Maryland SB1 - any one caught violating?

[Twist]

It's been a couple of months now since the new round of legislative idiocy (otherwise known as SB1) has gone in to effect. I'm not hyper focused on local news but I haven't heard of anyone being caught violating the law by carrying concealed somewhere you're not supposed to under the new law. I like to think we're all just being really good at carrying concealed but I'm wondering if a lot of people that were CC are now not to be in compliance.

I keep waiting to hear of someone that had to defend themselves from a deadly assault in an exclusion zone to see how it'll be handled.

 

[Afrikeber]

Yea, same. If it did happen it was not caught in the news. There was that one incident where someone defended themselves from a carjacker in Takoma Park which resulted in discharge of his firearm but never heard more on that.

 

[dblas]

Yea, same. If it did happen it was not caught in the newd. There was that one incident where someone defended themselves from a carjacker in Takoma Park which resulted in discharge of his firearm but never heard more on that.

And that was before SB1 went into effect.

 

[outrider58]

It's been a couple of months now since the new round of legislative idiocy (otherwise known as SB1) has gone in to effect. I'm not hyper focused on local news but I haven't heard of anyone being caught violating the law by carrying concealed somewhere you're not supposed to under the new law. I like to think we're all just being really good at carrying concealed but I'm wondering if a lot of people that were CC are now not to be in compliance.

I keep waiting to hear of someone that had to defend themselves from a deadly assault in an exclusion zone to see how it'll be handled.

That's probably the only way you will ever hear of someone "caught" carrying in a no-no zone.

 

[Magerko]

My primary concern with SB1 was being able to carry in public, like going to a store with the wife, and also being able to carry where alcohol is served, as every restaurant we go to serves alcohol. So those 2 being struck down covered the vast majority of the places I carry. I prefer to carry everywhere I go, so if carrying is specifically prohibited at a specific location, I just won't go there, but I do have a vehicle lockbox just in case.

Haven't heard anything about anyone being caught carrying where they're not supposed to carry, but remember, we're in the Fall/Winter colder season, so people are starting to wear flannel shirts, hoodies, jackets, coats, etc., making it easier to conceal.

Let's see what happens in the Spring/Summer when people revert back to wearing T-Shirts and shorts. Harder to conceal with less clothing, so I would think chances would be higher that someone might get caught.

 

[dblas]

There have been plenty of people caught carrying without a permit, and/or carrying where they weren't suppose to be, and some have made the news, but all have been released on bail pending trial (some numerous times).
None of them have been lawfully carrying, but none of them have been charged with the new law. It's reserved for those carrying on a permit that slip up.

 

[swinokur]

And inadvertent exposing of a firearm is not in and of itself a crime

 

[dblas]

And inadvertent exposing of a firearm is not in and of itself a crime

And THAT is actually spelled out in State Statute.

 

[thomfantomas]

Conceal means conceal I haven't changed any fking habit/ritual of mine.

 

[jokie]

Isn’t there supposed to be an injunction???

 

[Growler215]

I remember a discussion awhile back about MoCo intentionally not enforcing 21-22E. I think the rationale put forth was to try to deny anyone standing to sue (looks like that didn't work too well. . .).
I could see the state AG thinking along the same lines. It's not like he and his ilk really give a rat's ass what the law says, as long as they get credit from Mad Mommies and the like for trying. Certainly they've displayed little interest is putting real criminals behind bars.

 

[dblas]

Isn’t there supposed to be an injunction???

On parts of it, yes, but not the entire thing.

 

[dblas]

I remember a discussion awhile back about MoCo intentionally not enforcing 21-22E. I think the rationale put forth was to try to deny anyone standing to sue (looks like that didn't work too well. . .).
I could see the state AG thinking along the same lines. It's not like he and his ilk really give a rat's ass what the law says, as long as they get credit from Mad Mommies and the like for trying. Certainly they've displayed little interest is putting real criminals behind bars.

It wouldn't be the MDAG that makes that decision it would be up to each State's Attorney in each County on wether or not they charge and enforce the law with regards to SB-1.

 

[jokie]

On parts of it, yes, but not the entire thing.

Right, so carrying in public and going to stores should be ok.

 

[teratos]

Right, so carrying in public and going to stores should be ok.

Well…open carry is illegal and signs carry no force of law.

 

[jokie]

Well…open carry is illegal and signs carry no force of law.

So that’s also a reason why we are not hearing cases of people getting caught violating sb1. I’m just reacting to some posts above. There might be some people not aware about the injunction order.

 

[babalou]

Conceal means conceal I haven't changed any fking habit/ritual of mine.

thank you

 

[babalou]

Isn’t there supposed to be an injunction???

injunction junction what's your function?

 

[rbird7282]

So that’s also a reason why we are not hearing cases of people getting caught violating sb1. I’m just reacting to some posts above. There might be some people not aware about the injunction order.

I’m sure there’s plenty of gun owners who aren’t even aware of SB1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[swinokur]

I’d bet there are plenty of cops who aren’t aware either