ’s County
Case # CT 03-0929X
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF
MARYLAND
No. 99
September Term, 2005
Todd Lin Chow
v.
State of Maryland
Bell, C. J.
Raker
Wilner
Cathell
Harrell
Battaglia
Greene,
JJ.
Opinion by Cathell, J.
Raker, Wilner and Battaglia, JJ., Dissent
Filed:   July 27, 2006
1 Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl. Vol., 2002 Supp.), Art. 27, § 441(r) defines
“Regulated Firearm”:
“Regulated firearm. — ‘Regulated firearm’ means:
(1) Any handgun as defined in this section; or
(2) Any assault weapon as defined in this section.”
2 Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl. Vol., 2002 Supp.), Art. 27, §§ 441 et seq.
composes the “Regulated Firearms” subheading.  Section 442 states in pertinent part:
“(d) Sale by other than regulated firearms dealer. – (1) A person who is not
a regulated firearms dealer may not sell, rent, transfer, or purchase any
regulated firearm until after 7 days shall have elapsed from the time an
application to purchase or transfer shall have been executed by the prospective
purchaser or transferee, in triplicate, and the original copy is forwarded by a
regulated firearms dealer to the Secretary.”
Pursuant to Chapter 5, Acts 2003, effective October 1, 2003, the “Regulated Firearms”
subheading was repealed and re-enacted as Maryland Code (2003), §§ 5-101 et seq. of the
Public Safety Article.  Section 442 is currently codified (without substantial change) as § 5-
124 of the Public Safety Article.  All events at issue in this case took place in April of 2003,
therefore, we shall, unless otherwise indicated, refer to the version of the statute in effect at
that time, Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl. Vol., 2002 Supp.), Art. 27, §§ 441 et seq. 
This case concerns whether the temporary gratuitous exchange or loan of a regulated
firearm1 between two adult individuals, who were otherwise permitted to own and obtain a
handgun, constitutes an illegal transfer of a firearm in violation of Maryland Code (1957,
1996 Repl. Vol., 2002 Supp.), Art. 27, § 442.2  The particular issue before us is the
contextual meaning of the word “transfer,” as it is used in § 442(d), “A person who is not a
regulated firearms dealer may not sell, rent, transfer, or purchase any regulated firearm . . . .”
(Emphasis added).  Thus, we must decide whether a temporary gratuitous exchange or loan
of a regulated firearm constitutes a “transfer” under § 442(d).  In addition, we will discuss
3 Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl. Vol., 2002 Supp.), Art. 27, § 449 states in
pertinent part:
“(f) Knowing participants in sale, rental, etc. – Except as otherwise provided
in this section, any dealer or person who knowingly participates in the illegal
sale, rental, transfer, purchase, possession, or receipt of a regulated firearm in
violation of this subheading shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon
conviction shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more
than 5 years, or both.  Each violation shall be considered a separate offense.”
Section 449 is currently codified (without substantial change) as § 5-143 of the Public Safety
Article.  
-2-
Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl. Vol., 2002 Supp.), Art. 27, § 449,3 which establishes the
penalty for a violation of § 442(d), to determine the proper mens rea for such violation.    
On July 31, 2003, petitioner, Todd Lin Chow, a District of Columbia Metropolitan
Police Department officer and non-dealer of firearms, was charged with illegally transferring
a regulated firearm pursuant to § 442.  On November 25, 2003, a bench trial was held in the
Circuit Court for Prince George’s County.  On December 1, 2003, the court issued its ruling,
finding petitioner guilty.  The court sentenced petitioner to sixty (60) days, suspended the
sentence and imposed a two hundred dollar ($200) fine.  A timely appeal was made to the
Court of Special Appeals and on June 2, 2005, after hearing arguments, the court filed its
decision affirming the decision of the Circuit Court.  Chow v. State, 163 Md. App. 492, 881
A.2d 1148 (2005).  Petitioner then timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was
denied on October 4, 2005.  On October 19, 2005, petitioner timely filed a petition for writ
of certiorari to the Court of Appeals.  We granted certiorari on December 19, 2005.  Chow
4 Petitioner’s questions, as phrased in his Petition for Writ of Certiorari, were as
follows:
“1.
Whether a ‘temporary transfer’ or loan of a firearm constitutes a
‘transfer’ under Art. 27 § 442 when; (1) ‘transfer’ is not defined
anywhere in the subheading, (2) the dictionary definition of transfer
includes both a possessory transfer and legal (title or ownership)
transfer, and (3) for greater than 60 years the legislature has
consistently used the term ‘transfer’ to apply to regulated firearm
transactions, while also consistently prohibiting even the unrecorded
‘loan’ of a machine gun since 1933 and there is no legislative history
otherwise to indicate that ‘transfers’ include loans?
“2.
Assuming arguendo that a ‘temporary transfer’ can in certain
circumstances be construed as a ‘transfer’ under the law, do those
circumstances include a short period of time of lending a gun between
two adult individuals who are both eligible to own firearms, if the time
period of the loan (as in this case) was for about a day?
“3.
Was there sufficient evidence for a rational fact finder to convict the
Petitioner of knowingly violating Art. 27 § 442 when; (1) the State
never introduced any evidence of an element of the crime, namely
whether the transferee filed the paperwork with the State police, and
(2) the facts as noted by the Court of Special Appeals themselves
demonstrate that any ‘temporary transfer’ was an unintentional
accident that the Petitioner intended to immediately rectify?”
-3-
v. State, 390 Md. 284, 888 A.2d 341 (2005).
Petitioner presented three questions in his Petition for Writ of Certiorari4 which we
rephrase to consolidate and clarify the issues:
I.
Whether the temporary gratuitous exchange or loan of a regulated
firearm between two adult individuals, who were otherwise permitted
to own and obtain a regulated firearm, constitutes an illegal “transfer”
of a firearm in violation of Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl. Vol.,
2002 Supp.), Art. 27, § 442, as “transfer” is utilized in subsection
(d)(1), “A person who is not a regulated firearms dealer may not sell,
-4-
rent, transfer, or purchase any regulated firearm . . .?”(Emphasis added).
II.
Whether Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl. Vol., 2002 Supp.), Art. 27,
§ 449(f), which states, “any dealer or person who knowingly
participates in the illegal . . . transfer . . . of a regulated firearm in
violation of this subheading . . . ,” establishes a general intent or
specific intent mens rea?  (Emphasis added). 
In response to the first question we hold that the plain language and legislative history of the
“Regulated Firearms” subheading indicates that the word “transfer,” as used in § 442(d), is
used in an ownership context and does not apply to the situation extant in the case sub
judice–that of a gratuitous temporary exchange or loan between two adults who are otherwise
permitted to own and obtain regulated firearms.  Although we need not reach the second
question because of our disposition in regards to the first question, we will discuss the
requisite mens rea required by § 449(f) because of the likelihood that the issue may come
before the Court again.  For the reasons that follow, we hold that the word “knowingly” in
§ 449(f), in the particular circumstance of the applicable statutory scheme at issue here,
indicates a specific intent mens rea–which we find the petitioner not to have possessed. 
  I. Facts
We adopt, in part, the facts as stated by the Court of Special Appeals in its opinion
below:
“[Petitioner’s] friend, Man Nguyen, was the State’s main witness at
trial.  Nguyen testified that, while driving his car on April 1, 2003, he was
stopped by the Prince George’s County Police Department for a broken
taillight.  At that time, the police searched Nguyen’s vehicle, and discovered
a Glock semi-automatic pistol (not the weapon that is the subject of this
appeal).  The pistol was properly registered in Nguyen’s name, but he did not
5 “The acronym ‘NCIC’ stands for the National Crime Information Center.  Managed
by the FBI, this nationwide system provides information to federal, state and local criminal
justice agencies.”  Chow, 163 Md. App. at 498 n.3, 881 A.2d at 1152 n.3.
-5-
have a permit to carry it.  The police confiscated it in connection with their
investigation of a recent murder of one of Nguyen’s friends.
“The following day, Nguyen contacted [petitioner].  Nguyen explained
to [petitioner] that this gun and other guns at his home had been confiscated
by the police, and he was ‘anxious’ to buy another gun.  He told [petitioner]
that he needed to purchase a gun for protection, by which he meant ‘[h]ome
security,’ ‘[s]o, [petitioner] offered me his gun.’
“The two men arranged to meet later that day for lunch at a restaurant
in Bowie, Maryland.  Sometime during this meeting, [petitioner] gave Nguyen
a nine millimeter, semi-automatic handgun that he had owned since 1996.
“Nguyen told [petitioner] that he wanted to test fire the weapon before
purchasing it.  The pair got into Nguyen’s vehicle and headed to a firing range
in Upper Marlboro.  En route, Nguyen received a business call on his cellular
telephone, requiring that he abort the trip to the firing range.  Nguyen drove
[petitioner] back to the restaurant where [petitioner’s] car was parked and
dropped him off. [Petitioner’s] weapon remained in Nguyen’s car.  No money
was exchanged between Nguyen and [petitioner].
“Soon thereafter, Nguyen contacted [petitioner] by telephone.  Nguyen
testified: ‘I was interested in buying it and I called him, and, you know, I told
him I’d give it back to him but he said, that’s cool, just keep it in the house and
he’ll pick it up.’  Nguyen further testified that he anticipated the weapon would
be returned to appellant ‘as soon as possible.’
“Detective Donnie Judd testified as a State’s witness.  He reported that,
on April 4, 2003, he and other members of the Prince George’s County Police
Department stopped Nguyen on a warrant to arrest him for having illegally
carried the gun that was found in his car three days earlier.  In the ensuing
search of Nguyen’s car, the police discovered [petitioner’s] loaded handgun
in the car’s center console.  Detective Judd ran an NCIC [5] check and
determined that the handgun had not been reported stolen.  The gun was test
fired and determined to be operable.
“Nguyen was arrested and taken to the police station, where he gave a
four-page statement.  The first paragraph of the statement addressed how he
had obtained [petitioner’s] handgun, and that portion of the statement was
admitted into evidence.  It varied from Nguyen’s trial testimony.  Ngyuen
wrote:
-6-
I know [sic] [petitioner] for 2-3 [years].  I was detain [sic] on 4-
1-03 and PGPD took all my guns.  Next [d]ay, I called
[petitioner] and asked him if I could hold on to his gun until I
can get my guns back in a week or two because I felt
uncomfortable without a gun[.] We then met at Olive Garden att
[sic] 4pm in Bowie and had lunch and after that he give [sic] me
his 9mm, out of a bag in the front Passengers [sic] seat[.]
