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

[SigNerd]

So the existing already law that states it does not need to be solely for public use to be prosecuted. quoted above and link below.

Md law public conveyance

With that I do think there's a very big danger if you're an Uber/Lyft driver, both obviously when you're driving passengers but also now even when you're not taking fares.

Also, this would explicitly ban firearms in the cockpit of airlines. I'm sure there are many state laws that incidentally come into conflict with the post-9/11 FAA/TSA rules on that, but I doubt many explicitly put pilots in danger of prosecution.

 

[Raineman]

@Raineman - Nice job brother.

Thanks Bro, missed ya yesterday

Go Raineman!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks rbird, enjoyed the bricks with ya

"That wasn't really proponents of the bill"

Smith said as much indirectly while I was sitting at the witness table. Folks may not have heard me after the beration of E, but I rebutted his remarks from the table and said "Do not misunderstand me" to which he replied he was not speaking to me and I told him, "I am dead serious about my position on this". I then asked if they had any questions, and they did not. Its a sad statement that they had to wait until I was outside the hearing room to insult me, just like a coward. Just because my favorable position on the bill was not the kind he wanted, he chose to negate my testimony. After I found out later in this thread by your post, it bothered the everlovin' shyt out of me. Then I realized he doesn't give a rat crap about anything I say anyway no matter how I testified, so now it doesn't. But I will say, hey Chairman, FVCK YOU.

Thanks Derek for posting that lickety split last night. I was able to listen all the way home and then at home with some bourbon to get the stink of that town off of me.

I'm glad I went, but man I forgot how much I hate that place and the jackfvcks who run it.

 

[Tower43]

The re-write of SB1 bans carry in any restaurant that serves alcohol

 

[scottyfz6]

snip

snip

And just picture what a AG would say in court in monkey county.

Mr and Ms Jury, SigNerd was caught driving down a public road in a vehicle registered under title 13 of maryland law while in possession of a firearm. Per the definition established under SB1 stating any vehicle registered per title 13 is a public conveyance, he is not lawfully allowed to have a firearm in a public conveyance. You must find him guilty.

Granted I dont think they would try that, but if they really want to get you they could.

 

[Tower43]

snip

And just picture what a AG would say in court in monkey county.

Mr and Ms Jury, SigNerd was caught driving down a public road in a vehicle registered under title 13 of maryland law while in possession of a firearm. Per the definition established under SB1 stating any vehicle registered per title 13 is a public conveyance, he is not lawfully allowed to have a firearm in a public conveyance. You must find him guilty.

Granted I dont think they would try that, but if they really want to get you they could.

Oh no, I think they would try it. It's MoCo

 

[44 Bulldog]

I wonder what each county sheriff has to say about this, not that it matters

 

[LCPIWB]

Is the video recording available?

If anyone want to catch the reply of SB01...
https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebs...mte=jpr&clip=JPR_2_7_2023_meeting_2&ys=2023rs
Starts around 52:15. Sorry can share jump to starting point.

 

[dblas]

No, not same reference. Public conveyances exclude private cars not used as taxis or ride share in all the Us states I can find including Maryland.
Instead of partial quotes from no specific place, can you provide a exact link where Maryland law , does something done in no other state -- defines your private car when not operating for hire, eg as an uber, as a "public conveyance."

What he is quoting is the proposed re-write of MD law to redefine conveyance. If it gets approved, private vehicles would indeed be included.

Perhaps you should actually read the amended bill being proposed.

 

[scottyfz6]

What he is quoting is the proposed re-write of MD law to redefine conveyance. If it gets approved, private vehicles would indeed be included.

Perhaps you should actually read the amended bill being proposed.

I was pretty sure I was reading it correctly.

 

[dblas]

Your private car wouldn't be in line with the first part "a conveyance to which the public or a portion of the public has access to and a right to use for transportation." No member of the public has a right to use my car. My reading is that public conveyance includes that list of things provided the first part (public has a right to access) is true.

Now, read the next section...

"(II) A Public Conveyance Includes:
7. A motor vehicle required to be registered under TITLE 13 of the Transportation Article"

 

[dblas]

I was pretty sure I was reading it correctly.

You are.

 

[jc1240]

Looks like you can view the youtube version as well if you prefer that interface

https://www.youtube.com/@mga-jpr6516/streams

 

[JollyPedro]

Now, read the next section...

"(II) A Public Conveyance Includes:
7. A motor vehicle required to be registered under TITLE 13 of the Transportation Article"

Wait, does this really mean my privatley owned car?? I didn't take it that way initially either.

 

[dblas]

Wait, does this really mean my privatley owned car?? I didn't tale it that way initially either.

Yep....

 

[JollyPedro]

Yep....

Wow!!!! This is in stark contrast to federal law (FOPA) at that point.....This bill really is DOA.

 

[Some Guy]

I don’t agree with him being asked to leave in the first place but he was told to leave and left voluntarily. I believe that’s different than being dragged out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the Chair spoke in the imperative and said something like "That's it, you're outta here." or "...you're gone." At that point the Trooper walked over to the person and escorted him out. I think the Speaker also prefaced the command by saying that people would be told to leave if they engaged in specific kinds of speech activities. If not preface for sure he said something like that after the person was ejected.

I believe the person was told to leave, not asked. It happened pretty quickly and I was surprised by it to be honest.

 

[scottyfz6]

Wow!!!! This is in stark contrast to federal law (FOPA) at that point.....This bill really is DOA.

FOPA only applies on interstate travel. And it still allows some local laws to be enforceable. This law deals with driving around in maryland, not just thru maryland. Any stop beyond things like rest stops, gas, food stop FOPA from applying.

Drive thru any state, and stop at pretty much anywhere for more than a night and state laws apply. You can drive thru NC and stop at the beach for 2 days on your way to florida and FOPA is gone.

 

[JollyPedro]

FOPA only applies on interstate travel. And it still allows some local laws to be enforceable. This law deals with driving around in maryland, not just thru maryland. Any stop beyond things like rest stops, gas, food stop FOPA from applying.

Drive thru any state, and stop at pretty much anywhere for more than a night and state laws apply. You can drive thru NC and stop at the beach for 2 days on your way to florida and FOPA is gone.

Gotcha..

 

[elwojo]

I feel like we need to stop addressing this bill at all because it is so blatantly unconstitutional. Don't write up how impossible it is to comply - they'll fix that and then we'll be left with a harder bill to fight in court. Let our benevolent rulers have the courts handle them. I've stopped with writing legislators. They know what they are doing. They can eat what they sow.

FYI - I would definitely enroll as a person who supported the bill. Not even sarcastically. I want this stuff. Daddy step harder on me. TRO's and 1983s incoming, public perception will show these guys as tyrants (even among progressives as minorities get hit with violations way more than others) and then our overlord Democrats will tear each other apart in the fall out of this and other clearly Bruen-denying bills.

 

[erwos]

I feel like we need to stop addressing this bill at all because it is so blatantly unconstitutional.

How would that strategy have worked out in 2013 when we were fighting it out with the AWB?