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

[lazarus]

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.

Or for example, what happens if you live in downtown Sykesville and they are holding their wine or beer festivals? I assume
You’d be banned from carrying or transporting a firearm out of your house or apartment, to your vehicle and leaving or coming home with one. The same thing with a demonstration with signage. Also PS, good luck reading the new guns sign for the demonstration A HUNDRED YARDS AWAY from it.

 

[lazarus]

That's probably pushing the limit a bit too far

I have no doubt.

But I still love the idea of it. “All those who enter and are not prohibited by law from possession of a firearm, and are not consuming alcohol or cannabis on site, may act as unpaid security for the premises until such time as you leave”

 

[RFBfromDE]

And ROTC …really?

One of our special masters has a kid in ROTC no doubt.

 

[Some Guy]

Here are some thoughts about SB-1 today.

Victims of domestic violence represent the third highest group of people that die from gunshot wounds, behind suicides (#1) and felony related murders (gang violence, robberies, etc. #2).

SB-1 is in direct conflict with the State of Maryland's extensive safety recommendations for victims of domestic violence. SB-1 will expose domestic violence victims to injury and death. The State recognizes the risks born by victims of domestic violence. The government of Maryland knows that domestic violence victims can be attacked anytime and anywhere, so much so that the State recommends domestic violence victims arm themselves with non-lethal weapons for self-defense. The proof of this is noted at the State recommended resources for domestic violence victims, as follows:

Recommended Safety Tips - This site is used by the State of Maryland to provide information to domestic violence victims. Via this site, the State recommends that victims consider arming themselves with non-lethal "pepper spray or mace" for self-defense. This recommendation directly recognizes that armed self-defense is a necessity for domestic violence victims; and that victims should prepare for confrontation by arming themselves. Anyone in the House that votes "yes" for SB-1 will deprive domestic violence victims of the State's own recognized right to self-defense in case of confrontation anywhere and anytime outside the home. Here's what the State says about this:

Safety Planning - This State reference link takes one to a virtual reading nightmare. In sum, this "domestic violence victim planning page" provides a number of recommendations for victims to follow in order to escape violence, and to try to prevent it. The page demonstrates in several locations that the State knows domestic violence victims live in fear and terror AT ALL TIMES AND IN ALL LOCATIONS; and that they must be prepared for confrontation at all times and in all locations. The State also recognizes that protective orders are meaningless for many abusers. It also recognizes that in some cases the police will not help the victim.

The webpage specifically cites cases and scenarios where victims may require protection and self-defense, including:
- At work (including restaurants, health facilities, stadiums, sporting events, etc., wherever a victim may be employed),
- Traveling to and from work,
- While driving,
- While travelling aboard public transportation,
- While grocery shopping, visiting malls and conducting business (at any hour/time), and
- When banking (at any hour/time).

What does this mean? When you contact legislators to tell them to vote no on SB-1, please remind them that SB-1 exposes victims of domestic violence to harm when they are traveling to, adjacent to, or in any restaurant, health facility, school, government facility, concert venue, theater or any other location. It also means that anyone reading this should ask their wife, sisters, female friends and mother to call their House of Delegates representatives and tell them to VOTE NO ON SB-1.

SB-1 will continue to expose domestic violence victims to constant threat, anywhere and anytime. The State recognizes that these victims, the vast majority of whom are women, must be prepared for confrontation at any time, and the State also recommends that domestic victims arm themselves (but only with pepper spray?) and be prepared for violence from a group of batterers that are responsible for being the second highest class of murderers in the country. And yet the legislators that are supporting SB-1 will STILL refuse to allow these women to defend themselves unless the public tells the legislators to vote no on SB-1.

This bill is an insult to the many thousands of women in Maryland living in fear for their life from violent and abusive domestic partners and other batterers. At its core, SB-1 is illegal, unethical and immoral.

PLEASE CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATOR(S) AND TELL THEM THAT A VOTE AGAINST SB-1 IS A VOTE TO DEFEND OUR DAUGHTERS, SISTERS, MOTHERS, AUNTS AND FRIENDS. A VOTE FOR SB-1 IS A VOTE FOR CONTINUED VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN.

PLEASE DON'T WAIT TO CONTACT YOUR DELEGATE ABOUT THIS.

IF THIS BILL BECOMES LAW MANY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS WILL BEAR THE FULL COST.

 

[Biggfoot44]

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

TD

Singing to the Dead Horse ?

Of course . you're totally correct . But one side already knows this , the other also knows , but either doesn't care , or considers that a Feature .

 

[Biggfoot44]

Unless they just assume retired LEO's would have either permit.

Probably

 

[Chieflywaze]

Exactly. D-bag's view taxpayer money as unlimited. Thus they do not care how much it costs to defend unconstitutional infringements. The goal is to force 2A advocacy groups to spend $millions fighting them across as many jurisdictions as possible. When they lose at the circuit level, they will stop. The last thing they want is a their infringement overturned at SCOTUS because that would stop, temporarily, the similar infringements.
Ultimately, they believe that an eventual communist majority on SCOTUS will void the 2A. Their utopia is where only criminals and gov't have guns, thus obliterating the line between law and outlaw.

Well said. You captured their end game perfectly.

 

[Mark75H]

Or for example, what happens if you live in downtown Sykesville and they are holding their wine or beer festivals? I assume
You’d be banned from carrying or transporting a firearm out of your house or apartment, to your vehicle and leaving or coming home with one. The same thing with a demonstration with signage. Also PS, good luck reading the new guns sign for the demonstration A HUNDRED YARDS AWAY from it.

