SB1 (2023) - Criminal Law - Wearing, Carrying, or Transporting Firearms - Restrictions (Gun Safety Act of 2023)

[AKbythebay]

Here it is

I knew the only way the ACLU would EVER come out against this is if they somehow made it a race issue. I'm happy for the support however we can get it, but I can't help feeling like if this only affected white folks the ACLU would be happy to sit on the sidelines:


"Only searching the person would produce evidence of gun possession, which is the exact form of police interaction that we seek to limit, especially for Black Marylanders who often face the burden of inconsistent enforcement by being the most frequent targets of enforcement."

"Often criminal penalties are administrated in a race negative manner, where Black Marylanders are punished more harshly for violations of law than their white peers. While police harassment and disparities in sentencing are not the intent of this bill, it is often the unintended reality for Black people across Maryland when criminal penalties are expanded."

 

[CrueChief]

So there won't be G&S for getting a permit, just G&S for going about in public armed? That sure is an interested position i guess.

 

[swinokur]

No there won’t be G&S for carry. You simply will not be able to carry in a sensitive place, which is defined in the bill as literally everywhere

 

[RFBfromDE]

While police harassment and disparities in sentencing are not the intent of this bill, it is often the unintended reality for Black people across Maryland when criminal penalties are expanded."

This is a completely true and rational statement.

Historically oppressed persons should be more pro-2A than me.

Many are seeing the light!

 

[AKbythebay]

This is a completely true and rational statement.

Historically oppressed persons should be more pro-2A than me.

Many are seeing the light!

I believe disparities in sentencing have a lot more to do with income and lack of qualified representation than they have to do with race, but since income varries significantly by race it would make sense that blacks would be more affected by it than whites.

 

[Jaybeez]

I knew the only way the ACLU would EVER come out against this is if they somehow made it a race issue. I'm happy for the support however we can get it, but I can't help feeling like if this only affected white folks the ACLU would be happy to sit on the sidelines:


"Only searching the person would produce evidence of gun possession, which is the exact form of police interaction that we seek to limit, especially for Black Marylanders who often face the burden of inconsistent enforcement by being the most frequent targets of enforcement."

"Often criminal penalties are administrated in a race negative manner, where Black Marylanders are punished more harshly for violations of law than their white peers. While police harassment and disparities in sentencing are not the intent of this bill, it is often the unintended reality for Black people across Maryland when criminal penalties are expanded."

MD criminal 4-203 wear and carry only exists to justify criminal 4-206 stop and frisk. They were passed together as emergency legislation in 1972.

Made it illegal to wear carry or transport, made an exemption for a permit nobody could get, stop and frisk at will.

 

[Stoveman]

MD DNR weighing in:

 

[swinokur]

This steaming pile needs to go to Smith’s desk drawer

 

[ChannelCat]

I knew the only way the ACLU would EVER come out against this is if they somehow made it a race issue. I'm happy for the support however we can get it, but I can't help feeling like if this only affected white folks the ACLU would be happy to sit on the sidelines:

More likely, this faux civil liberties group would support it.

Gun safety is without a doubt a pressing issue not only in Maryland, but across the country.

Somehow, I don't think that the ACLU is referring to

• Treat all guns as if they are loaded. ...
• Keep the gun pointed in the safest possible direction. ...
• Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot. .

 

[jc1240]

This steaming pile needs to go to Smith’s desk drawer shredder before going in the fireplace.

FTFY

 

[lazarus]

They suggest that revocation of your permit is just fine. It's still not good. Waldstreicher will be fine with that.

All of this is crap. But frankly yes, unless violence occurs, violating the terms of your permit shouldn’t be anything worse than a temporary revocation of your permit.

Years in prison for forgetting to have your permit on you (really, they can’t look it up?!?), or accidentally straying in to a place you didn’t realize you should be, etc. is ridiculous.

 

[lazarus]

Public Defender letter doesn't know the difference between "verses" and "versus".

Typo. Happens. It’s when things are riddled with typos that it is crap. I am sure autocorrect strikes again.

 

[lazarus]

MD DNR weighing in:



View attachment 401734

Yeah, my exact concerns that. I don’t know how DNR treats it now on accidental boundary crossing where property lines are not marked at all. My understanding is you likely wouldn’t be unless it would be darned clear it was a willful and knowing trespass.

No mens rhea on SB1. You step a toe over and you are forked. I don’t want to find out my not well marked property boundary that my neighbor’s property line actually is a foot or two on “my side” of the creek and they decide they have a beef with me and then disqualifying offense and/or time in prison and legal fees are on the table based on getting a survey done.

I get along with my neighbors. Doesn’t mean one doesn’t decide they’ve changed their mind on how much they like me.

