New bill proposed in AA County

[John from MD]

On October 2, 2023, the Anne Arundel Council will consider a Bill which includes the following:


"A person may not discharge a firearm within [[100]] 300 yards of a structure or camp occupied by human beings or

commonly used by human beings without the written permission of the owner, occupant, or lessee of the structure or camp."





Please contact your County Council member to voice your opposition and, if you can, show up for the hearing on the 2nd of October



Don't know who your council member is, find out with this link:

___________________________________________

_____________________________________
EXPLANATION: CAPITALS indicate new matter added to existing law.
[[Brackets]] indicate matter deleted from existing law.
Captions and taglines in bold in this bill are catchwords and are not law.
COUNTY COUNCIL OF ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND
Legislative Session 2023, Legislative Day No. 15
Bill No. 72-23
Introduced by Ms. Rodvien, Ms. Pickard, and Ms. Hummer
By the County Council, September 5, 2023
________________________________________________________________________
Introduced and first read on September 5, 2023
Public Hearing set for October 2, 2023
Bill Expires on December 9, 2023
By Order: Laura Corby, Administrative Officer
________________________________________________________________________
A BILL ENTITLED
1 AN ORDINANCE concerning: Crimes, Civil Offenses, and Fines – Weapons – Discharge
2 of Firearms
3
4 FOR the purpose of amending a prohibition on the discharge of firearms to increase the
5 distance a person must be from human occupied or used structures or camps by a certain
6 yardage; establishing exceptions to the prohibition; and generally relating to crimes,
7 civil offenses, and fines.
8
9 BY repealing and reenacting, with amendments: § 9-1-601(c)
10 Anne Arundel County Code (2005, as amended)
11
12 SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the County Council of Anne Arundel County, Maryland,
13 That Section(s) of the Anne Arundel County Code (2005, as amended) read as follows:
14
15 ARTICLE 9. CRIMES, CIVIL OFFENSES, AND FINES
16
17 TITLE 1. CRIMES
18
19 9-1-601. Possession or discharge of firearms.
20
21 (c) Prohibition; exceptions.
22
23 (1) [[A]] EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH (2), A person may not discharge a
24 firearm within [[100]] 300 yards of a structure or camp occupied by human beings or
25 commonly used by human beings without the written permission of the owner, occupant,
26 or lessee of the structure or camp.
PROPOSED Courtesy of 2A Maryland
Bill No. 72-23
Page No. 2
1 (2) THIS SUBSECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO THE DISCHARGE OF A FIREARM:
2
3 (I) AT AN INDOOR OR OUTDOOR FIRING RANGE OPERATED BY A LAW
4 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OR OPERATED PURSUANT TO A CERTIFICATE OF USE ISSUED BY
5 THE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND ZONING; OR
6
7 (II) IN ACCORDANCE WITH A DEER MANAGEMENT PERMIT ISSUED BY THE
8 MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES.
9
10 SECTION 2. And be it further enacted, That this Ordinance shall take effect 45 days
11 from the date it becomes law.

County Council Meeting Participation | Anne Arundel County Government

www.aacounty.org

Bill hearing is scheduled for October 2, 2023.
Courtesy of 2A Maryland
[[ AAFG Officers and Chairs ]]

*** NOTE: Replies to this email will go DIRECTLY TO THE SENDER of the original message. ***


--
[[ AAFG Officers and Chairs ]]
committees@lists.aafg.org
http://lists.aafg.org/listinfo.cgi/committees-aafg.org

 

[Steel Hunter]

How does this compare to § 9-1-601. which already specifies 100 yards?

 

[John from MD]

How does this compare to § 9-1-601. which already specifies 100 yards?

They want to up it to 300 yards.

 

[John from MD]

They want to up it to 300 yards.

It also changes the wording from this which only applies to "property of another".

"A person may not possess or discharge a firearm on the property of another unless, at the time of the possession or discharge of the firearm, the person has the express written permission of the owner, occupant, or lessee of the property on which the firearm is possessed or discharged."

This new version can keep you from shooting wherever squatters decide to move in a build a "structure".

"A person may not discharge a firearm within [[100]] 300 yards of a structure or camp occupied by human beings or commonly used by human beings without the written permission of the owner, occupant, or lessee of the structure or camp."

 

[Slackdaddy]

Very "Odd" that "Camp" was added.
I believe it is by design, to allow someone to throw a tent up 5 feet from your property line,
If this was done on 2 sides,, it would shut down hunting on a majority of properties in AA.

 

[4g64loser]

Very "Odd" that "Camp" was added.
I believe it is by design, to allow someone to throw a tent up 5 feet from your property line,
If this was done on 2 sides,, it would shut down hunting on a majority of properties in AA.