The first thing that would happen would be testing Sykesville‘s prohibition, which is already in effect, for whether or not being amended post-preemption nullified local ordinance.

 

[6-Pack]

The first thing that would happen would be testing Sykesville‘s prohibition, which is already in effect, for whether or not being amended post-preemption nullified local ordinance.

That reminds me - I need to contact the commissioners and inquire about Carroll County's ban on firearms in County parks. I believe that's unconsitional per Bruen.

 

[Bertfish]

That reminds me - I need to contact the commissioners and inquire about Carroll County's ban on firearms in County parks. I believe that's unconsitional per Bruen.

I asked my Baltimore County councilman and he claimed it was a state issue here. I don't think that's right...

 

[Blaster229]

Too bad the “equal protection” clause has been eviscerated. Every citizen should have the same right to self defense as the next. I don’t believe retired police, CO’s, etc should have more ability (or any less!) to protect themselves than the rest of us.

Because you aren't looking at the reasons why. But that's ok, it's a sensitive issue for many people, you included.
Retired cops, etc... Feel you and everyone should have the right to carry. But statements like this make us feel like telling you people to go suck it. Keep the divide alive.
We didn't get into Law Enforcement hoping one day to be able to carry when others can't.
Blame the government.

 

[ICW2019]

Too bad the “equal protection” clause has been eviscerated. Every citizen should have the same right to self defense as the next. I don’t believe retired police, CO’s, etc should have more ability (or any less!) to protect themselves than the rest of us.

I agree
Yea you don't deserve more protection than the next citizen because you chose a particular occupation.

 

[ICW2019]

Because you aren't looking at the reasons why. But that's ok, it's a sensitive issue for many people, you included.
Retired cops, etc... Feel you and everyone should have the right to carry. But statements like this make us feel like telling you people to go suck it. Keep the divide alive.
We didn't get into Law Enforcement hoping one day to be able to carry when others can't.
Blame the government.

Equal protection clause:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Sounds like anything but division to me. You may not have gone into law enforcement for sole purpose of having the ability of carrying everywhere but it's a privilege afforded to you and should be recognized as such. Feeling like telling us normal civilians to "suck it" because that privilege is being pointed out is pretty sad to be honest.

 

[Blaster229]

Equal protection clause:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Sounds like anything but division to me. You may not have gone into law enforcement for sole purpose of having the ability of carrying everywhere but it's a privilege afforded to you and should be recognized as such. Feeling like telling us normal civilians to "suck it" because that privilege is being pointed out is pretty sad to be honest.

So we are supposed to feel bad when someone complains to us they can't carry where we can? It's not our fault we made the carve out. So yeah, people can suck it if you say that to me. Sorry if I don't stand in solidarity with you and not carry in those places where I can.

 

[scottyfz6]

That reminds me - I need to contact the commissioners and inquire about Carroll County's ban on firearms in County parks. I believe that's unconsitional per Bruen.

Carroll county park ban is related to poaching. It might be worth attacking it from the point of saying that loaded long guns are already banned in vehicles. The law/ban should be changed to exclude permitted concealed carry of handguns. I doubt just going after the ban totally would be even given a chance.

 

[Bertfish]

So we are supposed to feel bad when someone complains to us they can't carry where we can? It's not our fault we made the carve out. So yeah, people can suck it if you say that to me. Sorry if I don't stand in solidarity with you and not carry in those places where I can.

The government creates these special classes of people. You're right

 

[Blaster229]

The government creates these special classes of people. You're right

Exactly. I don't brag about it or throw it in anyone's face, do slam dunks about it. But don't get off on me like I had something to do with it or am glad that "I can and you can't". That's BS. Get pissed at the MGA, not the retired guys.

 

[Bertfish]

Exactly. I don't brag about it or throw it in anyone's face, do slam dunks about it. But don't get off on me like I had something to do with it or am glad that "I can and you can't". That's BS. Get pissed at the MGA, not the retired guys.

I will say I've never seen LEOs in Annapolis fighting the special exemptions but 1) what normal human would and 2) regular citizens don't even show up to fight for themselves

 

[6-Pack]

Carroll county park ban is related to poaching. It might be worth attacking it from the point of saying that loaded long guns are already banned in vehicles. The law/ban should be changed to exclude permitted concealed carry of handguns. I doubt just going after the ban totally would be even given a chance.

Here's Carroll County's law:

§ 94.053 HUNTING AND FIREARMS.
No person in a park shall hunt, trap, or pursue wildlife at any time. No person shall use, carry, or possess firearms of any description, air-rifles, spring-guns, bows and arrows, slings, or any other form of weapons potentially dangerous to wildlife or to humans, or any instrument that can be loaded with and fire blank cartridges, or any kind of trapping device, except as designated by the Manager. No person shall shoot into park areas from beyond park boundaries. This section does not apply to the Cooperative Hunting Program conducted by the State of Maryland and the Hap Baker Firearms Facility.

The fact they say "weapons potentially dangerous to humans" by definition excludes only hunting activities.

 

[ICW2019]

I will say I've never seen LEOs in Annapolis fighting the special exemptions but 1) what normal human would and 2) regular citizens don't even show up to fight for themselves

You never will when their very own FOP PAC endorsed Wes Moore for governor and Anthony Brown for attorney general. The same political party that created this bill and gave the special exemptions based on occupation.

The FOP's own mission statements seem to be a stark contrast to their actions here in MD.