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

[Trm]

Has the training requirements changed for renewals or new permits under this new version of the SB1 Bill ?

 

[TheTruth]

You know what really burns me up about SB1? The original submittal is what we testified against. It was so bad, even the Maryland State Police lobbied against it. Then the Montgomery County Wonderboy finally gets whatever Bloomberg legal activist to re-write the bill to something entirely different and it slides through committee without the public even being able to comment on it. I feel like this is a total bait and switch. It really should have been withdrawn and resubmitted, which would have sent it to the Senate rules committee. I know this is a parliamentary procedure trick, but the bill should have been reheard and the process reset because of how radically different the second iteration of it was.

I know it is Maryland and my thoughts on this subject do not matter to the majority of our Legislature. I think Waldstreicher pulled a total fast one on us... he couldn't even explain parts of the original submittal and had to defer to his paid for anti-gun "expert" to answer the questions. My fear, which will come true, is that this will go to the House and Clippinger (who already stated publicly that he wants this to move forward - read that as bias) and Moon (he detests firearms) will gladly slam a favorable committee vote on it and it will make second and third reads and go sailing to Moore's desk. He will happily sign it with cameras clicking all around him - you know - it's for safety... even though the problem isn't permit holders.

Then the real fight will begin with the lawsuits.

Just venting... I know we all want to see this steaming pile of crap bill go away, but every indication says it won't.

 

[scottyfz6]

Yes.

If there are no UNSUPERVISED minors or prohibited people in the house, then nothing can be readily accessible.

Its Maryland. I am waiting for someone to break into your house and steal a gun you left in your night stand and the state prosecutes you. You had a prohibited person in your house and the gun was readily accessible.

Just a dark thought on this law.

But still substantially better.

Believe it or not thats already covered under the law. If someone trespasses and gets your gun your not liable under the current storage laws, which deal with under 16 year olds.

 

[scottyfz6]

esqappellate said:
Mpennak@marylandshallissue.org
ps: the ban on carry in restaurants is especially bad. So, I need a permit holder who carried in restaurants like Applebees but did not drink while there. Assume that you will be deposed under oath. I can’t defend carry and drinking so a non drinker plaintiff is ideal.

I had lunch today in a very nice place in Columbia, I did not drink, and I was armed. But then again in my email I mentioned applebees. Screw applebees I do recommend the stanford grill in columbia. I am sure a few heads would have exploded in columbia if they had known I was armed.

 

[6-Pack]

I hope they start getting heat from their friends caught jammed up on this even before it is heard in court. They don't seem to understand that this applies to their friends as well as enemies.

Let’s face it, their friends will never get “jammed up” as they are connected. Us regular taxpayers will have the book thrown at us, but their friends will have zero issues.

 

[blipper]

I already emailed you, but I fall under this category. I don’t drink but go out all the time.

I’m not a formal teetotaler but I don’t drink at any place I have to drive to/from. And I carry at restaurants but don’t drink at them.

 

[Some Guy]

You know what really burns me up about SB1? The original submittal is what we testified against. It was so bad, even the Maryland State Police lobbied against it. Then the Montgomery County Wonderboy finally gets whatever Bloomberg legal activist to re-write the bill to something entirely different and it slides through committee without the public even being able to comment on it. I feel like this is a total bait and switch. It really should have been withdrawn and resubmitted, which would have sent it to the Senate rules committee. I know this is a parliamentary procedure trick, but the bill should have been reheard and the process reset because of how radically different the second iteration of it was.

I know it is Maryland and my thoughts on this subject do not matter to the majority of our Legislature. I think Waldstreicher pulled a total fast one on us... he couldn't even explain parts of the original submittal and had to defer to his paid for anti-gun "expert" to answer the questions. My fear, which will come true, is that this will go to the House and Clippinger (who already stated publicly that he wants this to move forward) and Moon (he detests firearms) will gladly slam a favorable committee vote on it and it will make second and third reads and go sailing to Moore's desk. He will happily sign it with cameras clicking all around him - you know - it's for safety... even though the problem isn't permit holders.

Then the real fight will begin with the lawsuits.

Just venting... I know we all want to see this steaming pile of crap bill go away, but every indication says it won't.

Your venting is not misplaced. The Maryland Declaration of Rights mentions these important topics with exact specificity. In the case of SB-1 the legislative process was not conducted transparently, openly, honestly and ethically. It was not conducted to the letter and in the spirit of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.

This is what our Maryland Declaration of Rights says about this:

Art. 6. That all persons invested with the Legislative or Executive powers of Government are the Trustees of the Public, and, as such, accountable for their conduct: Wherefore, whenever the ends of Government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the People may, and of right ought, to reform the old, or establish a new Government; the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

Art. 7. That the right of the People to participate in the Legislature is the best security of liberty and the foundation of all free Government; for this purpose, elections ought to be free and frequent; and every citizen having the qualifications prescribed by the Constitution, ought to have the right of suffrage (amended by Chapter 357, Acts of 1971, ratified Nov. 7, 1972).

 

[2ndCharter]

Maybe my experience is bad, but most restaurants sell alcohol for consumption on the premises. So those would be out. I can't imagine a place having a license and not using it. So I guess if you could look at the menu before going in...

Sure, some places don't sell alcohol. Rolling into Starbucks or McDonalds would be fine.

Though I am not clear on the implications. Would carry on the premises be banned? Or only in the building? I am assuming the entire premises.

If you extract chain/franchise restaurants, so completely owned and operated locally establishments, like my own, the ratio of alcohol licensed restaurants is even greater.

