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

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Blacksmith101

    Grumpy Old Man
    Jun 22, 2012
    22,322
    Yep

    He didn't do any THT research
    He probably did a lot of THT research and because he couldn't find any analogs thought he would just invent something and give it fancy names.

    "Comparative time-space burden"
    come on man are you trying to write science fiction?
     

    miles71

    Ultimate Member
    Industry Partner
    Jul 19, 2009
    2,543
    Belcamp, Md.
    So in order to stop illegal use of firearms they have decided to target the most law abiding gun owners and make them into criminals. Hmmmmm

    TD
     

    308Scout

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Mar 27, 2020
    6,679
    Washington County
    He probably did a lot of THT research and because he couldn't find any analogs thought he would just invent something and give it fancy names.

    "Comparative time-space burden" come on man are you trying to write science fiction?
    Suspect he got inspired by Star Trek one evening. Now whether it was Scotty or LaForge that was to blame is a different argument.
     

    Blacksmith101

    Grumpy Old Man
    Jun 22, 2012
    22,322
    For those of you playing the home game and are not as familiar with some of the critters, the dim bulb who said that an establishment that applies for a liquor license is presumed to be anti carry is Sen (former Delegate) Ariana "Areola" Kelly. Interesting past she has.....


    FTA:


    God bless the poor bastards who had to view that video, not all heroes wear capes.
    If that video was used as evidence would it be available with a FOI request? It could be a internet video sensation. :D
    :innocent0
     

    Bertfish

    Throw bread on me
    Mar 13, 2013
    17,703
    White Marsh, MD
    For those of you playing the home game and are not as familiar with some of the critters, the dim bulb who said that an establishment that applies for a liquor license is presumed to be anti carry is Sen (former Delegate) Ariana "Areola" Kelly. Interesting past she has.....


    FTA:


    God bless the poor bastards who had to view that video, not all heroes wear capes.
    Amazing what gets promoted

    I forgot about that incident
     

    jc1240

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 18, 2013
    15,015
    Westminster, MD
    That SHOULD be a disqualifying crime. :lol2:
    So should breaking one's constitutional oath. In fact, knowingly ignoring it at the time of reciting it should be treated as perjury. I know we're not supposed to, but I can't help it - there are no words the describe the level of contempt an hate I have for those tyrants.
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    31,034
    What have we learned about the MD GA, specifically the Dem supermajority, from their treatment of SB1?

    They don't care about the Constitution
    They don't care for the Supreme Court
    They don't care about the law-abiding citizens
    They don't care about their oath of office
    They don't care about wasting the taxes they extort from the public
    They don't care to listen to reasoned opposition
    They don't have to care about any of the above

    They'll use any excuse, however dubious, unconstitutional or immoral/unethical, to follow the diktats of the Progressive Party

    In their heart of hearts, most of them would prefer to see us dead.
     
    Last edited:

    jc1240

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 18, 2013
    15,015
    Westminster, MD
    What have we learned about the MD GA, specifically the Dem supermajority, from their treatment of SB1?

    They don't care about the Constitution
    They don't care for the Supreme Court
    They don't care about the law-abiding citizens
    They don't care about their oath of office
    They don't care about wasting the taxes they extort from the public
    They don't care to listen to reasoned opposition
    They don't have to care about any of the above

    They'll use any excuse, however dubious, unconstitutional or immoral/unethical, to follow the diktats of the Progressive Party

    In their heart of hearts, most of them would prefer to see us dead.
    But they do care for criminals. They bend over backwards to not have any law affect them.
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    31,034
    But they do care for criminals. They bend over backwards to not have any law affect them.
    That's where the money is; cash flows to defense lawyers, and ensures the job security of judges, prosecutors, police brass, and exacerbates the fear level of the population, which guarantees re-election for incumbents in all elective offices.
     

    2ndCharter

    Based dude w/ lovin' hands
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 19, 2011
    4,866
    Eastern Shore
    I know I'm preaching to the choir, and of course, IANAL, but when I read this in Bruen:

    It is undisputed that petitioners Koch and Nash—two ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens—are part of “the people” whom the Second Amendment protects. See Heller, 554 U. S., at 580. And no party disputes that handguns are weapons “in common use” today for self-defense. See id., at 627. The Court has little difficulty concluding also that the plain text of the Second Amendment protects Koch’s and Nash’s proposed course of conduct—carrying handguns publicly for self-defense. Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, and the definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry. Moreover, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” id., at 592, and confrontation can surely take place outside the home. Pp. 23–24.

    ... it kind of makes me think that these lawmakers can't read at all.
     

    win296

    Active Member
    Jun 15, 2012
    231
    Baltimore
    That's where the money is; cash flows to defense lawyers, and ensures the job security of judges, prosecutors, police brass, and exacerbates the fear level of the population, which guarantees re-election for incumbents in all elective offices.

    It also increases gun sales.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
     

    Blacksmith101

    Grumpy Old Man
    Jun 22, 2012
    22,322
    I know I'm preaching to the choir, and of course, IANAL, but when I read this in Bruen:



    ... it kind of makes me think that these lawmakers can't read at all.
    But you can still carry anyplace that isn't "sensitive" ........or within 100 yards of those places. :sarcasm:
     

    Some Guy

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 26, 2017
    1,034
    I know… that was massive frustration speaking (on my part). I just can’t with those people anymore. Especially Waldstreicher. Smith was also deeply disappointing.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    @SomeGuy I would like to tell you I was wrong about Muse and I hope to be shocked by Conaway but I doubt it.
    And yes, I am now thinking Conaway might be like the rest and not quite the supporter and advocate of civil rights as we are led to believe. I hope I'm wrong.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,688
    Messages
    7,291,673
    Members
    33,500
    Latest member
    Shive62

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom