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

[rbird7282]

Okay thanks. Tried look up if governor signed it. Is he going to anyone know? We definitely need to start flooding his emails

It hasn’t passed yet. It made it out of the Senate Judiciary committee. It will still need to be tied on by the House and if their version differs, they will need to iron that out so both the house and senate versions match before they pass it and send it to the governor.
Rest assured whatever is sent to the governor, he will sign it. I wouldn’t even bother calling his office.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rbird7282]

I really wish there was a way to personally sue legislators that knowingly introduce or vote for unconstitutional bills.

You and me both.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bob A]

Okay thanks. Tried look up if governor signed it. Is he going to anyone know? We definitely need to start flooding his emails

Rest assured that whatever form this bill may ultimately take, if it makes it to the floor for a vote, it will be voted into law and signed by the governor.

No amount of emails will alter that fact.

 

[Some Guy]

Okay thanks. Tried look up if governor signed it. Is he going to anyone know? We definitely need to start flooding his emails

You're a man after my own heart, Will. Please see the link below to a post where you can find email addresses and phone numbers to many of the Maryland General Assembly house & senate members that are pushing this unconstitutional legislation. Please email and call them, and tell your friends and family to do the same!

SB-1 & HB-824: Please contact committee members

Thanks to all the people that testified and/or voted unfavorably against SB-1 and HB 824 over the last couple of weeks. Today we heard great testimony in opposition to HB-824 from MSI, 2A Maryland and others. We heard similar great testimony against SB-1 two weeks ago. Now it's up to...

www.mdshooters.com

 

[AKbythebay]

Anywhere that sells alcohol is banned. Folden tried to amend it to say folks consuming alcohol can't carry but that was defeated.

I believe it is anywhere that sells alcohol for on-site consumption (correct me if I'm wrong). So just because a grocery store sells beer doesn't mean you are forbidden to carry there. But bars, restaurants, or anywhere else you can buy and drink alcohol is banned.

 

[esqappellate]

I believe it is anywhere that sells alcohol for on-site consumption (correct me if I'm wrong). So just because a grocery store sells beer doesn't mean you are forbidden to carry there. But bars, restaurants, or anywhere else you can buy and drink alcohol is banned.

This ^^ Here is the language from SB1 "A LOCATION LICENSED TO SELL OR DISPENSE ALCOHOL OR CANNABIS FOR ON–SITE CONSUMPTION;"

 

[MigraineMan]

I believe it is anywhere that sells alcohol for on-site consumption (correct me if I'm wrong). So just because a grocery store sells beer doesn't mean you are forbidden to carry there. But bars, restaurants, or anywhere else you can buy and drink alcohol is banned.

Oh, Waldstreicher doesn't want you carrying in the grocery store. He needs Teh Feelz of Safety while shopping for his tofu burgers and mealworm bread.

 

[Lafayette]

This ^^ Here is the language from SB1 "A LOCATION LICENSED TO SELL OR DISPENSE ALCOHOL OR CANNABIS FOR ON–SITE CONSUMPTION;"

I think MD will be hard-pressed to defend this portion of the law, as I’m not sure there are any historical analogues to carrying a pistol in say, a tavern in the 1790’s.

But there will be a period after October 1st until the (hopefully) inevitable PI or TRO where many will be considered criminals under this law while simply having a burger after work.

 

[esqappellate]

I think MD will be hard-pressed to defend this portion of the law, as I’m not sure there are any historical analogues to carrying a pistol in say, a tavern in the 1790’s.

But there will be a period after October 1st until the (hopefully) inevitable PI or TRO where many will be considered criminals under this law while simply having a burger after work.

I get it, I agree. And yes, they will have a very hard time with it. At least I hope so.

 

[Blaster229]

Minutiae probably, but gonna think out loud anyway.
So the retired LEO exception within the exemptions doesn't mention LEOSA, but just says "retired". I don't think anyone in the MGA has any idea what LEOSA is at all. I know LEOSA is/will be exempt when the dust settles.
I wonder if a "retired in good standing" exempted LEO with or without a W&C permit still qualifies under exempt? It doesn't qualify the exemption by requiring a W&C or LEOSA permit, unless I missed something. Unless they just assume retired LEO's would have either permit.

 

[Bertfish]

I believe it is anywhere that sells alcohol for on-site consumption (correct me if I'm wrong). So just because a grocery store sells beer doesn't mean you are forbidden to carry there. But bars, restaurants, or anywhere else you can buy and drink alcohol is banned.

Right. Regardless of whether you are drinking.

 

[Allen65]

This ^^ Here is the language from SB1 "A LOCATION LICENSED TO SELL OR DISPENSE ALCOHOL OR CANNABIS FOR ON–SITE CONSUMPTION;"

Hmmm, IIRC we had a temporary liquor license for our wedding venue. That wording brings a lot of places people might not suspect under the law's restriction. Weddings, company picnics, neighborhood events, etc. get issjed permits to dispense alcohol. Our neighborhood asdociation uses the cul de sac in front of our house for two official events per year, and they dispense beer probably under a temporary event license.

 

[ras_oscar]

I go to a business that has a temporary liquor license for dispensing samples at scheduled events. Didn't even know such a thing existed until I had occasion to go in the "employees only" area. Saw the roll around dispensing setup.

 

[ras_oscar]

interesting factoid: the Miriam Webster dictionary of the American English language from the founding period defined "gun" as cannon, rifles but "never pistols" useful when evaluating founding period laws for analogs.

 

[Lafayette]

I get it, I agree. And yes, they will have a very hard time with it. At least I hope so.

Sorry, wasn’t implying you (of all people!!) didn’t “get it.” My lazy way of quoting the language of the bill instead of typing it out again.

As compensation, I offer for general consideration of the forum Mr. Jefferson (admittedly out of context.)

“Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson (September 19th, 1785)

"I left at Orange C.H. one of my Turkish pistols, in its holster, locked. I shall be glad if either yourself or Mr Eppes can let a servant take it on to this place.” Thomas Jefferson (October 9th, 1803)

 

[miles71]

The thing that mashes my potatoes is how this bill targets permit holders. You know, the people who have background checks beyond the norm, do some of the most strict training (if done right), and are not at all the issue when it comes to crime. No matter how small or large the restrictions in the bill it is just aimed at the wrong people and will do nothing to prevent crime or make it safer.

Yes, I know I'm preaching to the choir, but this cannot be lost in the confusion.

TD

 

[Lafayette]

The thing that mashes my potatoes is how this bill targets permit holders. You know, the people who have background checks beyond the norm, do some of the most strict training (if done right), and are not at all the issue when it comes to crime. No matter how small or large the restrictions in the bill it is just aimed at the wrong people and will do nothing to prevent crime or make it safer.

Yes, I know I'm preaching to the choir, but this cannot be lost in the confusion.

TD

100% in agreement.

This law does NOTHING to target those committing crimes of violence, and instead makes it harder for me to stay safe and protect my family.

I’ve ponied up almost $1000 in fees, training, and equipment in order to safely, legally, and effectively carry. The state would rather punish me than go after people who are intent on doing us harm and contribute nothing to society.

 

[jc1240]

100% in agreement.

This law does NOTHING to target those committing crimes of violence, and instead makes it harder for me to stay safe and protect my family.

I’ve ponied up almost $1000 in fees, training, and equipment in order to safely, legally, and effectively carry. The state would rather punish me than go after people who are intent on doing us harm and contribute nothing to society.

That there is a bill to remove felony murder from everyone under 25 shows they care nothing about safety. What they don't realize is one day the very monster(s) they protect will turn on them and come for them.

 

[RFBfromDE]

Minutiae probably, but gonna think out loud anyway.
So the retired LEO exception within the exemptions doesn't mention LEOSA, but just says "retired". I don't think anyone in the MGA has any idea what LEOSA is at all. I know LEOSA is/will be exempt when the dust settles.
I wonder if a "retired in good standing" exempted LEO with or without a W&C permit still qualifies under exempt? It doesn't qualify the exemption by requiring a W&C or LEOSA permit, unless I missed something. Unless they just assume retired LEO's would have either permit.

I always read a law, regulation, contract or insurance policy from the perspective of how it most positively conforms to my benefit.

That is actually the way they are supposed to be written, narrowly and to eliminate as much non-specificity as possible.

YMMV

 

[Threeband]

The thing that mashes my potatoes is how this bill targets permit holders. ...

We are the people who get in the way of their Totalitarian agenda.

They have no problem with criminals, because crime advances their agenda.