In Easton, under that category, other than myself and the Amish Market, I can't think of any other restaurant that has dine-in accommodations, that doesn't sell alcohol. As the number of permit holders continues to increase, this becomes economically disparaging to restaurants that serve alcohol.

 

[eruby]

If you extract chain/franchise restaurants, so completely owned and operated locally establishments, like my own, the ratio of alcohol licensed restaurants is even greater.

In Easton, under that category, other than myself and the Amish Market, I can't think of any other restaurant that has dine-in accommodations, that doesn't sell alcohol. As the number of permit holders continues to increase, this becomes economically disparaging to restaurants that serve alcohol.

If this abortion passes, and then, if I ever make it to your bagel Xanadu, I will be armed.

Of course no one will know, as concealed means concealed.

 

[2ndCharter]

If this abortion passes, and then, if I ever make it to your bagel Xanadu, I will be armed.

Of course no one will know, as concealed means concealed.

 

[esqappellate]

I already emailed you, but I fall under this category. I don’t drink but go out all the time.

PERFECT, thank you. I need at least one more such person for a plaintiff.

 

[esqappellate]

I’m not a formal teetotaler but I don’t drink at any place I have to drive to/from. And I carry at restaurants but don’t drink at them.

Want to be a plaintiff? Please email me with full contact info. Mpennak@marylandshallissue.org

 

[ironpony]

As I believe Teratos originally came up with the general idea, I am glad to see this thread move to gathering plaintiffs as opposed to purchasing polish.

 

[rbird7282]

esqappellate said:
Mpennak@marylandshallissue.org
ps: the ban on carry in restaurants is especially bad. So, I need a permit holder who carried in restaurants like Applebees but did not drink while there. Assume that you will be deposed under oath. I can’t defend carry and drinking so a non drinker plaintiff is ideal.

I had lunch today in a very nice place in Columbia, I did not drink, and I was armed. But then again in my email I mentioned applebees. Screw applebees I do recommend the stanford grill in columbia. I am sure a few heads would have exploded in columbia if they had known I was armed.

I live in Columbia and my wife and I go out once or twice a week to eat and I’m always armed. The only time I’m not is if I’m going to have a beer which is very rare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[shootin the breeze]

I live in Columbia and my wife and I go out once or twice a week to eat and I’m always armed. The only time I’m not is if I’m going to have a beer which is very rare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Same here except I don’t drink at all.

 

[CrueChief]

You know what really burns me up about SB1? The original submittal is what we testified against. It was so bad, even the Maryland State Police lobbied against it. Then the Montgomery County Wonderboy finally gets whatever Bloomberg legal activist to re-write the bill to something entirely different and it slides through committee without the public even being able to comment on it. I feel like this is a total bait and switch. It really should have been withdrawn and resubmitted, which would have sent it to the Senate rules committee. I know this is a parliamentary procedure trick, but the bill should have been reheard and the process reset because of how radically different the second iteration of it was.

I know it is Maryland and my thoughts on this subject do not matter to the majority of our Legislature. I think Waldstreicher pulled a total fast one on us... he couldn't even explain parts of the original submittal and had to defer to his paid for anti-gun "expert" to answer the questions. My fear, which will come true, is that this will go to the House and Clippinger (who already stated publicly that he wants this to move forward - read that as bias) and Moon (he detests firearms) will gladly slam a favorable committee vote on it and it will make second and third reads and go sailing to Moore's desk. He will happily sign it with cameras clicking all around him - you know - it's for safety... even though the problem isn't permit holders.

Then the real fight will begin with the lawsuits.

Just venting... I know we all want to see this steaming pile of crap bill go away, but every indication says it won't.

This was the plan along. Its what they do.

 

[Mark75H]

Let’s face it, their friends will never get “jammed up” as they are connected. Us regular taxpayers will have the book thrown at us, but their friends will have zero issues.

Body cams are changing that in many cases.

 

[River02]

Has the training requirements changed for renewals or new permits under this new version of the SB1 Bill ?

Yeah, good question my current permit expires 01 October and, well...

 

[Bertfish]

Has the training requirements changed for renewals or new permits under this new version of the SB1 Bill ?

Under the proposed bill there would be new training content after 10/1/23. Hours stay the same. No fee changes at this time..

 

[jc1240]

You know what really burns me up about SB1? The original submittal is what we testified against. It was so bad, even the Maryland State Police lobbied against it. Then the Montgomery County Wonderboy finally gets whatever Bloomberg legal activist to re-write the bill to something entirely different and it slides through committee without the public even being able to comment on it. I feel like this is a total bait and switch. It really should have been withdrawn and resubmitted, which would have sent it to the Senate rules committee. I know this is a parliamentary procedure trick, but the bill should have been reheard and the process reset because of how radically different the second iteration of it was.

I know it is Maryland and my thoughts on this subject do not matter to the majority of our Legislature. I think Waldstreicher pulled a total fast one on us... he couldn't even explain parts of the original submittal and had to defer to his paid for anti-gun "expert" to answer the questions. My fear, which will come true, is that this will go to the House and Clippinger (who already stated publicly that he wants this to move forward - read that as bias) and Moon (he detests firearms) will gladly slam a favorable committee vote on it and it will make second and third reads and go sailing to Moore's desk. He will happily sign it with cameras clicking all around him - you know - it's for safety... even though the problem isn't permit holders.

Then the real fight will begin with the lawsuits.

Just venting... I know we all want to see this steaming pile of crap bill go away, but every indication says it won't.

You are absolutely right that it should have been withdrawn or gone ahead as it was. If they wanted to drastically change it, it should have been a new bill with the opportunity for comment input. But they're not ones for following rules. Mike Smigiel's cry of "tyranny!" in 2013 after that BS with the committee vote rings loud in my ears today.