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

[wreckdiver]

I'm with you!

After waiting almost 30 years to get a permit, I’m gonna damn well use it.

 

[esqappellate]

6-411 of the new law does not have an exemption for the business owner.

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2023RS/bills/sb/sb0001e.pdf

4-111 earlier in the bill exempts the owner or lessee only of the new sensitive places in 4-111.

But 6-411 goes on to further restrict carry in any building that is privately owned with only the owner or the owner's agent able to allow possession/carry of a firearm within that building (only police, security, corrections officers and railroad officers are exempt from the private building carry permission restriction).

The way the law is written, if you own a bar, but the building is leased, if you get the landlords permission as the business owner you can carry in the bar, because you are exempt as the owner or lessee of the business. But 6-411 would still require you to get that permission from the landlord.

4-111 just means that the owners of bars, health care facilities, carnivals, etc. can all carry as those are all new sensitive places. BUT, they need to own the building, or have the permission of the owner of the building.

The owner/owner's agent thing was pointed out in the house committee hearing that this would do things like prevent residential renters from possessing a firearm in their dwelling and Clipplinger's response was, "well then they should rent somewhere else".

I am 100% positive that the lessee language does not cover a business owner if that lessee language does not cover a residential renter.

Preventing guns places is a feature, not a bug.

A different exception applies.

6-411 of the new law does not have an exemption for the business owner.

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2023RS/bills/sb/sb0001e.pdf

4-111 earlier in the bill exempts the owner or lessee only of the new sensitive places in 4-111.

But 6-411 goes on to further restrict carry in any building that is privately owned with only the owner or the owner's agent able to allow possession/carry of a firearm within that building (only police, security, corrections officers and railroad officers are exempt from the private building carry permission restriction).

The way the law is written, if you own a bar, but the building is leased, if you get the landlords permission as the business owner you can carry in the bar, because you are exempt as the owner or lessee of the business. But 6-411 would still require you to get that permission from the landlord.

4-111 just means that the owners of bars, health care facilities, carnivals, etc. can all carry as those are all new sensitive places. BUT, they need to own the building, or have the permission of the owner of the building.

The owner/owner's agent thing was pointed out in the house committee hearing that this would do things like prevent residential renters from possessing a firearm in their dwelling and Clipplinger's response was, "well then they should rent somewhere else".

I am 100% positive that the lessee language does not cover a business owner if that lessee language does not cover a residential renter.

Preventing guns places is a feature, not a bug.

I don't think that is correct. See Section 6-411(b)(6), which states that 6-411 does not apply to:
(6) THE WEARING, CARRYING, OR TRANSPORTING OF A 1 FIREARM ON A PORTION OF REAL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT, A 2 RIGHT–OF–WAY, A SERVITUDE, OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY INTEREST ALLOWING 3 ACCESS ON OR THROUGH THE REAL PROPERTY BY: 4
(I) THE HOLDER OF THE EASEMENT, RIGHT–OF–WAY, 5 SERVITUDE, OR OTHER PROPERTY INTEREST; OR 6
(II) A GUEST OR ASSIGNEE OF THE HOLDER OF THE EASEMENT, 7 RIGHT–OF–WAY, SERVITUDE, OR OTHER PROPERTY INTEREST.

So a lease is a "property interest" and if the real property is subject to a lease, then the
"holder" of the property interest or the guest or assignee of the holder of the property interest are exempt. Note, nothing in this language requires that the lease actually permit firearms. The exception applies to real property (land) subject to a "property interest" and if the real property is thus subject to that property interest, then the "holder" of the property interest is exempt and so are his or her guests

 

[6-Pack]

I’m kinda done with this BS. If this doesn’t get struck down I’m gonna buy a smaller 9mm so there’s no chance of printing and carry anywhere there’s no metal detectors.

The first rule of EBMD is you don’t talk about EBMD.

This is the way though.

 

[6-Pack]

After waiting almost 30 years to get a permit, I’m gonna damn well use it.

Yep. I carry at every opportunity, even if I have to run a quick errand (like getting gas for the lawnmower) out of principle.