“Sergeant William Szimanski, of the State Police Licensing Division,
Firearms Registration Section, performs background checks on persons
purchasing regulated firearms in Maryland and deals with records concerning
firearms purchases.  He testified that the records related to [petitioner’s]
handgun reflect that [petitioner] bought the handgun in November 1996, and
it was formally transferred to him on the 27th of that month, after completion
of the weapon registration process.  The records show no subsequent transfer
of the handgun, and no application for a transfer of the gun from [petitioner]
to Nguyen.
“Sergeant Guillermo Rivera, of the Office of Internal Affairs of the
District of Colombia Metropolitan Police Department, also testified.  He stated
that appellant had not filed a stolen weapon report between November 17,
2001 and November 17, 2003.
“At the close of the State’s case, [petitioner] made a motion for
judgment of acquittal.  [Petitioner] argued that § 442(d) does not cover his
conduct, which was simply a temporary exchange of the handgun.  In the
alternative, [petitioner] argued that he did not ‘knowingly’ violate the statute,
as required by § 449(f), because the State did not prove that he knew the
transferee, Nguyen, had not filed the application required by § 442(d).  
“The State countered that [petitioner’s] leaving the gun with Nguyen
was a ‘transfer’ of it, and therefore was covered by § 442(d).  The State further
argued that [petitioner] was aware of the requirements for transferring a
handgun, because he had fulfilled those requirements himself when he
purchased the gun in 1996.  The State finally argued that the ‘plain meaning’
of transfer does not necessarily include the conveyance of title, and
encompasses a mere loan. 
“After hearing from counsel on both issues, the [Circuit Court for
Prince George’s County] denied the motion. [Petitioner] then rested without
putting on any evidence, and the court issued its ruling.”
Chow, 163 Md. App. at 497-500, 881 A.2d at 1151-52 (some footnotes omitted).
The Circuit Court stated:
-7-
“The Court having reviewed the statute [§ 442(d)] and now the burden
is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court finds based upon
the testimony of the State’s witnesses that there was in fact a transfer in this
case.
“The Court also finds that based upon the facts that it was a temporary
transfer.
“It is the Court’s assessment of the testimony of the State’s witness that
it was in fact a loan, although he has testified to two totally opposite things;
he testified that it was in fact an anticipated purchase, and on the other hand,
there was testimony or at least – yeah, there was testimony that it was in fact
a loan.  So, we have two inconsistent statements by the State’s witness.  
“And the State asks the Court or states to the Court – argues to the
Court that under either theory, that there was an illegal transfer in this case.
The court agrees that there was an illegal transfer.
“And [petitioner’s counsel], I understand your argument with respect
to temporary transfer, and I’ll leave it to the higher courts to tell me that a
temporary transfer is not a transfer under the law, I believe under the facts and
circumstances of this case it is in fact a temporary transfer.
“And whether the legislature intended a transference to be a part of this
statute, this Court finds it’s not clear, but I’ll wait for direction from the higher
court with that.” [Emphasis added.]
The trial court judge then found petitioner guilty and sentenced him to sixty (60) days–with
the sentence suspended–and a fine of two hundred dollars ($200).  In doing so, the trial judge
stated: “And the reason why I’m giving you the disposition is I believe that it was a
temporary transfer, it was illegal, but, what the transferee did with it [the regulated firearm]
was not within your control, and he clearly stated on the record that you told him to put it in
the house, and he chose not to.” [Emphasis added].
Petitioner timely noted an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals.  On June 2, 2005,
The Court of Special Appeals filed its opinion.  The court affirmed the decision of the Circuit
Court.  Specifically, in reference to the interpretation of the word “transfer,” the court stated:
-8-
“[W]e hold that plainly included within the meaning of ‘transfer’ of a
regulated firearm, in § 442(d), is lending a firearm.  The plain construction of
the term is confirmed by an examination of the general purpose of the
regulated firearms [subheading], and by the rule that the remedial portions of
a statute are to be liberally construed.  Therefore, a person violates § 442(d) by
lending a regulated firearm to another person without there first being
compliance with the application process and seven-day waiting period set forth
in that section.”  
Chow, 163 Md. App. at 509-10, 881 A.2d at 1158 (footnote omitted).  The court, however,
failed to address the entire issue of what would constitute a transfer: “We need not decide in
this case what other facts would support a transfer, for purposes of § 442(d).  It is therefore
unnecessary to address the scenario postulated by [petitioner], i.e., a mere momentary
exchange of a regulated firearm between the lawful possessor and another person.”  Id. at
510 n.7, 881 A.2d at 1158 n.7.  In addition, in respect to the mens rea requirement of §
449(f), the court held “that ‘knowingly participates’ in a violation of § 442(d) means
participation with knowledge of the facts that make out a violation of that subsection” and
that “[t]he State, then, need only prove that the defendant participated in a transfer of a
regulated firearm with the knowledge that a firearm (as opposed to some other item) was
being intentionally (as opposed to accidentally) transferred.”  Id. at 513, 881 A.2d at 1160
(citing Dawkins v. State, 313 Md. 638, 651, 547 A.2d 1041 (1988)).  
II. Standard of Review
The case sub judice was tried in the circuit court without a jury, thus our standard of
review is dictated by Maryland Rule 8-131(c).  We recently stated in Gray v. State, 388 Md.
366, 879 A.2d 1064 (2005):
-9-
“According to Maryland Rule 8-131(c) ‘when an action has been tried
without a jury, the appellate court will review the case on both the law and the
evidence.  It will not set aside the judgment of the trial court on the evidence
unless clearly erroneous, and will give due regard to the opportunity of the trial
court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.’  The clearly erroneous standard
does not apply to legal conclusions.  Nesbit v. GEICO, 382 Md. 65, 72, 854
A.2d 879, 883 (2004).  ‘When the trial court's order “involves an interpretation
and application of Maryland statutory and case law, our Court must determine
whether the lower court's conclusions are legally correct under a de novo
standard of review.”’  Nesbit, 382 Md. at 72, 854 A.2d at 883 (quoting Walter
v. Gunter, 367 Md. 386, 392, 788 A.2d 609, 612 (2002)).”
Gray, 388 Md. at 374-75, 879 A.2d at 1068.  Therefore, we shall review the legal questions
presented as to the interpretation of “transfer” in § 442(d) and the mens rea element of §
449(f) de novo.
III.  Discussion
A. The Meaning of “Transfer” in the Context of § 442(d).
Section 442(d) of the Regulated Firearms subheading governs the sale or “transfer”
of regulated firearms by an individual that is not a regulated firearms dealer.  As stated supra,
the statute states, in pertinent part:
“(d) Sale by other than regulated firearms dealer. – (1) A person who is not
a regulated firearms dealer may not sell, rent, transfer, or purchase any
regulated firearm until after 7 days shall have elapsed from the time an
application to purchase or transfer shall have been executed by the prospective
purchaser or transferee, in triplicate, and the original copy is forwarded by a
regulated firearms dealer to the Secretary.”
§ 442(d)(1) (emphasis added).  
Petitioner contends that the legislative intent of using the term “transfer,” as found in
§ 442(d), was to mean a permanent exchange of title or possession of a regulated firearm, as
-10-
in a gift or bequeathment, rather than a mere loan or temporary exchange of such firearm.
The State, in opposition, argues that § 442(d) prohibits all exchanges of regulated firearms,
temporary or permanent, whether by sale, rental, gift, loan, exchange or otherwise and no
matter how temporary.     
In order to divine the meaning of “transfer” in § 442(d) we look to the canons of
statutory interpretation, which we recently expressed in Kushell v. Department of Natural
Resources, 385 Md. 563, 870 A.2d 186 (2005):
“The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the
intent of the Legislature.  See Collins v. State, 383 Md. 684, 688, 861 A.2d
727, 730 (2004).  Statutory construction begins with the plain language of the
statute, and ordinary, popular understanding of the English language dictates
interpretation of its terminology.  Deville v. State, 383 Md. 217, 223, 858 A.2d
484, 487 (2004).
“In construing the plain language, ‘[a] court may neither add nor delete
language so as to reflect an intent not evidenced in the plain and unambiguous
language of the statute; nor may it construe the statute with forced or subtle
interpretations that limit or extend its application.’  Price v. State, 378 Md.
378, 387, 835 A.2d 1221, 1226 (2003); County Council v. Dutcher, 365 Md.
399, 416-417, 780 A.2d 1137, 1147 (2001).  Statutory text ‘“should be read so
that no word, clause, sentence or phrase is rendered superfluous or nugatory.”’
Collins, 383 Md. at 691, 861 A.2d at 732 (quoting James v. Butler, 378 Md.
683, 696, 838 A.2d 1180, 1187 (2003)).  The plain language of a provision is
not interpreted in isolation.  Rather, we analyze the statutory scheme as a
whole and attempt to harmonize provisions dealing with the same subject so
that each may be given effect.  Deville, 383 Md. at 223, 858 A.2d at 487;
Navarro-Monzo v. Washington Adventist, 380 Md. 195, 204, 844 A.2d 406,
411 (2004).
“If statutory language is unambiguous when construed according to its
ordinary and everyday meaning, then we give effect to the statute as it is
written.  Collins, 383 Md. at 688-89, 861 A.2d at 730.  ‘If there is no
ambiguity in that language, either inherently or by reference to other relevant
laws or circumstances, the inquiry as to legislative intent ends; we do not need
to resort to the various, and sometimes inconsistent, external rules of
-11-
construction, for “the Legislature is presumed to have meant what it said and
said what it meant.”’  Arundel Corp. v. Marie, 383 Md. 489, 502, 860 A.2d
886, 894 (2004) (quoting Witte v. Azarian, 369 Md. 518, 525, 801 A.2d 160,
165 (2002)).”
Kushell, 385 Md. at 576-77, 870 A.2d at 193-94.  Furthermore, as we stated in Price v. State,
378 Md. 378, 835 A.2d 1221 (2003):
“In some cases, the statutory text reveals ambiguity, and then the job of
this Court is to resolve that ambiguity in light of the legislative intent, using all
the resources and tools of statutory construction at our disposal.   However,
before judges may look to other sources for interpretation, first there must exist
an ambiguity within the statute, i.e., two or more reasonable alternative
interpretations of the statute.  Where the statutory language is free from such
ambiguity, courts will neither look beyond the words of the statute itself to
determine legislative intent nor add to or delete words from the statute.  Only
when faced with ambiguity will courts consider both the literal or usual
meaning of the words as well as their meaning in light of the objectives and
purposes of the enactment.  As our predecessors noted, ‘We cannot assume
authority to read into the Act what the Legislature apparently deliberately left
out.  Judicial construction should only be resorted to when an ambiguity
exists.’  Therefore, the strongly preferred norm of statutory interpretation is to
effectuate the plain language of the statutory text.”
Price, at 387-88, 835 A.2d at 1226 (citations omitted); Goff v. State, 387 Md. 327, 342, 875
A.2d 132, 141 (2005); Pete v. State, 384 Md. 47, 57-58, 862 A.2d 419, 425 (2004).
1.  Plain Language of § 442(d).
First, it is necessary to look at the plain language of § 442(d) to determine whether
there is any ambiguity in the term “transfer” as it is used in the context of the statute.  The
term itself is not defined within the subheading.  See Chow, 163 Md. App. at 502, 881 A.2d
at 1154 (“Neither § 442 nor any other section within that subheading defines the word
‘transfer.’”).  Therefore, we look to the ordinary and popular understanding of the word
-12-
“transfer” to determine its meaning.  Kushell, supra.
There are a number of sources from which we can obtain definitions of the word
“transfer” and it is proper to consult a dictionary or dictionaries for a term’s ordinary and
popular meaning.  State Dep’t of Assessments and Taxation v. Maryland-National Capital
Park and Planning Comm’n, 348 Md. 2, 14, 702 A.2d 690, 696 (1997) (“[I]n deciding what
a term’s ordinary and natural meaning is, we may, and often do, consult the dictionary.”);
Hackley v. State, 161 Md. App. 1, 14, 866 A.2d 906, 914 (2005).  The Court of Special
Appeals looked at two different sources for definitions:
“The first definition of the verb ‘transfer’ in The Random House
Dictionary of the English Language is ‘to convey or remove from one place,
person, etc., to another[.]’  The Random House Dictionary of the English
Language, Unabridged 2009 (2nd ed. 1987) (‘Random House’).  A similar first
definition of the verb ‘transfer’ is found in Black’s Law Dictionary: ‘To
convey or remove from one place or one person to another; to pass or hand
over from one to another, esp. to change over the possession or control of.’
Black’s Law Dictionary 1536 (8th ed. 2004) (‘Black’s’).  These definitions are
broad and both include a loan of the property at issue.
“To be sure, other subsequently listed dictionary definitions of the verb
‘transfer’ are more in keeping with the construction given to it by [petitioner].
Random House includes as the third definition of the verb: ‘Law. to make over
the possession or control of: to transfer a title to land.’  Random House, supra,
at 2009.  And Black’s lists, as its second definition, ‘To sell or give.’  Black’s,
supra, at 1536.  Similarly, Random House defines the noun form of the word
‘transfer’ as, inter alia, ‘Law. a conveyance, by sale, gift, or otherwise of real
or personal property, to another.’  Random House, supra, at 2009.  And
‘conveyance’ is defined, inter alia, as ‘Law. a. the transfer of property from
one person to another.’  Id. at 445.”
Chow, 163 Md. App. at 502-03, 881 A.2d at 1154.  Utilizing these definitions and the context
in which “transfer” appears in § 442(d), the Court of Special Appeals decided to “decline
6 Judge Harrell, writing for the Court in Harvey v. Marshall, 389 Md. 243, 884 A.2d
1171 (2005), expressed some concerns the Court has about singularly relying on recent
dictionary editions to establish the meaning of words in a statutory scheme:
“Although appellate courts frequently consult and rely on dictionary
definitions in their analysis of statutory language, often without explanation
for why a particular dictionary was consulted, the question as to which edition
of a particular dictionary is utilized in a given situation presents a more
puzzling inquiry.  Sometimes it seems that random chance is determinative,
based on whatever edition is on a library shelf within reach of the author at the
time of composition of the opinion.  Because we are attempting to ascertain
the intent of the Legislature in choosing certain language at a point in time,
resort to a dictionary, legal or otherwise, should logically include
consultation of those editions (in addition to current editions) of dictionaries
that were extant at the time of the pertinent legislative enactments.  See
Rossville Vending Mach. Corp. v. Comptroller of Treasury, 97 Md. App. 305,
316-18, 629 A.2d 1283, 1289-90 (1993) (stating that ‘[i]t seems logical, at
least in a linear way, that a popular dictionary of [the time in which a statute
was enacted] would be an informative resource in attempting to arrive at a
determination . . . .’).” 
Harvey, 389 Md. at 260-61 n. 11, 884 A.2d at 1181 n. 11 (emphasis added).
-13-
[petitioner’s] invitation to ascribe to the verb ‘transfer,’ in § 442(d), a definition suggestive
only of a permanent exchange of title or possession.”  Chow, 163 Md. App. at 503, 881 A.2d
at 1154.  We, however, disagree with the Court of Special Appeals’ determination in this
instance.
As stated supra, there are different sources from which definitions of a word may be
obtained.6  Petitioner points out a number of definitions from dictionaries which were
available in the Maryland State Law Library prior to the initial 1941 enactment of the
7 The statute was initially enacted in 1941, pursuant to the Laws of Maryland, Chapter
622, and codified in the “Crimes and Punishments” title, under the subtitle “Pistols,” in
Maryland Code (1939, 1943 Supp.), Art. 27, §§ 531A-531G.  It states, in pertinent part:
“A true record shall be made by each dealer in a book kept for the
purpose, the form of which shall be prescribed by the Secretary of State, of all
pistols or revolvers sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of at wholesale or
retail, which said record shall contain the date of sale, the caliber, make,
model and manufacturer’s number of the weapon, to which shall be added the
name and address of the purchaser. . . .” 
 
Chapter 622 § 1, 531B, of the Acts of 1941.  The reference to “wholesale or retail” indicates
a business transaction.
8 Adjudged Words and Phrases defines transfer as, “The term transfer means to
convey or pass over the right of one person to another” and “[t]he act by which the owner
of a thing delivers it to another person, with the intent of passing the right he had in it to the
latter.” Charles H. Winfield, Adjudged Words and Phrases 611 (1882).
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary defines transfer as “[t]he act by which the owner of a thing
delivers it to another person, with the intent of passing the rights which he has in it to the
latter.”  Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 3308 (1914).
The Collegiate Law Dictionary defines transfer, in pertinent part, as:
“1.  The act by which the owner of a thing delivers it to another person, with
the intent of passing the rights he had in it to the latter.  2.  Any act by which
the owner of anything delivers or conveys it to another with the intent to pass
his rights therein. . . .  4.  To remove.  5.  To change the location, place, or
relation of.”
The Collegiate Law Dictionary 319 (1925) (citations omitted).
The Cyclopedic Law Dictionary defines transfer as “[t]he act by which the owner of
a thing delivers it to another person, with the intent of passing the rights which he has in it
to the latter.”  The Cyclopedic Law Dictionary 1115 (3rd ed. 1940).  
-14-
predecessor statute to the Regulated Firearms subheading.7  All of the definitions define
“transfer” as a permanent exchange of title or possession.8  From the time of its initial
enactment in 1941, through its evolution to the present day, the statute has always contained
a form of the term “transfer.”  It is persuasive that the use of the term “transfer” has remained
-15-
consistent throughout the evolution of the statute–always in the context of a transfer of all
of the rights of the transferor to the transferee, either permanently or for an extended period
of time if a gun is “rented.”  Thus, the meaning and context of the term have not been altered
over the course of the years, even though other definitions may have changed.
The Court of Special Appeals found that an interpretation of “transfer” as suggestive
only of a permanent exchange of title or possession “would run afoul of the rule that
‘[o]rdinary and popular understanding of the English language dictates interpretation of
terminology within legislation.’”  Chow, 163 Md. App. at 503, 881 A.2d at 1154 (citing
Deville, 383 Md. at 223, 858 A.2d 484).  The court, however, provides no support for this
conclusion other than what can be inferred from its discussion of the two dictionary
definitions it provided, supra, which arguably supported both the petitioner’s and the State’s
arguments.  Analyzing “transfer” in light of the definitions in effect at the time of the
legislative enactment of § 442(d), we do not find petitioner’s interpretation of “transfer” to
run afoul of the ordinary and popular understanding of the English language.  
Words can have multiple meanings and often do.  And the numerous meanings of a
particular word may each satisfy the ordinary and popular understanding of that word.  In
order to interpret a word’s specific meaning in a particular statute we look to the context in
which the word is used.  As we stated supra, “The plain language of a provision is not
interpreted in isolation.  Rather, we analyze the statutory scheme as a whole and attempt to
harmonize provisions dealing with the same subject so that each may be given effect.
-16-
Deville, 383 Md. at 223, 858 A.2d at 487; Navarro-Monzo v. Washington Adventist, 380 Md.
195, 204, 844 A.2d 406, 411 (2004).”  Kushell, 385 Md. at 577, 870 A.2d at 193.   
2. “Transfer” in the Context of the Regulated Firearms Subheading.
While the Regulated Firearms subheading does not specifically define the term
“transfer,” it does use the term several times throughout its various sections.  Section 441
provides the definitions for the subheading.  In particular, § 441(f) states that: “‘Dealer’
means any person who is engaged in the business of: (1) Selling, renting, or transferring
firearms at wholesale or retail.”  (Emphasis added).  Transfer, as used in this section,
obviously concerns transfers for consideration (“wholesale” and “retail” are business terms).
Section 441(t) states that: “‘Rent’ means the temporary transfer of a regulated firearm for
consideration where the firearm is taken from the firearm owner’s property.”  (Emphasis
added).  Finally, § 441(w) states that: “‘Straw purchase’ means any sale of a regulated
firearm where the individual uses another person (the straw purchaser) to complete the
application to purchase a regulated firearm, take initial possession of that firearm, and
subsequently transfer that firearm to the individual.”  (Emphasis added).  This section also
obviously concerns transfers for consideration. 
In all of the above instances (except where
“Rent” is specifically defined and delineated as a temporary transfer for consideration) the
word “transfer” is used in the sense of a permanent exchange of title or possession of the
regulated firearm for consideration.  A dealer is a person engaged in the business of
permanently exchanging title or possession of a firearm.  In the context of § 441(f), transfer
9 The form of the application is not contained in the statute.
-17-
logically means a permanent exchange.  In the case of a straw purchase, there is a sale of a
regulated firearm to the strawperson, who then transfers (permanently exchanging possession
of) the firearm to another individual.  The use of transfer in § 441(w) also contemplates
permanent exchange of possession for consideration.
Section 442, entitled “Sale or transfer of regulated firearms,” utilizes “transfer” in
several instances, including subsection (d), the subject provision in the case sub judice.
Subsection (b)(3)(i) states that “[a]n application[9] to purchase or transfer a regulated firearm
shall be completed by the recipient and forwarded to the Secretary within 5 days of receipt
of the regulated firearm . . . .”  Reference to the application form itself (MSP 77R-1) is
reflective of “transfer” having a “permanent exchange” connotation.  
The form is entitled: “MARYLAND STATE POLICE APPLICATION AND
AFFIDAVIT TO PURCHASE A REGULATED FIREARM.”  The first section provides
instructions, which begin: “The transferee (purchaser) or voluntary registrant must complete
Part 1 of this application prior to completing Part 2.” [Italics added for emphasis].  The
rest of the page composes Part 1 of the application and, following the instruction block,
fifteen questions are listed with yes or no (and sometime N/A) circles to be filled in by the
applicant, along with a space for the applicant to initial for each question’s answer.  At the
bottom of the page there is a signature box.  The box is labeled “Signature of
Transferee/Voluntary Registrant and 
Transferor.” [Emphasis added].  Two lines are provided
-18-
for signatures: (1) labeled “Transferee/Voluntary Registrant” and (2) “Dealer/Transferor.”
[Emphasis added].  
The second page of the application composes Part 2.  Located at the top of the page
are four check boxes, respectively labeled: “Dealer Sale,” “Secondary Sale,” “Gift,” and
“Voluntary Registration.”  Below that is an instruction box which states:
“The transferee (purchaser) or voluntary registrant must complete Part 1 of
this application prior to completing Part 2.  Licensed dealers or transferors
(sellers) must visually inspect an official document provided by the transferee
to verify that the transferee has either completed a certified firearms safety
training course . . . or an official document that indicates that the transferee is
a current law enforcement officer . . . .” [Italics added for emphasis.]
Following the instruction box, the page is broken into six sections with section two composed
of an A and B.  Each individual section is entitled as follows: 1. “TRANSFEREE
(PURCHASER)/VOLUNTARY REGISTRANT INFORMATION,” 2a. “DEALER
INFORMATION (**For Licensed Dealer Sales Only**),” 2b.  “TRANSFEROR (SELLER)
INFORMATION (For Secondary Sales, Gifts, and Voluntary Registration Only),” 3. (THIS
SECTION FOR MARYLAND STATE POLICE USE ONLY),” 4. “GUN INFORMATION
(Must Be Completed By Transferor),” and signature blocks 5. “Sign upon Application or
Voluntary Registration” and 6. “Sign upon Transfer of Firearm.” [Italics added for
emphasis].
It is evident that the application, referenced by § 442(b)(3)(i), to purchase or transfer
10 It should also be noted that Black’s Law Dictionary defines “transferee” as “[o]ne
to whom a property interest is conveyed” and “transferor” is defined as “[o]ne who conveys
an interest in property.”  Id. at 1536. 
-19-
regulated firearms was only designed for permanent “transfers” of such firearms.10  In fact,
the only options available, as indicated at the top of the second page of the application, are
for “Dealer Sale,” “Secondary Sale,” “Gift,” and “Voluntary Registration.”  With the
exception of “Voluntary Registration,” each option evinces a permanent exchange of title or
possession between two individuals.  “Voluntary Registration” is indicative of an individual
already in possession of a regulated firearm, not of any type of exchange.
Section 442(d)(2) states: “As an alternative to completing a secondary sale of a
regulated firearm through a regulated firearms dealer, the prospective seller or transferor and
the prospective purchaser or transferee may complete the transaction through a designated
law enforcement agency.”  This section provides an alternative to § 442(d), the pertinent
section in the case sub judice.  The use of “transfer” in § 442(d)(2) distinctly refers to a
permanent exchange.  This is evident through the introductory language of the section, “As
an alternative to completing a secondary sale . . . .” § 442(d)(2) (emphasis added).
Transferor (in conjunction with seller) and transferee (in conjunction with purchaser) in this
context is concerned with completing a secondary sale (permanent exchange) of a regulated
firearm through a designated law enforcement agency rather than through a regulated
firearms dealer.         
Section 443, entitled “Regulated firearm dealer’s license,” states in subsection (a), that
-20-
“[n]o person shall engage in the business of selling, renting, or transferring regulated
firearms unless he lawfully possesses and conspicuously displays at his place of business, in
addition to any other license required by law, a regulated firearms dealer’s license issued by
the Secretary.”  (Emphasis added).  Again, similar to § 441(f), the use of “transfer” in the
context of a person engaging in the firearms business provides a connotation of permanent
exchange of title or possession generally for consideration. 
The context in which the term “transfer” is used in the Regulated Firearms
subheading’s statutory scheme as a whole must be harmonized with its use in § 442(d).
Kushell, 385 Md. at 577, 870 A.2d at 193 (citing Navarro-Monzo, 380 Md. at 204, 844 A.2d
at 411; Deville, 383 Md. at 223, 858 A.2d at 487).  Section 442(d) states, in pertinent part:
“(d) Sale by other than regulated firearms dealer. – (1) A person who is not
a regulated firearms dealer may not sell, rent, transfer, or purchase any
regulated firearm until after 7 days shall have elapsed from the time an
application to purchase or transfer shall have been executed by the prospective
purchaser or transferee, in triplicate, and the original copy is forwarded by a
regulated firearms dealer to the Secretary.”  (Emphasis added.)
The Court of Special Appeals found that “the context in which ‘transfer’ appears does not
comport with the narrow definition [that of permanent exchange of title or possession]
[petitioner] would have us give the word.”  Chow, 163 Md. App. at 503, 881 A.2d at 1154.
The court expounded upon this, stating:
“Section 442(d) refers to three forms of firearm exchange: ‘sell [or purchase],’
‘rent,’ and ‘transfer.’  ‘Rent’ is defined in § 441(t) as the ‘temporary transfer
of a regulated firearm for consideration where the firearm is taken from the
firearm owner’s property.’  ‘Sell’ and ‘purchase’ are not defined in the
subheading, but we assume they carry their ordinary and popular meaning, and
11 Black’s Law Dictionary defines “sale,” the  noun form of the word, as: “The
transfer of property or title for a price.”  Id. at 1364 (emphasis added).  “Sell,” the verb form
of sale, is defined: “To transfer (property) by sale.”  Id. at 1391 (emphasis added).
“Purchase” is defined: “The act or an instance of buying” and “Purchaser” is defined: “One
who obtains property for money or other valuable consideration; a buyer.”  Id. at 1270.    
12    Black’s Law Dictionary defines “Gift” as, “[t]he voluntary transfer of property
to another without compensation.”  Id. at 709 (emphasis added). 
-21-
contemplate a permanent transfer for consideration.  
“‘Transfer,’ then, must contemplate something different from ‘sell’ or
‘rent’; otherwise, those terms would be surplusage.  We strive to ‘read statutes
“so that no word, clause, sentence or phrase is rendered surplusage,
superfluous, meaningless, or nugatory.”’  See State v. Pagano, 341 Md. 129,
134, 669 A.2d 1339 (1996) (quoting Montgomery County v. Buckman, 333
Md. 516, 524, 636 A.2d 448 (1994)).”
Chow, 163 Md. App. at 503, 881 A.2d at 1154-55.  We agree with the Court of Special
Appeals that “sell” and “purchase” contemplate a permanent exchange for consideration.11
We have discussed the use of “rent,” which is specifically defined in § 441(t).  We disagree,
however, with the Court of Special Appeals’ analysis that “transfer” must be construed with
a broad meaning to avoid being considered surplusage.  To the contrary, it is when “transfer”
is considered in its broad meaning that surplusage language is created.  If “transfer” includes
everything then the words “sell,” “rent” and “purchase” are surplus words.  
The Court of Special Appeals’ apparent presumption is that a “gift”12 is the only form
that a “permanent exchange of title or possession” can assume.  See Chow, 163 Md. App. at
504, 881 A.2d at 1155 (“[W]e cannot ascribe to the term, as it is used in § 442(d), a narrow
meaning restricted essentially to ‘gift’ . . . .”). The Court of Special Appeals argues that
“transfer” cannot simply mean “gift.”  The court stated:
-22-
“Elsewhere in § 442 itself, the General Assembly used ‘gift’ to exclude (with
certain conditions) those forms of exchange from the prohibitions against
straw purchases.  See § 442(b)(2), (3) (providing that ‘[t]he prohibitions of this
[straw purchase] subsection do not apply to a person purchasing a regulated
firearm as a gift,’ so long as there is compliance with the application
requirement).  Had the General Assembly intended to limit its meaning of the
verb ‘transfer’ in § 442(d) to making a gift, we expect that the Legislature
would have used that word.”
Chow, 163 Md. App. at 503-04, 881 A.2d at 1155.  We, however, disagree with this
reasoning.  “Transfer,” as defined at the time of the enactment of § 442(d) and read in
harmony with the rest of the Regulated Firearms subheading, has the meaning of a permanent
gratuitous transfer, rather than a temporary transfer.  And we will not “‘construe the statute
with forced or subtle interpretations that limit or extend its application.’”  Kushell, 385 Md.
at 576-77, 870 A.2d at 193 (quoting Price, 378 Md. at 387, 835 A.2d at 1226); County
Council v. Dutcher, 365 Md. 399, 416-417, 780 A.2d 1137, 1147 (2001).  “Transfer” can be
ascribed the meaning of “a permanent exchange of title or possession” and not be rendered
surplusage, superfluous, meaningless, or nugatory.
Each term in the litany laid out in § 442(d) has its own meaning.  The term “sell”
contemplates a permanent exchange for consideration from a seller or transferor of a
regulated firearm to a buyer.  Conversely, the term “purchase” contemplates a permanent
exchange for consideration to a buyer or transferee of a regulated firearm from a seller.
“Rent,” as discussed above and defined in § 441(t), contemplates a temporary transfer for
consideration.  None of these words, “sell,” purchase,” or “rent” can be defined to include
the permanent gratuitous transfer of a firearm.  That type of permanent exchange is covered
13 The Court of Special Appeals suggests that “transfer” has “a broader meaning that
includes (even if not limited to) both the permanent exchange of title of the property without
consideration (gift), and the temporary exchange of possession without consideration
(loan).”  Chow, 163 Md. App. at 504, 881 A.2d at 1155.  
-23-
by the word “transfer” and that is its purpose in the statute, i.e., a permanent gratuitous
transfer.  Read in context with the rest of the Regulated Firearms subheading, the term
“transfer,” as used in § 442(d), is distinguishable from the words “sell,” “rent” and
“purchase” in that it means any other permanent exchange of title or possession of a firearm
even if it is without consideration.13  This covers situations of permanent exchange that the
other terms fail to address, i.e., in the case of a gift or bequeathment.  Therefore, “transfer,”
as used in § 442(d), is not surplusage, superfluous, meaningless, or nugatory.  It is the Court
of Special Appeals’ interpretation that makes the other language of the relevant litany
surplusage.  
While modern day definitions of “transfer” may, in some instances, attribute to the
word a broader meaning, they also provide a more narrow definition.  That narrow definition
of “permanent exchange of title or possession” is more in harmony with the statutory scheme
of the Regulated Firearms subheading, as a whole.  Thus, we attribute that narrow meaning
to “transfer” as it is used in §§ 442(d) and 449(f). 
3.  Even if “Transfer” Can Be Said to Be Ambiguous, the Application of Statutory
Construction and a Review of Legislative Intent Reflect that its Meaning in the Context of
§ 442(d) is One of Permanent Exchange of Title or Possession.
While we find that “transfer,” as used in §§ 442(d) and 449(f), is unambiguous and
14 As stated in Stanley v. State, 390 Md. 175, 887 A.2d 1078 (2005):
“We are aware that this Court has reviewed the legislative history of a
statute which we have pronounced clear and unambiguous.  In those
circumstances, that is a confirmatory process, see [Design Kitchens & Baths
v. ]Lagos, 388 Md. 718, 730, 882 A.2d 817, 824 [(2005)]; State v. Glass, 386
Md. 401, 411, 872 A.2d 729, 735 (2005); Mayor and City Council of
Baltimore v. Chase, 360 Md. 121, 128, 756 A.2d 987, 991 (2000) (when the
language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, ‘the resort to legislative
history is a confirmatory process; it is not undertaken to contradict the plain
meaning of the statute’); Coleman v. State, 281 Md. 538, 546, 380 A.2d 49,
54 (1977) (‘a court may not as a general rule surmise a legislative intention
contrary to the plain language of a statute or insert exceptions not made by the
legislature’), not a contradictory one.”
Stanley, 390 Md. at 185, 887 A.2d at 1084.  
-24-
refers to a permanent gratuitous exchange of title or possession, it is useful for confirmatory
reasons to look to the purpose of the Regulated Firearms subheading as intended by the
General Assembly.14
Prior to enacting the predecessor statute to the Regulated Firearms subheading, the
General Assembly enacted the Uniform Machine Gun Act.  The Uniform Machine Gun Act
was initially enacted by the General Assembly in 1933, pursuant to 1933 Md. Laws, Chap.
550 and is now codified in Maryland Code (2002), § 4-403 of the Criminal Law Article.  The
Uniform Machine Gun Act, utilizes the term “loan” in discussing the registration of machine
guns.  Section 4-403 states, in pertinent part:
“(a) Manufacturer registration. — (1) A manufacturer of a machine
gun shall keep a register of each machine gun manufactured or handled by the
manufacturer.  
(2) The register shall contain:
15 The Court of Special Appeals provides a partial review of the legislative history of
the Regulated Firearms subheading:
“We have traced the regulated firearms statute back to its origins, and
have found that the General Assembly never used the words ‘loan’ or ‘lend’
in the statute, and consistently used the word ‘transfer.’  The General
Assembly first regulated the sale of pistols and revolvers in 1941, providing:
‘A true record shall be made by each dealer . . . of all pistols or revolvers sold,
transferred or otherwise disposed of at wholesale or retail[.]’  1941 Md. Laws,
ch. 622 (emphasis added); Md. Code (1939, 1943 Supp.), Article 27, §§ 531B,
531C.
“In 1957, that language was re-codified at Article 27, § 442, without
substantive change.  See Md. Code (1957), Article 27, § 442.  See generally
(continued...)
-25-
. . . 
   (ii) the date of manufacture, sale, loan, gift, delivery, and receipt of
the machine gun from the manufacturer; and
   (iii) the name, address, and occupation of the person to whom the
machine gun was sold, loaned, given or delivered, or from whom the machine
gun was received, and the purpose for which the machine gun was acquired.”
(Emphasis added).  The original language of the pertinent section has remained largely
unchanged over the years:
“Every manufacturer shall keep a register of all machine guns manufactured
or handled by him.  This register shall show the model and serial number, date
of manufacture, sale, loan, gift, delivery or receipt, of every machine gun, the
name, address, and occupation of the person to whom the machine gun was
sold, loaned, given or delivered, or from whom it was received; and the
purpose for which it was acquired by the person to whom the machine gun was
sold, loaned, given or delivered, or from whom received.”
Md. Code (1931, 1935 Supp.), Art. 27, § 350G (emphasis added).  
The General Assembly did not enact regulation involving regulated firearms, in
respect to handguns, until 1941.15  The Legislature had previously utilized the term “loan”
15(...continued)
1957 Md. Laws, ch. 23 (‘legalizing’ the 1957 edition of the Maryland Code).
“In 1966, § 442 was repealed, and re-enacted, with substantial
amendments, to change the structure and requirements of the section.  1966
Md. Laws, ch. 502.  It was then that the section first resembled the version of
§ 442 in effect in 2003.  Compare Md. Code (1957, 1967 Repl. Vol.), Article
27, § 442, with Md. Code (1957, 1996 Repl. Vol, 2002 Supp.), Article 27,
§ 442.  The General Assembly continued to use the term ‘transfer’: ‘(b)
Application to purchase or transfer.– No dealer shall sell or transfer any pistol
or revolver until after seven days shall have elapsed from the time an
application to purchase or transfer shall have been executed by the prospective
purchaser or transferee . . . .’   Md. Code (1957, 1967 Repl. Vol.), Article 27,
§ 442 (emphasis added).
“As we discuss, infra, the language contained in the subsection at issue
in this case—§ 442(d)—was not added until 1996, as part of the Maryland Gun
Violence Act.  1996 Md. Laws, chs. 561, 562.  The General Assembly used
‘transfer’ in § 442(d), just as it had been doing in reference to firearms
transactions through dealers.  See Md. Code (1957, 1992 Repl. Vol., 1995
Supp.), Article 27, § 442.  Despite amendments to other portions of § 442
between 1996 and 2002, section (d) has remained unchanged.”
Chow, 163 Md. App. at 505-06 n.5, 881 A.2d at 1156 n.5. 
16 It should be noted that the Uniform Machine Gun Act provides that “[a] person
who acquires a machine gun shall register the machine gun with the Secretary of the State
Police: (i) within 24 hours after acquiring the machine gun . . . .”  Md. Code (2002), § 4-
403(c)(1)(i) of the Criminal Law Article (emphasis added).  Should we construe “transfer”
in § 442(d) with the broad meaning the State requests, we would be making the Uniform
Machine Gun Act less onerous (in terms of registration in some instances) than the
Regulated Firearms subheading.   
-26-
in its regulation of machine guns, arguably a more dangerous instrument than regulated
handguns.16  Had the General Assembly wanted to restrict the exchange of firearms in terms
of “loaning” it would have specifically done so in respect to situations such as those extant
17 The Court of Special Appeals came to the opposite conclusion, stating: “To accept
[petitioner’s] proposed construction would mean that all regulated firearms could be freely
lent by an owner to another person without complying with the strictures of regulation, but
machine guns cannot.”  Chow, 163 Md. App. at 506, 881 A.2d at 1156.  The Court of
Special Appeals’ analysis is disingenuous of petitioner’s proposed construction.  All
regulated firearms can be lent (on a temporary basis) by an owner to another person that is
legally permitted to possess firearms subject to complying with the strictures of the
regulations set out in the Regulated Firearms subheading.  Where a statute dealing with the
rights of citizens to possess property, in the context here present, specifically states what is
prohibited it can normally be presumed that what is not specifically prohibited–is permitted.
Maryland follows the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius.  As we stated recently
in Comptroller of Treasury v. Blanton, 390 Md. 528, 890 A.2d 279 (2006):
“. . . Maryland has long accepted the doctrine of  expressio (or inclusio) unius
est exclusio alterius, or the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.
Black's Law Dictionary 1717 (8th ed. 2004).  Baltimore Harbor v. Ayd, 365
Md. 366, 385, 780 A.2d 303, 314 (2001) (holding that ‘[w]e have long applied
the principal of statutory construction, “expressio unius est exclusio alterius”.
. . .’).  Accord Biggus v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 328 Md. 188, 214, 613 A.2d
986, 999 (1992) (stating, ‘[t]his is in keeping with the familiar maxim of
statutory construction that “expressio unius est exclusio alterius”– the
expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.  Maryland has long
recognized this basic rule’).”
Blanton, 390 Md. at 537-38, 890 A.2d at 285.
 Section 445 of the Regulated Firearms subheading enumerates restrictions on
possession of a regulated firearm in subsection (d):
   “(d) Restrictions on possession — In general. — A person may not possess
a regulated firearm if the person:
     (1) Has been convicted of:
     (i) A crime of violence;
     (ii) Any violation classified as a felony in this State; 
     (iii) Any violation classified as a misdemeanor in this State that carries a
statutory penalty of more than 2 years; or
     (iv) Any violation classified as a common law offense where the person
(continued...)
-27-
here, and, as is apparent from the machine gun statute, knew how to do so.17  
17(...continued)
received a term of imprisonment of more than 2 years.
    (2) Is:
   (i) A fugitive from justice;
   (ii) A habitual drunkard;
(iii) Addicted to or a habitual user of any controlled dangerous substances;
  
(iv) Suffering from a mental disorder as defined in § 10-101(f)(2) of the
Health-General Article and has a history of violent behavior against another person
or self, or has been confined for more than 30 consecutive days to a facility as
defined in § 10-101 of the Health-General Article, unless the person possesses a
physician’s certification that the person is capable of possessing a regulated firearm
without undue danger to the person or to others; or
    (v) A respondent against whom a current non ex parte civil protective
orderhas been entered under § 4-506 of the Family Law Article.
(3) Is less than 30 years of age at the time of possession and has been
adjudicated delinquent by a juvenile court for committing:
(i) A crime of violence; 
    (ii) Any violation classified as a felony in this State; or
(iii) Any violation classified as a misdemeanor in this State that carries a
statutory penalty of more than 2 years.”
In addition, as discussed supra, § 445(e) states that “a person who is under 21 years of age
may not possess a regulated firearm” unless that minor meets certain exceptions for a
“temporary transfer” of the regulated firearm – i.e., with the permission of a legal guardian
and under the supervision of an adult legally permitted to possess a regulated firearm or if
the minor is participating in marksmanship training while under the supervision of a
qualified instructor.
None of these prohibitions would include a person in the status of the transferee in
the present case.
