Do signs displayed stating no concealed weapons have force of law in the PMRD...?
no law can be found according to handgunlaw.us
.
Do signs displayed stating no concealed weapons have force of law in the PMRD...?
What you point out is by design of the MSP and the signs don't have the force of law BUT violation of restrictions does have the force of law. Violate the sign, you violate your restriction because the "by law" part is missing.My take is one gray area traded for another.
"Where prohibited" could be if there is a sign displayed.
"Where prohibited by law" is less gray.
Do signs displayed stating no concealed weapons have force of law in the PMRD...?
Excellent. Ben ran a great class. Glad it worked out for you.
Any documented incidents of permit holders being revoked because of a gray area violation?
My take is one gray area traded for another. "Where prohibited" could be if there is a sign displayed. "Where prohibited by law" is less gray. Do signs displayed stating no concealed weapons have force of law in the PMRD...?
Thanks, I'll give him a holler and see what happens.
Any documented incidents of permit holders being revoked because of a gray area violation?
What you point out is by design of the MSP and the signs don't have the force of law BUT violation of restrictions does have the force of law. Violate the sign, you violate your restriction because the "by law" part is missing.
With the "by law" part missing if someone decides to prohibit you from carrying in their business via a sign you are indeed in violation of your restrictions if you do so. I am not suggesting you would or would not be prosecuted. I am simply breaking down the plain English. MSP by omitting the "by law" is allowing third parties to prohibit you from carrying in certain areas thereby creating a restriction violation. This was acknowledged by MSP in a HPRB hearing a few months back.Since the sign carries no force of law, you are not outside your restrictions. Best they can do is ask you to leave the business, and if you don't charge you with trespassing.
Good luck with that. Gov. Hogan has not yet given this direction to his MSP Superintendent or the LD Commander. Until/unless he does more of the same is what we can expect.All of this always leaves too much to the interpretation of each individual. One says it is in violation and another says it's not. The debate goes on and on and on no matter what the language in the restriction says or has changed to. MSP needs to make it crystal clear what is in violation of restrictions and what is not. No gray area!!
Yup,Good luck with that. Gov. Hogan has not yet given this direction to his MSP Superintendent or the LD Commander. Until/unless he does more of the same is what we can expect.
Day 1 is only 2 days away.Good luck with that. Gov. Hogan has not yet given this direction to his MSP Superintendent or the LD Commander. Until/unless he does more of the same is what we can expect.
With the "by law" part missing if someone decides to prohibit you from carrying in their business via a sign you are indeed in violation of your restrictions if you do so. I am not suggesting you would or would not be prosecuted. I am simply breaking down the plain English. MSP by omitting the "by law" is allowing third parties to prohibit you from carrying in certain areas thereby creating a restriction violation. This was acknowledged by MSP in a HPRB hearing a few months back.
To the best of my understanding all they can ask you to do is leave IF they find out you are carrying your CONCEALED firearm. If you refuse then the police can arrest you for trespassing.
This is Maryland. What you are speaking of does apply in other jurisdictions. In Maryland the MSP is purposely leaving the "except where prohibited by law" part off of restrictions just in case they decide they want use it against you. Remember where you are. Remember MSP testified to basically exactly what I am saying when someone (a member here) tried to get the restriction modified to include the "by law" part.I hear you BUT no where in the COMAR or State regs does it say that a 'no gun' sign carries the force of law.
So, if my permit is invalidated because a business owner displays a sign that says 'no guns' and my permit doesn't specify 'By law', then by the same logic he could simply just tell the MSP that he "Prohibits" firearms verbally and presto my permit would be invalid, no sign necessary. Since neither of those examples requires any legal precedent to support it.
In other words, having the thought in a business owner's head that guns are prohibited is just as valid as having a sign.
To the best of my understanding all they can ask you to do is leave IF they find out you are carrying your CONCEALED firearm. If you refuse then the police can arrest you for trespassing.
With the "by law" part missing if someone decides to prohibit you from carrying in their business via a sign you are indeed in violation of your restrictions if you do so. I am not suggesting you would or would not be prosecuted. I am simply breaking down the plain English. MSP by omitting the "by law" is allowing third parties to prohibit you from carrying in certain areas thereby creating a restriction violation. This was acknowledged by MSP in a HPRB hearing a few months back.