 

[44 Bulldog]

A different exception applies.

I don't think that is correct. See Section 6-411(b)(6), which states that 6-411 does not apply to:
(6) THE WEARING, CARRYING, OR TRANSPORTING OF A 1 FIREARM ON A PORTION OF REAL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT, A 2 RIGHT–OF–WAY, A SERVITUDE, OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY INTEREST ALLOWING 3 ACCESS ON OR THROUGH THE REAL PROPERTY BY: 4
(I) THE HOLDER OF THE EASEMENT, RIGHT–OF–WAY, 5 SERVITUDE, OR OTHER PROPERTY INTEREST; OR 6
(II) A GUEST OR ASSIGNEE OF THE HOLDER OF THE EASEMENT, 7 RIGHT–OF–WAY, SERVITUDE, OR OTHER PROPERTY INTEREST.

So a lease is a "property interest" and if the real property is subject to a lease, then the
"holder" of the property interest or the guest or assignee of the holder of the property interest are exempt. Note, nothing in this language requires that the lease actually permit firearms. The exception applies to real property (land) subject to a "property interest" and if the real property is thus subject to that property interest, then the "holder" of the property interest is exempt and so are his or her guests

Dammit that's confusing!

 

[thomfantomas]

After waiting almost 30 years to get a permit, I’m gonna damn well use it.

I think more than a majority on this forum have the same feelings and mindset! Besides by then it will be jacket weather again

 

[esqappellate]

Dammit that's confusing!

What do you expect from the MGA? Clarity in a criminal law? That might inhibit arbitrary enforcement

 

[lazarus]

A different exception applies.

I don't think that is correct. See Section 6-411(b)(6), which states that 6-411 does not apply to:
(6) THE WEARING, CARRYING, OR TRANSPORTING OF A 1 FIREARM ON A PORTION OF REAL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT, A 2 RIGHT–OF–WAY, A SERVITUDE, OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY INTEREST ALLOWING 3 ACCESS ON OR THROUGH THE REAL PROPERTY BY: 4
(I) THE HOLDER OF THE EASEMENT, RIGHT–OF–WAY, 5 SERVITUDE, OR OTHER PROPERTY INTEREST; OR 6
(II) A GUEST OR ASSIGNEE OF THE HOLDER OF THE EASEMENT, 7 RIGHT–OF–WAY, SERVITUDE, OR OTHER PROPERTY INTEREST.

So a lease is a "property interest" and if the real property is subject to a lease, then the
"holder" of the property interest or the guest or assignee of the holder of the property interest are exempt. Note, nothing in this language requires that the lease actually permit firearms. The exception applies to real property (land) subject to a "property interest" and if the real property is thus subject to that property interest, then the "holder" of the property interest is exempt and so are his or her guests

Oh, thanks! I guess that is my non-lawyerly brain. I was reading that not as a building, but about the properties surrounding one. And I definitely didn't connect or think of a property interest being a lease. That makes sense.

Clipplinger for sure though did say "yes" in the hearing on a claim that the bill would require tenants to secure permission from their landlord to possess firearms within the lease.

 

[lazarus]

What do you expect from the MGA? Clarity in a criminal law? That might inhibit arbitrary enforcement

Interestingly enough over in Oregon right now, the Republican Senate minority just pointed out their state has a law on the books since the 1970s that require all laws to be writing in a way so as to be understandable by a person with an 8-9th grade education.

Oopsie.

Maryland's sure aren't for most of them and 0% of our gun laws are.

 

[Mr. Ed]

Interestingly enough over in Oregon right now, the Republican Senate minority just pointed out their state has a law on the books since the 1970s that require all laws to be writing in a way so as to be understandable by a person with an 8-9th grade education.

Oopsie.

Maryland's sure aren't for most of them and 0% of our gun laws are.

Here, the laws are written by folks with 8th grade reading comprehension skills, and zero understanding of the effects of their stupidity.

 

[Allen65]

Interestingly enough over in Oregon right now, the Republican Senate minority just pointed out their state has a law on the books since the 1970s that require all laws to be writing in a way so as to be understandable by a person with an 8-9th grade education.

