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

[elwojo]

I wish Aaron Brown would testify to the MGA about this idiocy of most gun control studies. After reading Webster’s testimony again I’m reminded of how much BAD SCIENCE there is regarding guns and violence.

This Reason.com video is worth the 15 minutes of your time (apologies if you’ve seen it…)

“Do Studies Show Gun Control Works?”



Liars, Damned Liars, and Statistics indeed.

That was well worth the time.

I'd love to see a critical review of the JHU PhD's body of work. I personally think science has no place here, but Maryland's legislators will use whatever justification - true or not - they can to enact disarmament. If no one is checking his work, then he'll use whatever he can to push his likely-biased agenda as well.

 

[Blacksmith101]

The "Bloomberg Professor" of anything just screams bias before he opens his mouth or you read one word.

 

[DanGuy48]

BLM shut down annapolis AND was given a police escort to walk the streets, all without needing to worry about those pesky pemits. There's no reason why thousands of md gun owners shouldn't completely engulf annapolis and make them aware of our feelings on the matter. It doesn't matter how restrictive they have made the process of testifying, we stay into the early morning and force them to be aware of us.

I seem to remember a record turn out, by their own admission, in Annapolis almost 10 years ago for SB281 and I’m not really sure it did much good. It took getting things to the courts before anything favorable happened. BLM is a favored child. Gun owners are the black sheep.

 

[teratos]

I seem to remember a record turn out, by their own admission, in Annapolis almost 10 years ago for SB281 and I’m not really sure it did much good. It took getting things to the courts before anything favorable happened. BLM is a favored child. Gun owners are the black sheep.

It did a lot. Look at the first draft of the bill and what passed.

 

[swinokur]

If we were truly the black sheep we could walk without a permit too

 

[DanGuy48]

It did a lot. Look at the first draft of the bill and what passed.

Good to know. I did not see the early drafts. I did show up there, didn’t get in. I heard MoM walked out as soon as the first progun presenter started talking.

 

[esqappellate]

Mark, I think you did a great job!
During the live testimony their was a link to download your and websters written testimony. I did not download at the time. Now O want both. I didn’t see your written testimony on the MSI site. Where can i get Websters?

AFAIK, Webster's is posted above. Here is mine.

 

[smokey]

I seem to remember a record turn out, by their own admission, in Annapolis almost 10 years ago for SB281 and I’m not really sure it did much good. It took getting things to the courts before anything favorable happened. BLM is a favored child. Gun owners are the black sheep.

I remember that too... along with the balt sun claiming we were "hundreds" when over 13,000 signed up to testify. There were so many of us there that they literally shut down the entrances of the buildings and wouldn't let anyone else in for a while because the buildings exceeded the fire code capacity. Take a look at the copycat definition in the fsa2013 and realize it's extremely easy to get around it with most semiautos because of the work done. A lot of other stuff got gutted from the original versions of the bills.

However, we played nice and got all the permits/insurance required to hold the event. I don't see why we need to do that when BLM and other groups didn't. Since then, covid gave them the excuse to break the testimony process. It doesn't matter. We need a crowd at least this big that surrounds the buildings and doesn't leave until well after dark. They're trying to strip us of our ability to protect the lives of our families. We need to act like it.

 

[smokey]

Oh, and let's take a moment to remember that frosh dicked the system to vote multiple times until he got the votes needed to pass 281, instead of sending it back to the house.

 

[eruby]

The (possible/likely) passing of SB1 is to eruby, as the Papacy, or the latest innovation in tampons, is to eruby.

Jimmy crack corn, and I don't care (metal detectors notwithstanding)

 

[Batt816]

Mr. Pennak, thank you. I am proud to have you representing and protecting our 2A rights. I am also proud to be a member of MSI. I hope to meet you some day and shake your hand. You are a gentleman and a scholar.

 

[swinokur]

Come to the MSI Meeting Sunday at AGC at 130.

The great OZ will grant your wish

 

[RFBfromDE]

The (possible/likely) passing of SB1 is to eruby, as the Papacy, or the latest innovation in tampons, is to eruby.

Jimmy crack corn, and I don't care (metal detectors notwithstanding)

In other words;

Well, I and I and I no come to fight flesh and blood
But spiritual wickedness in high and low places
So while they fight you down
Stand firm and give Jah thanks and praises
'Cause I and I no expect to be justified
By the laws of men, by the laws of men
Whole jury found me guilty
But prove, truth shall prove my innocency.

 

[P-12 Norm]

No, no, no. Look at the laws, this isn't just that permits are worthless because you literally cannot use them anywhere.

These laws ban firearms EVERYWHERE. This is in effect (especially SB118) a total ban on firearms going ANYWHERE. It is wear, carry or transport ANY firearm on any government controlled property. So you may not use roads, sidewalks, parking lots, etc. And for private property, it has to be conspicuously marked or you need express permission. So that gun store in a strip mall or rents the property with a shared parking lot is going to need to be marked to allow firearms at all.