-28-
Subsection (d) of § 442 was added in 1996, pursuant to the Maryland Gun Violence
Act of 1996 (“Act”).  It is instructive to look at some of the documentation surrounding the
Act.  In 1996, then-Governor Parris N. Glendening proposed two “Administration” bills,
cross-filed as Senate Bill 215 and House Bill 297.  The Act was “a comprehensive proposal
-29-
aimed at reducing the epidemic of gun violence” in Maryland.  Briefing Statement Before
the Senate Judicial Proceeding Committee and the House Judiciary Committee (1996)
(statement of Bonnie A. Kirkland, Chief Legislative Officer, Governor’s Legislative Office
and Colonel David B. Mitchell, Superintendent, Department of State Police), at 2 (“Briefing
Statement”).  As the Court of Special Appeals points out:
“The Briefing Statement explains: ‘To help accomplish this goal, the Maryland
Gun Violence Act focuses on reducing the availability of handguns and assault
weapons, which are defined in the bill as regulated firearms, to prohibited
persons by diminishing the proliferation of illegal sales and transfers of
firearms.’  Id. ; see also Valentine v. On Target, Inc., 353 Md. 544, 564, 727
A.2d 947 (1999) (Raker, J., concurring) (recognizing that the regulated
firearms provisions are part of an ‘elaborate statutory scheme [] designed to
regulate the transfer of handguns[,]’ which, like the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act passed by Congress in 1968, has the purpose of
‘control[ling] and, if possible, eliminat[ing] gun violence’).”
Chow, 163 Md. App. at 507, 881 A.2d at 1157.  As used in the Briefing Statement its purpose
was to reduce the proliferation of illegal sales and illegal transfers.  The Court of Special
Appeals refers to the Briefing Statement’s analysis, stating: “Section 442(d) in particular has
the purpose of ‘disrupt[ing] established gun trafficking patterns by reducing the supply of
regulated firearms to the illegal market.’  To read § 442(d) as exempting the loan of a
regulated firearm would undermine the laudable purpose of the legislative scheme.”  Chow,
163 Md. App. at 508-09, 881 A.2d at 1158 (citation omitted).  The Briefing Statement,
however, in no way alludes to the imposition of restrictions upon the temporary exchange or
loan of regulated firearms between two adults that are not legally prohibited from possessing
such firearms.
-30-
The particular section from which the quote is taken in the Briefing Statement is more
properly read when placed in its entire context.  The paragraph reads:
“Key features of Senate Bill 215 and House Bill 297
. . . 
II.
Requires sales between individuals to go through the same scrutiny as
initial purchases from a gun dealer: a background check and a seven-
day waiting period.  (Article 27 Sec. 442E).  The required
application/registration of secondary sales coupled with the prohibition
of multiple purchase transactions will disrupt established gun
trafficking patterns by reducing the supply of regulated firearms to the
illegal market.”
Briefing Statement, at 5 [emphasis added].  The purpose of the legislative scheme is to
regulate sales, secondary sales, and to prohibit multiple permanent purchase transactions of
regulated firearms in order to disrupt gun trafficking in the illegal market, not temporary
exchanges or loans of regulated firearms between adults legally permitted to possess
regulated firearms.  
In fact, the Briefing Statement enumerates what the Act proposes to regulate: “Among
other things, the Act proposes to limit the purchase of regulated firearms to one in a thirty-
day period; treat secondary sales of firearms like sales by dealers; prohibit straw purchases;
and require a license to purchase a regulated firearm.”  Briefing Statement, at 2 [emphasis
added].  In addition, the Briefing Statement’s Conclusion states:
“Maryland residents throughout the state favor stricter handgun
regulation.  These citizens, and those testifying in support of this Legislation,
represent a broad array of people throughout the State.  Supporters include
members of the medical, business and religious community.  Supporters also
include the increasing number of victims whose lives have been shattered by
18 Under the State’s interpretation, any temporary exchange or loan of a regulated
firearm would constitute a violation of § 442(d).  For example, if an individual properly
owned two regulated firearms and wanted to take a friend who also was permitted to own
firearms to the shooting range in order to take some target practice, should that person hand
their friend one of the firearms to use during the target practice, they would have violated
§ 442(d).  If a spouse has a properly registered hand gun that is kept in the house for
protection and permits the other spouse to use it to protect herself from a burglar/assailant,
under the State’s interpretation, a crime is committed by both spouses–they become
misdemeanants.  This type of scenario can be repeated in numerous situations in which
regulated firearms may be lawfully used.  It would be unreasonable to require people to fill
out an application, which, as discussed supra, doesn’t even encompass such temporary
exchanges, in triplicate, and then wait 7 days before being able to engage in the lawful use
of a regulated firearm, i.e., wait seven days to confront the burglar in one’s own house. 
-31-
gun violence, as well as their family and friends.  Even many of those
traditionally thought to be opposed to any gun control measures, such as gun
owners and enthusiasts, support this legislation.  They understand that this Act
imposes no restrictions on the use of firearms for lawful purposes such as
hunting and sport shooting, and imposes reasonable regulations aimed at
reducing the gun violence epidemic by reducing the availability of guns to
minors and criminals.”
Briefing Statement, at 6 [emphasis added].  This is exactly what the Act and § 442(d) do if
“transfer” is construed narrowly to mean “a permanent exchange of title or possession.”  If
we, however, adopt the broad meaning that the State requests and the Court of Special
Appeals adopted, then the Act and § 442(d) would be interpreted to impose additional
restrictions upon the use of firearms for lawful purposes.18  Our review of the legislative
intent suggests that this was not the intent of the Legislature.  Furthermore, a look at the
Fiscal Note to House Bill 297 (both the original and revised versions) suggests the scope of
the bill.  The Fiscal Note, in discussing state expenditures, states, “Under current law, only
a transaction involving a licensed gun dealer is subject to a waiting period and approval by
19 If a monetary charge was made, then it would be a rental of a handgun and that is
expressly regulated by the statute.
-32-
the State Police.  This bill extends that requirement to sales between individuals.”  Fiscal
Note, at 2 [emphasis added].
Upon review of the legislative intent involving § 442(d) we find that “transfer,” in the
context of the statute, is properly defined as a “permanent exchange of title or possession”
without consideration.
Pursuant to our determination of the contextual meaning of “transfer” in § 442(d), we
hold that “transfer” does not apply to the temporary exchange or loan of a regulated firearm
between two adult individuals, without consideration passing between them, who are
otherwise permitted to own, obtain, possess, and use a regulated firearm.  We give due regard
to the Circuit Court’s fact finding in the case sub judice that the exchange in question was
temporary in nature, as in a loan.  The Circuit Court stated that it found “that based upon the
facts that it was a temporary transfer.” [Emphasis added].  In addition, “It [was] the
[Circuit]  Court’s assessment of the testimony of the State’s witness that it was in fact a loan
. . . .” [Emphasis added].  The trial judge stated: “I’ll leave it to the higher courts to tell me
that a temporary transfer is not a transfer under the law.  I believe under the facts and
circumstances of this case it is in fact a temporary transfer.” [Emphasis added].
As discussed supra, a temporary gratuitous19 exchange of a regulated firearm between
persons legally permitted to possess firearms is not the type of “transfer” contemplated by
20 Justice Jackson, writing for the Supreme Court of the United States, stated:
“The contention that an injury can amount to a crime only when
inflicted by intention is no provincial or transient notion.  It is as universal and
(continued...)
-33-
the framers of § 442(d).  Petitioner did not violate the provisions of the Regulated Firearms
subheading, in particular § 442(d).
B. The Requisite Mens Rea Required by § 449(f).
Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl. Vol., 2002 Supp.), Art. 27, § 449(f) states:
“(f) Knowing participants in sale, rental, etc. — Except as otherwise provided
in this section, any dealer or person who knowingly participates in the illegal
sale, rental, transfer, purchase, possession, or receipt of a regulated firearm in
violation of this subheading shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon
conviction shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more
than 5 years or both.  Each violation shall be considered a separate offense.”
(Emphasis added.)  
The State argues that, pursuant to § 449(f), a violation of § 442(d) requires only the
general intent to knowingly and intentionally transfer a regulated firearm.  The petitioner
argues that the term “knowingly” in § 449(f) establishes a mens rea equivalent to specific
intent. 
Every crime is generally composed of two aspects; the actus reus (guilty act) and the
mens rea (culpable mental state) accompanying a forbidden act.  Harris v. State, 353 Md.
596, 600, 728 A.2d 180, 182-83 (1999); Garnett v. State, 332 Md. 571, 577-78, 632 A.2d
797, 800 (1993).  “The requirement that an accused have acted with a culpable mental state
is an axiom of criminal jurisprudence.” 20  Garnett, 332 Md. at 578, 632 A.2d at 800.
20(...continued)
persistent in mature systems of law as belief in freedom of the human will and
a consequent ability and duty of the normal individual to choose between
good and evil.
. . .
“Crime as a compound concept, generally constituted only from concurrence
of an evil-meaning mind with an evil-doing hand, was congenial to an intense
individualism and took deep and early root in American soil.”  
Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 250-52, 72 S. Ct. 240, 243-44, 96 L. Ed. 288
(1952) (footnotes omitted); Garnett, 332 Md. at 578, 632 A.2d at 800. 
-34-
Maryland continues to recognize the distinction between general and specific intent crimes.
Harris, 353 Md. at 602, 728 A.2d at 183; Shell v. State, 307 Md. 46, 65, 512 A.2d 358, 366-
67 (1986).  
We discussed specific intent in Harris, stating:
“Specific intent has been defined as not simply the intent to do an
immediate act, but the ‘additional deliberate and conscious purpose or design
of accomplishing a very specific and more remote result.’  Shell, 307 Md. at
63, 512 A.2d at 366 (quoting Smith v. State, 41 Md. App.  277, 305, 398 A.2d
426, 443 (1979)); see also In re Taka C., 331 Md. 80, 84, 626 A.2d 366, 368-
69 (1993); Ford v. State, 330 Md. 682, 702, 625 A.2d 984, 993 (1993); State
v. Gover, 267 Md. 602, 606, 298 A.2d 378, 381 (1973).  In Shell, we quoted
with approval the explanation of specific intent by Judge Moylan, writing for
the Court of Special Appeals in Smith v. State, 41 Md. App. at 305-06, 398
A.2d at 442-43:
A specific intent is not simply the intent to do the immediate act
but embraces the requirement that the mind be conscious of a
more remote purpose or design which shall eventuate from the
doing of the immediate act.  Though assault implies only the
general intent to strike the blow, assault with intent to murder,
rob, rape, or maim requires a fully formed and conscious
purpose that those further consequences shall flow from the
doing of the immediate act.  To break and enter requires a mere
general intent but to commit burglary requires the additional
21  “Although the common law crimes of assault with intent to murder, rob, rape or
maim, and burglary have been changed by statute, see Art. 27, §§ 12-12A-7 and Art. 27, §§
28-35B, the analysis remains unchanged. . . .”  Harris, 353 Md. at 604 n.2, 728 A.2d at 183
n.2.     
-35-
specific intent of committing a felony after the entry has been
made.  A trespassory taking requires a mere general intent but
larceny (or robbery) requires the specific animus furandi or
deliberate purpose of depriving the owner permanently of the
stolen goods.  This is why even voluntary intoxication may
negate a specific intent though it will not negate a mere general
intent.
* * * * * * * *
The larger class ‘specific intent’ includes such other members
as 1) assault with intent to murder, 2) assault with intent to rape,
3) assault with intent to rob, 4) assault with intent to maim, 5)
burglary, 
6) 
larceny, 
7) 
robbery 
and  
8) 
the
specific-intent-to-inflict-grievous-bodily-harm 
variety 
of
murder.[21]  Each of these requires not simply the general intent
to do the immediate act with no particular, clear or
undifferentiated end in mind, but the additional deliberate and
conscious purpose or design of accomplishing a very specific
and more remote result.   
307 Md. at 62-63, 512 A.2d at 366 (emphasis added).  Chief Justice Traynor,
writing for the Supreme Court of California, explained the difference between
specific intent and general intent crimes:
When the definition of a crime consists of only the description
of a particular act, without reference to intent to do a further act
or achieve a future consequence, we ask whether the defendant
intended to do the proscribed act.  This intention is deemed to be
a general criminal intent.  When the definition refers to
defendant’s intent to do some further act or achieve some
additional consequence, the crime is deemed to be one of
specific intent.  
People v. Hood, 1 Cal. 3d 444, 82 Cal. Rptr. 618, 462 P.2d 370, 378 (1969).”
Harris, 353 Md. at 603-04, 728 A.2d at 183-84.
The Court of Special Appeals found that “it is plain that, in the context of the phrase
-36-
‘knowingly participates in the violation’ of § 442(d), ‘knowingly’ simply means that it must
be shown that the defendant had knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.”  Chow,
163 Md. App. at 511, 881 A.2d at 1159; see Wayne R. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law
§ 5.2(b) (2d ed. 2003) (for the proposition that such meaning is generally attributed to
“knowingly” when used in this context in criminal statutes).  
In support of that conclusion, the court first looked to definitions of “knowingly”
elsewhere in the Maryland Code, specifically in the Criminal Law Article:
“This meaning of ‘knowingly,’ moreover, comports with that given the same
term elsewhere in the Criminal Law Article of the Maryland Code.  See, e.g.,
Md. Code (2002), § 11-201(c) of the Criminal Law Article (‘CL’) (defining
‘knowingly’ as meaning ‘having knowledge of the character and content of the
matter’); CL § 7-102(b) (defining knowing conduct in the theft statute, and
stating that ‘[a] person acts “knowingly[,]”’ inter alia, ‘with respect to conduct
or a circumstance as described by a statute that defines a crime, when the
person is aware of the conduct or that the circumstance exists . . . .’).”
Chow, 163 Md. App. at 511, 881 A.2d at 1159.  The court then referred to two Supreme
Court cases: Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184, 118 S. Ct. 1939, 141 L. Ed. 2d 197 (1998)
and United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 100 S. Ct. 624, 62 L. Ed. 2d 575 (1980), relying
heavily on the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Bryan.  
 As discussed by the Court of Special Appeals, in its opinion below, in Bryan:
“the Court was presented with the task of construing what is meant by the term
‘willfully,’ in the section that sets forth the penalty for violating certain
provisions of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act.  Id. at 186-89[, 118 S. Ct.
at 1942-44, 141 L. Ed. 2d at 197].  See generally 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(D).
That act, incidentally, was enacted in part ‘to protect law-abiding citizens with
respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms for lawful purposes.’
Bryan, 524 U.S. at 187[, 118 S. Ct. at 1943, 141 L. Ed. 2d at 197].  By the act,
-37-
Congress amended certain provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 to ‘add a scienter requirement as a condition to the
imposition of penalties for most of the unlawful acts defined in § 922.’  Id. at
187-88[, 118 S. Ct. at 1943, 141 L. Ed. 2d at 197].  Congress enacted, inter
alia, § 924(a)(1), which at the time provided:
Except as otherwise provided in this subsection,
subsection (b), (c), or (f) of this section, or in section 929,
whoever–
(A) knowingly makes any false statement
or representation with respect to the information
required by this chapter to be kept in the records
of a person licensed under this chapter or in
applying for any license or exemption or relief
from disability under the provisions of this
chapter;
(B) knowingly violates subsection (a)(4),
(f), (k), (r), (v), or (w) of section 922;
(C) knowingly imports or brings into the
United States or any possession thereof any
firearm or ammunition in violation of section
922(l); or
(D) willfully violates any other provision of
this chapter,
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than five
years, or both.
Bryan, 524 U.S. at 187, 188-89 n.6[, 118 S. Ct. at 1942-44 n.6, 141 L. Ed. 2d
at 197] (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)) (emphasis added).”
Chow, 163 Md. App. at 511-12, 881 A.2d at 1159-60.  
 The Bryan Court held that “in order to establish a ‘willful’ violation of a statute, ‘the
Government must prove that the defendant acted with knowledge that his conduct was
unlawful.’” 524 U.S. at 191-92, 118 S. Ct. at 1945, 141 L. Ed. 2d 197(quoting Ratzlaf v,
United States, 510 U.S. 135, 137, 114 S. Ct. 655, 657, 126 L. Ed. 2d 615 (1994)).  Bryan
argued that “willfully” when construed in contrast to “knowingly,” as the terms are used
22 “Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 105 S. Ct. 2084, 85 L. Ed. 2d 434 (1985),
was such a case.  We there concluded that both the term ‘knowing’ in 7 U.S.C. § 2024(c)
(continued...)
-38-
within 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1), required a more particularized showing than simply showing
that he acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful.  Id.  at 192, 118 S. Ct. at 1945,
141 L. Ed. 2d 197.  
The Court found this argument to be unpersuasive because in that particular context
“the term ‘knowingly’ does not necessarily have any reference to a culpable state of mind or
to knowledge of the law.  As Justice Jackson correctly observed, ‘the knowledge requisite
to knowing violation of a statute is factual knowledge as distinguished from knowledge of
the law.’” Bryan, 524 U.S. at 192, 118 S. Ct. at 1945, 141 L. Ed. 2d 197 (footnote omitted)
(quoting Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States, 342 U.S. 337, 345, 72 S. Ct. 329, 333, 96
L. Ed. 367 (1952) (Jackson, J., dissenting)); see also Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600,
602, 114 S. Ct. 1793, 1795, 128 L. Ed. 2d 608 (1994) (holding that a charge that the
defendant’s possession of an unregistered machinegun was unlawful required proof “that he
knew the weapon he possessed had the characteristics that brought it within the statutory
definition of a machinegun”); United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 408, 100 S. Ct. 624, 634,
62 L. Ed. 2d 575 (1980) (holding that the prosecution fulfills its burden of proving a knowing
violation of the escape statute “if it demonstrates that an escapee knew his actions would
result in his leaving physical confinement without permission”).  The Court, however,
concluded: “Thus, unless the text of the statute dictates a different result,[22] the term
22(...continued)
and the term ‘knowingly’ in § 2024(b)(1) literally referred to knowledge of the law as well
as knowledge of the relevant facts.  See id., at 428-430, 105 S. Ct., at 2089-2091.”  Bryan,
524 U.S. at 193 n.15, 118 S. Ct. at 1946 n.15, 141 L. Ed. 2d 197.
-39-
‘knowingly’ merely requires proof of knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.”
Bryan, 524 U.S. at 193, 118 S. Ct. at 1946, 141 L. Ed. 2d 197 (emphasis added).
In  Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 420, 105 S. Ct. 2084, 2085, 85 L. Ed. 2d
434 (1985), the Court reviewed a “statute governing food stamp fraud [which] provide[d]
that ‘whoever knowingly uses, transfers, acquires, alters, or possesses coupons or
authorization cards in any manner not authorized by [the statute] or the regulations’ is subject
to a fine and imprisonment.”  (Emphasis added).  The statute here states “knowingly
participates in the illegal sale . . . in violation of this subheading . . . .”  § 449(f).  In Liparota
the Court addressed whether a violation of the statute required that the defendant knew he
was acting in a manner not authorized by the statute.  Id. at 420-21, 105 S. Ct. at 2085-86,
85 L. Ed. 2d 434.  The Court found: “[a]bsent indication of contrary purpose in the language
or legislative history of the statute, we believe that [the statute] requires a showing that the
defendant knew his conduct to be unauthorized by statute or regulations.”  Id. at 425, 105 S.
Ct. at 2088, 85 L. Ed. 2d 434 (footnote omitted).
We hold that, similarly to Liparota, the text of the statute in the case sub judice, § 449,
dictates a different result from that of Bryan.  Section 449, in its entirety, states:
23 The use of the word “knowingly” in this subsection is identical to the meaning
attached to the word in the context of Liparota.
-40-
“§ 449.  Penalties.
     (a) Penalties generally. — Any person who violates any of the provisions
of § 445(c) of this subheading is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction
shall be fined not more that $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than 1 year or
both.
    (b) False information or material misstatement on application. — Any
person who knowingly gives any false information or makes any material
misstatement in an application to purchase a regulated firearm or an
application for a regulated firearms dealer’s license shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor and upon conviction be fined not more than $5,000 or
imprisoned for not more than 3 years, or both.
     (c) Violation of 30-day purchase period. — Any person who violates any
of the provisions of § 442A of this subheading is guilty of a misdemeanor and
shall upon conviction be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned for not
more than 3 years or both.
     (d) Knowing participants in straw purchase or trafficking. — Any person
or dealer who is a knowing participant in a straw purchase of a regulated
firearm to a prohibited person or to a minor, or transports regulated firearms
into this State for the purpose of illegal sale or trafficking of a regulated
firearm shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction be fined not
more than $25,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.  Each
violation shall be considered a separate offense.
     (e) Illegal possession of firearm with certain previous convictions. — A
person who was previously convicted of a crime of violence as defined in §
441(e) of this article or convicted of a violation of §§ 5-602 through 5-609 or
§§ 5-612 through 5-614 of the Criminal Law Article, and who is in illegal
possession of a firearm as defined in § 445(d)(1)(i) and (ii) of this article, is
guilty of a felony and upon conviction shall be imprisoned for not less than 5
years, no part of which may be suspended and the person may not be eligible
for parole.  Each violation shall be considered a separate offense. 
    (f) Knowing participants in sale, rental, etc. — Except as otherwise
provided in this section, any dealer or person who knowingly[23] participates in
the illegal sale, rental, transfer, purchase, possession, or receipt of a regulated
firearm in violation of this subheading shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and
upon conviction shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not
-41-
more than 5 years, or both.  Each violation shall be considered a separate
offense.”  (Emphasis added.)
Subsections (a), (c) and (e) of § 449 do not specify any type of mens rea in enumerating the
penalties for violations of § 445(c), § 442A and § 445(d)(1)(i) and (ii).  In contrast,
subsections (b), (d) and (f) of § 449 specifically include the terms “knowingly” or
“knowing.”  The sale of handguns is not itself illegal.  It is the manner of the sale or rental,
etc., that may make it illegal.  The phrase used here “knowingly participates in the illegal sale
. . .” contemplates that the actor must know that he or she is committing an “illegal sale.”  We
find this to be indicative of a mens rea requirement of specific intent for violations of §
449(f).  
As commented upon above, § 449 is further distinguishable from the statute addressed
in Bryan.  There are two types of contrasting provisions in § 449; subsections with no
specific mens rea mentioned and those subsections with “knowingly” included in the
language.  The subsections that include “knowingly,” in particular § 449(f), provide a greater
mens rea requirement than the subsections that do not mention mens rea.  While the Supreme
Court may have concluded in Bryan that, in some instances, “the term ‘knowingly’ does not
necessarily have any reference to a culpable state of mind or to knowledge of the law,” our
interpretation of § 449(f) comports more with the Supreme Court’s finding in Liparota.
Though the Bryan Court decision is more recent than Liparota, it specifically provided an
exception for such circumstances, specifically not overruling Liparota’s holding.    Bryan,
524 U.S. at 193 n.15, 118 S. Ct. at 1946 n.15, 141 L. Ed. 2d 197 (stating that “unless the text
-42-
of the statute dictates a different result” and footnoting Liparota as an example).  Therefore,
we find that a violation of § 442(d) and imposition of a penalty under § 449(f) requires that
one have a specific intent and requires that a defendant “knows” that the sale, rental, transfer,
purchase, possession, or receipt of a regulated firearm of which they are a participant in is
in a manner that is illegal and not a legal sale.  
Even if it were the case that the mens rea element of § 449(f), as indicated by
“knowingly,” could be construed to be ambiguous, pursuant to the rule of lenity, the statute
must normally be construed in favor of the defendant.  In Melton v. State, 379 Md. 471, 842
A.2d 743 (2004), we stated:
“In discussing what the rule of lenity requires . . . , this Court has stated
that:
‘an enhanced penalty statute, is highly penal and must be strictly
construed so that the defendant is only subject to punishment
contemplated by the statute.  When doubt exists regarding the
punishment imposed by a statute, the rule of lenity instructs that
a court
“not interpret a . . . criminal statute so as to
increase the penalty that it places on an individual
when such an interpretation can be based on no
more than a guess as to what [the legislature]
intended.”’
Melgar v. State, 355 Md. 339, 347, 734 A.2d 712, 716-17 (1999) (quoting
White v. State, 318 Md. 740, 744, 569 A.2d 1271, 1273 (1990)) (citations
omitted).  See also Webster v. State, 359 Md. 465, 481, 754 A.2d 1004, 1012
(2000) (stating that ‘ambiguity in a criminal penal statute, in accordance with
the rule of lenity, ordinarily is to be construed against the State and in favor of
the defendant’); McGrath v. State, 356 Md. 20, 25, 736 A.2d 1067, 1069
(1999).”
Melton, 379 Md. at 489, 842 A.2d at 753.  A person in violation of § 449(f) is guilty of a
-43-
misdemeanor and upon conviction can be fined up to $10,000 or imprisoned for up to 5
years, or both.  If there is any ambiguity in respect to the mens rea element of the statute, in
accordance with the rule of lenity, the statute must be construed against the State and in favor
of the defendant. 
IV. Conclusion
We find that the temporary gratuitous exchange or loan of a regulated handgun
between two adult individuals, who are otherwise permitted to own and obtain a regulated
handgun, does not constitute an illegal “transfer” of a firearm in violation of Maryland Code
(1957, 1996 Repl. Vol., 2002 Supp.), Art. 27, § 442, in particular, subsection (d).  The plain
language of § 442(d), when construed in harmony with the rest of the subheading, reveals
that “transfer” can only refer to a permanent exchange of title or possession and does not
include gratuitous temporary exchanges or loans.  Legislative history further supports our
interpretation.  We also conclude that the inclusion of the term “knowingly” in § 449(f)
creates a specific intent mens rea for violations of that subsection.  Thus, in order to be in
violation of § 449(f), a person must know that the activity they are engaging in is illegal.
This ruling does not place any undue burden on the State.  “Rather, as in any other criminal
prosecution requiring mens rea, the [State] may prove by reference to facts and
circumstances surrounding the case that [the defendant] knew that his conduct was
unauthorized or illegal.”  Liparota, 471 U.S. at 434, 105 S. Ct. at 2092-93, 85 L. Ed. 2d 434
(footnote omitted).  
-44-
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL
APPEALS REVERSED. COSTS IN THIS
COURT AND IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL
APPEALS 
TO 
BE 
PAID 
BY 
THE
RESPONDENT.
In the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County
Case No. CT-03-0929X
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
No. 99
September Term, 2005
______________________________________
TODD LIN CHOW
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND
______________________________________
Bell, C.J.
Raker
Wilner
Cathell
Harrell
Battaglia
Greene,
   JJ.
______________________________________
Dissenting Opinion by Wilner, J.,
 which Raker and Battaglia, JJ., join.
______________________________________
Filed:     July 27, 2006
With respect, I dissent from the result reached by the Court because, on the facts of
this case, I believe that there was a transfer of the gun from Chow to Nguyen in clear
violation of what is now § 5-124 of the Public Safety Article (PS).  I would therefore
affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals. 
The Court defines the word “transfer” as requiring a permanent exchange of title
or possession of the firearm, but that would render the term essentially meaningless, and
we do not read statutes, especially regulatory statutes of this kind, to render terms
deliberately used by the Legislature meaningless.  The Court goes through an analysis of
dictionary definitions in an effort to determine what “transfer” means.  Such definitions
are often helpful, because words used in a statute are ordinarily given their plain meaning,
but the ultimate issue is not how the lexicographers define the word but what the
Legislature intended to achieve.  
The provision in question was added to the law as part of what the Legislature
called the Maryland Gun Violence Act of 1996, which was a comprehensive law designed
to place additional limits on the trafficking in regulated firearms.  Prior to that law, a
dealer, who was then defined as a person engaged in the business of “selling” or
“repairing” firearms, was not permitted to “sell or transfer” a regulated firearm until
seven days had elapsed from the time an application to “purchase or transfer” the weapon
was filed by the prospective “purchaser or transferee” with the Secretary of State Police. 
See former Md. Code, art. 27, §§ 441, 442 (1987 Repl. Vol. and 1995 Supp.).
The purpose of the waiting period was, and remains, to give the Secretary an
-47-
opportunity to make an investigation and determine whether the prospective transferee is
eligible to own and possess the weapon.  See former § 442; current PS §§ 5-121, 5-122. 
Although the former law spoke in terms of the dealer not selling or transferring the
firearm until the waiting period expires, (and the current law speaks in terms of the dealer
not selling, renting, or transferring the firearm until that period has expired), both laws
obviously were intended to preclude any actual delivery of the firearm until that time.  See
current PS § 5-123(b), (c), and (d), requiring the dealer to “complete” the sale, rental, or
transfer within 90 days after notice that the application was not disapproved and to notify
the Secretary of the completed transaction within seven days after “delivery” of the
firearm; also former § 442(j).  Read in a sensible way, the law prohibited a dealer from
delivering a regulated firearm to another person, pursuant to a sale or transfer agreement
(and currently a rental agreement as well), until the expiration of the waiting period.
In limiting the waiting period to transactions with licensed dealers, the former law
contained an obvious and enormous loophole.  Totally unregulated were secondary
transactions, in which any person, other than a dealer, who happened to be in possession
of a regulated firearm could transfer it to someone else, including a person not legally
eligible to own or possess the weapon.  The 1996 law clearly was intended to close that
loophole.  Not only did the 1996 law (current PS § 5-123) preclude dealers from renting
firearms prior to the expiration of the waiting period but, more significantly, in what is
now PS § 5-124, captioned “Secondary Transactions,”it applied the same seven-day
-48-
waiting period applicable to dealers to sales, rentals, and transfers by persons who are not
dealers.  That was certainly a major and important extension of the effort to control the
trafficking in these weapons.  
The terms “sell” and “rent” have a fairly clear and restrictive meaning.  The term
“transfer” is obviously a broader term, meaning something beyond a sale or rental;
otherwise, there would have been no reason for the General Assembly to place and leave
it in the statute.  The Court seems to accept that “transfer” would include a gift, at least a
permanent gift.  The real question is whether it includes a loan.  Keeping in mind that the
prohibition against transferring a firearm until expiration of the waiting period applies to
both dealers and non-dealers, I cannot imagine that the Legislature, in its effort to close a
loophole, intended to open one even larger than the one it closed, by allowing both
dealers and non-dealers to lend regulated firearms to persons without complying with the
seven-day waiting period, but that is precisely what the Court seems to be saying.  Does
the Court really mean to hold that a dealer and a non-dealer, through the fiction of a loan,
can lawfully deliver possession and control of a regulated firearm to a person without
regard to the waiting period?  If so, the Court will have absolutely eviscerated the law, at
least with respect to secondary transfers, and to what end – for what purpose?
I would hold that “transfer” includes a loan – at least one in which possession and
control of the firearm is relinquished for anything more than a momentary period.  Like
all statutory language, the word should be given a reasonable meaning.  I agree with the
-49-
Court that the Legislature did not intend the word “transfer” to prohibit a firearm owner
from allowing a prospective purchaser, lessee, or transferee to test fire the weapon before
deciding whether to purchase, rent, or otherwise acquire possession or control of it, any
more than it would prevent the owner from allowing the prospective customer to hold and
examine the weapon in the owner’s presence.  Nor would it prohibit an owner from
allowing another competent person, at a firing range, to shoot the weapon in the presence
of the owner.  Those kinds of circumstances do not constitute a transfer of the weapon; to
give that kind of expansive meaning to the term would be wholly unreasonable and would
extend the term well beyond what could possibly have been intended.  
But that is not what occurred in this case.  If the original objective of the parties
had been implemented – test firing of the weapon at a range to see if Nguyen was truly
interested in buying it – there would have been no violation of the statute.  When Chow
allowed Nguyen to retain the gun in his exclusive possession and control for some
indefinite time, however, there was a transfer – an unlawful one.
Judge Raker and Judge Battaglia have authorized me to state that they join in this
dissent.