Oopsie.

Maryland's sure aren't for most of them and 0% of our gun laws are.

A 50 year old with a DrS in linguistics couldn't decipher Maryland's incoherent firearms law; it's a product of cognitive dysfunction. Only someone in the middle of an LSD trip or severe delusional psychotic episode could find some semblance of structure in it.

 

[Mark75H]

A 50 year old with a DrS in linguistics couldn't decipher Maryland's incoherent firearms law; it's a product of cognitive dysfunction. Only someone in the middle of an LSD trip or severe delusional psychotic episode could find some semblance of structure in it.

You nailed it!

 

[kmittleman]

A different exception applies.

I don't think that is correct. See Section 6-411(b)(6), which states that 6-411 does not apply to:
(6) THE WEARING, CARRYING, OR TRANSPORTING OF A 1 FIREARM ON A PORTION OF REAL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT, A 2 RIGHT–OF–WAY, A SERVITUDE, OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY INTEREST ALLOWING 3 ACCESS ON OR THROUGH THE REAL PROPERTY BY: 4
(I) THE HOLDER OF THE EASEMENT, RIGHT–OF–WAY, 5 SERVITUDE, OR OTHER PROPERTY INTEREST; OR 6
(II) A GUEST OR ASSIGNEE OF THE HOLDER OF THE EASEMENT, 7 RIGHT–OF–WAY, SERVITUDE, OR OTHER PROPERTY INTEREST.

So a lease is a "property interest" and if the real property is subject to a lease, then the
"holder" of the property interest or the guest or assignee of the holder of the property interest are exempt. Note, nothing in this language requires that the lease actually permit firearms. The exception applies to real property (land) subject to a "property interest" and if the real property is thus subject to that property interest, then the "holder" of the property interest is exempt and so are his or her guests

Thanks Mark - so does that mean business owners are good to go?

 

[Occam]

A 50 year old with a DrS in linguistics couldn't decipher Maryland's incoherent firearms law; it's a product of cognitive dysfunction.

It's not dysfunction-free, but that's not really it. It's malice.

 

[Sunrise]

AFAIK, Gov. Moore still hasn't signed it....

From 4/27/2023: https://apnews.com/article/gun-cont...or-wes-moore-c0ea59d12933731c4d1189a8044fb1c4

“We’re going through and checking on the constitutionality now, but, yes, I plan on signing them soon,” Moore, a Democrat, said.

Some last minute hesitation due to constitutionality issues?

 

[Bertfish]

AFAIK, Gov. Moore still hasn't signed it....

From 4/27/2023: https://apnews.com/article/gun-cont...or-wes-moore-c0ea59d12933731c4d1189a8044fb1c4

“We’re going through and checking on the constitutionality now, but, yes, I plan on signing them soon,” Moore, a Democrat, said.

Some last minute hesitation due to constitutionality issues?

Delay tactics and lies

 

[RFBfromDE]

Just getting a final head count for the caterer.

 

[esqappellate]

Oh, thanks! I guess that is my non-lawyerly brain. I was reading that not as a building, but about the properties surrounding one. And I definitely didn't connect or think of a property interest being a lease. That makes sense.

Clipplinger for sure though did say "yes" in the hearing on a claim that the bill would require tenants to secure permission from their landlord to possess firearms within the lease.

Rule of thumb with legislators. Watch what they do instead of what they say. Chairman Clippinger was actually helpful with amendment this year. Not as favor to us, of course, but because we pointed out a lot of problems that his committee members pushed on, including some Dems, so he yielded with a batch of final amendments.

 

[Sunrise]

Just getting a final head count for the caterer.

Haha. I'll bet. Another taxpayer-funded celebration for the abrogation of our 2A rights is probably what they're looking forward to.

 

[esqappellate]

Thanks Mark - so does that mean business owners are good to go?

Yes, I would think so. We did manage to get a mens rea requirement inserted (the violation must be "willful" so that will help protect against misunderstandings and non-willful violations.