This is way worse than just a ban on wear and carry for a regulated firearm. This is ban of firearms almost ANYWHERE in the state, for any reason, by effectively non-law enforcement.

At least we'll find out which stores are 2A friendly, as they'll post signs saying CCW welcome or some such.
Maybe we need a bill board campaign letting people know that the MDGA is making life more dangerous for them.

 

[lazarus]

At least we'll find out which stores are 2A friendly, as they'll post signs saying CCW welcome or some such.
Maybe we need a bill board campaign letting people know that the MDGA is making life more dangerous for them.

It is compelled speech. No bueno.

Beyond that, how the heck many in MARYLAND do you think are really going to do that? Maybe plenty of small stores. The big corporate ones? I'd bet you could count those on one or two hands how many will take a corporate policy posting that it is allowed. Posting that it is banned I think many do and will sit on their butts. Most do. But to actively invite it? Yeah I am going to guess almost none. And that is what the anti-gun folks know and want.

 

[LeadSled1]

I have been researching Maryland laws. The first state gun control law in Maryland that pertains to citizens (the Maryland Act of February 26th 1872) prohibited concealed carry in Annapolis. This was almost 100 years after the 2nd Amendment and is not able to be leveraged as text and history per the Bruen decision. Before 1872 there were no state laws against the carry or transportation of firearms.

“
CHAPTER 42.
AN ACT to add an additional section to article two
of the Code of Public Local Laws, entitled "Anne
Arundel county," sub-title "Annapolis," to pre-
vent the carrying of concealed weapons in said
city.
SECTION 1. Be it en-acted by the General Assembly of
Maryland, That the following section be added to
article two, of the Code of Public Local Laws, entitled "Anne Arundel county," sub-title "Annapolis:"”

Archives of Maryland, Volume 0190, Page 2635 - Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, 1872

msa.maryland.gov

 

[lazarus]

At least we'll find out which stores are 2A friendly, as they'll post signs saying CCW welcome or some such.
Maybe we need a bill board campaign letting people know that the MDGA is making life more dangerous for them.

It is compelled speech. No bueno.

Beyond that, how the heck many in MARYLAND do you think are really going to do that? Maybe plenty of small stores. The big corporate ones? I'd bet you could count those on one or two hands how many will take a corporate policy posting that it is allowed. Posting that it is banned I think many do and will sit on their butts. Most do. But to actively invite it? Yeah I am going to guess almost none. And that is what the anti-gun folks know and want.

 

[Occam]

It is compelled speech. No bueno.

Beyond that, how the heck many in MARYLAND do you think are really going to do that? Maybe plenty of small stores. The big corporate ones? I'd bet you could count those on one or two hands how many will take a corporate policy posting that it is allowed. Posting that it is banned I think many do and will sit on their butts. Most do. But to actively invite it? Yeah I am going to guess almost none. And that is what the anti-gun folks know and want.

I'm recalling when the Mommy types tried to pressure Starbucks into banning carry in their stores. The CEO politely declined to do so, indicating that he made the distinction between law abiding carriers and criminals, and that such policies are ignored by criminals. Now, would they be willing - in states where it comes down to that - to actually put up "carry allowed here" signs? Prolly not, but you never know.

 

[hodgepodge]

Working on testimony:


My name is hodgepodge. I am a resident of Distict 33C.

Maryland’s proposed reaction to the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision reminds me of the reaction to the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision. The Supreme Court recognized that the right to an education extended to all citizens.

Multiple states, governors, and senators resisted the decision. Senator Byrd of Virginia declared the decision “the most serious blow that has yet been struck against the rights of the states in a matter vitally affecting their authority and welfare.” Governor Stanley created the Gray Commission to remove mandatory school attendance and remove state funding for integrated schools.

I see numerous parallels in states’ resistance to the Bruen decision. Despite the Court’s clear statement that “respondents’ attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law lacks merit because there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department.”

This is exactly what SB1 is attempting to legislate. The bill expands “sensitive places” to the entire state unless specific permission is obtained. It is no less egregious than the closing of public schools for four years in multiple Virginia counties.

My right to protect my family is no less significant than the right to an equal education. My right to protect my family is no less than any other right. My right to protect my family, at all times and in all places, must not be further restricted by the State of Maryland.

Numerous suits are challenging the restrictions states have enacted post-Bruen. While it took almost 20 years for multiple Court decisions to fully enact he Brown decision, I urge this committee to reject attempts to postpone the recognition of the rights upheld by Bruen. I urge this committee to reject the passive aggressive laws restricting the right of self-defense.

“Sure, you can attend public schools. You just have to attend certain schools” and “Sure, you can use public transportation. You just have to sit in a certain section.” has become “Yes, certain people may carry a gun, but only in certain places.”

Reject SB1.


Not sure about that last paragraph. May be too "in your face".

 

[RFBfromDE]

There is no such thing as "too in your face"