Exactly the point

 

[Norton]

Very "Odd" that "Camp" was added.
I believe it is by design, to allow someone to throw a tent up 5 feet from your property line,
If this was done on 2 sides,, it would shut down hunting on a majority of properties in AA.

It's a feature, not a bug.

 

[Slackdaddy]

Imagine you had a little hunting property,, about 20 acres,, The neighbors on each side had small farms of ~ 100 acres. You are retired and hunt most days,, they don't want you shooting "their" deer or their Lease holders deer,,, They throw up a tent on the adjoining propert line,, you can no longer hunt your propert.

 

[pleasant1911]

It also changes the wording from this which only applies to "property of another".

"A person may not possess or discharge a firearm on the property of another unless, at the time of the possession or discharge of the firearm, the person has the express written permission of the owner, occupant, or lessee of the property on which the firearm is possessed or discharged."

This new version can keep you from shooting wherever squatters decide to move in a build a "structure".

"A person may not discharge a firearm within [[100]] 300 yards of a structure or camp occupied by human beings or commonly used by human beings without the written permission of the owner, occupant, or lessee of the structure or camp."

Wouldn’t the shooter of tge squatter be the owner of the building or property. Why would anyone shot a squatter if it had nothing to do with you?

 

[AssMan]

Wouldn’t the shooter of tge squatter be the owner of the building or property. Why would anyone shot a squatter if it had nothing to do with you?

What happens when the owner of the property and the squatter (aka occupant) are at odds?

 

[pleasant1911]

What happens when the owner of the property and the squatter (aka occupant) are at odds?

Not understanding your question? If you are the owner, and it comes down to his/ her first kill, then it’s ok. But if a person wants to confront and shoot the squatter that has nothing to do with the shooter, might be illegal.

Coming off of the PGPD thread, if the cops or the state doesn’t see you physically shot someone, then you are good to go.

 

[AssMan]

Not understanding your question? If you are the owner, and it comes down to his/ her first kill, then it’s ok. But if a person wants to confront and shoot the squatter that has nothing to do with the shooter, might be illegal.

Coming off of the PGPD thread, if the cops or the state doesn’t see you physically shot someone, then you are good to go.

I was speaking in general terms in reference to the language used in the statute. They include the term "camp," which was obviously intentional, and the terms "owner" and "occupant." If an owner of the property wants to shoot and the occupant of a camp on that property objects, is there a conflict? It may just be that if one or the other provides written permission, that is good enough. It's not clear.

 

[John from MD]

I was speaking in general terms in reference to the language used in the statute. They include the term "camp," which was obviously intentional, and the terms "owner" and "occupant." If an owner of the property wants to shoot and the occupant of a camp on that property objects, is there a conflict? It may just be that if one or the other provides written permission, that is good enough. It's not clear.

It's pretty clear that, if you have a squatter, it has to give you written permission to shoot on the property.

(1) [[A]] EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH (2), A person may not discharge a
firearm within [[100]] 300 yards of a structure or camp occupied by human beings or commonly used by human beings without the written permission of the owner, occupant, or lessee of the structure or camp.

 

[AssMan]

It's pretty clear that, if you have a squatter, it has to give you written permission to shoot on the property.

(1) [[A]] EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH (2), A person may not discharge a
firearm within [[100]] 300 yards of a structure or camp occupied by human beings or commonly used by human beings without the written permission of the owner, occupant, or lessee of the structure or camp.

Not trying to overthink this, but if the owner gives permission and the squatter doesn't, what here prevents me from shooting on the property? I've satisfied the requirement since I have the owner's permission. This says "or" not "and."

 

[teratos]

It's pretty clear that, if you have a squatter, it has to give you written permission to shoot on the property.

(1) [[A]] EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH (2), A person may not discharge a
firearm within [[100]] 300 yards of a structure or camp occupied by human beings or commonly used by human beings without the written permission of the owner, occupant, or lessee of the structure or camp.

That’s insane.

 

[John from MD]

Not trying to overthink this, but if the owner gives permission and the squatter doesn't, what here prevents me from shooting on the property? I've satisfied the requirement since I have the owner's permission. This says "or" not "and."

I'm betting they mean the camp is separate from your land. That's why I called them squatters. This is exactly what is going on in Californicate with the homeless. According to the Demonrats, "they have rights." More than you actually.

 

[Blaster229]

Great news for AAFG! lol

 

[John from MD]

Great news for AAFG! lol

We are discussing action on that right now.

 

[mpollan1]

That’s insane.

That's liberalitis

 

[ItsGarand]