Let alone I am on public land hunting and cross a boundary. I’ve had a few times over the years hunting new parts of patuxent where I realized only after basically walking down a path in to someone’s back yard, or cutting through off trail that the park boundary was probably back that aways a distance head back and oh, there’s a sign over there 100yds to the side of the trail and no blazes anywhere. I ain’t going to hunt there, but I am sure not where I was supposed to be. Feels like the sort of thing an NPR officer would at worst have a conversation with me over if it was obvious I wasn’t really engaged in hunting and lost not knowing boundaries. Pretty sure SB1 wants to make sure I got to prison for years.

Also the language of SB1 makes DNR’s concerns irrelevant. Firearms aren’t allowed on state lands. So no public land hunting with firearms. I guess it might matter private land hunting and you accidentally crossed an unmarked boundary.

 

[Biggfoot44]

etc. is ridiculous.

Exactly as intended .
Harassment , and Intimidation , to discourage the majority of Holders from ever actually carrying .

 

[swinokur]

All of this is crap. But frankly yes, unless violence occurs, violating the terms of your permit shouldn’t be anything worse than a temporary revocation of your permit.

Years in prison for forgetting to have your permit on you (really, they can’t look it up?!?), or accidentally straying in to a place you didn’t realize you should be, etc. is ridiculous.

 

[lazarus]

They don't like the idea of Black Marylanders being searched by police.

Presumably the rest of us can suck it. Happy to take our permits and rights.

Still, there's substantial pushback; ACLU, Public Defenders, even MSP(!)

MSP's objections - where have we seen these brought up?:

"Senate Bill 1 expands the list of restricted areas to almost everywhere but the firearm
owner’s residence. However, the legislation does not exempt public safety personnel such as
police officers both on and off duty, police officers from other states within Maryland on official
business, active military personnel, security guards, private detectives, federal contractors,
correctional officers, special agents of the railroad, armored car personnel, or special police
officers.
The legislation doesn’t consider those permit holders who received a wear and carry
permit for a “good and substantial reason” prior to the issuance of the Bruen decision. As an
example, judges, state’s attorneys, victims of crime or domestic violence, and legislators to
name a few, have applied for and received handgun permits due to direct threats against their
lives. There are thousands or permit holders who received a permit for business purposes who
transport money, bonds, or precious jewels."

I am being too charitable. But I read the last concerns about pre-Bruen more as “please keep in mind many people have legitimate reasons to carry a gun for self defense and you are prohibiting everyone from carrying a gun. Including judges, DAs, and your august personages who all had carry permits pre-Bruen.

Too bad, so sad. Everyone has a legit reason to carry if they say they do unless it’s for a crime. So stop meddling.

 

[swinokur]

MSP letter

 

[Bob A]

I am being too charitable. But I read the last concerns about pre-Bruen more as “please keep in mind many people have legitimate reasons to carry a gun for self defense and you are prohibiting everyone from carrying a gun. Including judges, DAs, and your august personages who all had carry permits pre-Bruen.

Perhaps I'm being too cynical. Certainly there are some in MSP who believe in an armed citizenry, but my take was that MSP hierarchy was miffed about the bill disempowering those select few who had been not disapproved blessed with the right to carry under the previous set of rules.

Then too, don't overlook the bit about disarming "police officers both on and off duty, police officers from other states within Maryland on official business, active military personnel, security guards, private detectives, federal contractors, correctional officers, special agents of the railroad, armored car personnel, or special police officers."

Just imagine! Disarming the law? Never!

 

[Blacksmith101]

Yeah, my exact concerns that. I don’t know how DNR treats it now on accidental boundary crossing where property lines are not marked at all. My understanding is you likely wouldn’t be unless it would be darned clear it was a willful and knowing trespass.

No mens rhea on SB1. You step a toe over and you are forked. I don’t want to find out my not well marked property boundary that my neighbor’s property line actually is a foot or two on “my side” of the creek and they decide they have a beef with me and then disqualifying offense and/or time in prison and legal fees are on the table based on getting a survey done.

I get along with my neighbors. Doesn’t mean one doesn’t decide they’ve changed their mind on how much they like me.

Let alone I am on public land hunting and cross a boundary. I’ve had a few times over the years hunting new parts of patuxent where I realized only after basically walking down a path in to someone’s back yard, or cutting through off trail that the park boundary was probably back that aways a distance head back and oh, there’s a sign over there 100yds to the side of the trail and no blazes anywhere. I ain’t going to hunt there, but I am sure not where I was supposed to be. Feels like the sort of thing an NPR officer would at worst have a conversation with me over if it was obvious I wasn’t really engaged in hunting and lost not knowing boundaries. Pretty sure SB1 wants to make sure I got to prison for years.

Also the language of SB1 makes DNR’s concerns irrelevant. Firearms aren’t allowed on state lands. So no public land hunting with firearms. I guess it might matter private land hunting and you accidentally crossed an unmarked boundary.

Especially if that unmarked boundary was between the private land you were legally hunting and State land where guns were prohibited.

 

[rbird7282]

MSP letter

They don’t even come out against it, they only point out that it will apply to LEOs and those who got their permits with a G&S reason.
Fvck the MSP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk