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

[coinboy]

Just so you all know, the governor has posted the interview on his YouTube page.

 

[coinboy]

You bet. We have done exactly that in the Mont. Co. case in quoting the sponsor and the Co. Exec. I would like to encourage them to speak out more. They are politicians, after all. Signaling virtue to them is more important than losing in court.

Thank you for all you do.

It really is appreciated.

 

[Sunrise]

It's already prohibited to carry in those places and you must be brazen to claim "common sense" is constitutional.

I hope his reckless selection of words are used against him!!!

I hope so too. “Common sense” has become one of those focus grouped phrases as part of an anti-gun communications strategy.

I recently responded to someone who said “common sense” to me while ignoring the undeniable empirical data about the virtually non-existent crime rate among legal carriers. I asked/said:

“When does a legal gun owner commit a crime? How often does that happen?”

They didn’t know.

I then said: “There’s nothing ‘common sense’ about deliberately ignoring this information which completely undermines your position.”

He looked at me with a blank NPC expression.

I then told him: “I’m not actually talking to you. I’m talking to the ideology that radicalized you to believe this without thinking.”

 

[Sunrise]

Just so you all know, the governor has posted the interview on his YouTube page.

Looking forward to the Court wiping that smug look off of his face.

He’ll still grift anyway.

 

[Sunrise]

Thank you for all you do.

It really is appreciated.

Hear, hear!

 

[thomfantomas]

Just so you all know, the governor has posted the interview on his YouTube page.

Blast the comment sections!!!

Eventually he'll close the comment sections!

 

[lazarus]

That's what discovery is for. There could very well be inculpatory emails or text messages that establish intent. It's an emotional issue for the Antis; one or more of them probably created a record establishing intent. The overt act was creating and editing the draft bill.

And yes, it would be a novel, risky legal action. But it would enable us to go on the offensive instead of once again just responding to the other side's activities, and might have a deterrent effect.

To what Dblas said. Good luck. I’d give you less than a 3% chance even a 3% chance a conservative judge wouldn’t laugh you out of a court room and possibly slap your lawyers with a vexatious lawsuit finding. Discovery isn’t granted to determine if a crime or injury happened. You have to first show a crime or tort happened, then you can proceed to discovery to gather evidence to prove they are liable in the case of a civil case.

 

[lazarus]

I wonder if things Gov. Wes Moore says in public along with Sen. Waldstreicher has said about his "Bruen Response" is admissible in court?

It is. However, not sure much of it would prove the law is unconstitutional. It isn’t like they’ve been going around saying they know the law is BS.

 

[Sunrise]

It is. However, not sure much of it would prove the law is unconstitutional. It isn’t like they’ve been going around saying they know the law is BS.

As mentioned earlier, this was a real gem by the Governor's Spokesman: https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/...-up-the-game-on-new-carry-restrictions-n70665

 

[coinboy]

It is. However, not sure much of it would prove the law is unconstitutional. It isn’t like they’ve been going around saying they know the law is BS.

Actually. You had legislators saying they feared it was unconstitutional and voted for it anyway.

 

[jc1240]

Actually. You had legislators saying they feared it was unconstitutional and voted for it anyway.

Which is why there needs to be some kind of punishment for politicians who so willfully violate COTUS. As it is now, they don't care because they have nothing to fear. Too many sheeple who don't pay attention, so they won't be voted out as they should be.

YOU violate someones rights, you get sued and pay fines if guilty. Politicians violate rights...and nothing. The almighty immunity BS.

 

[Blaster229]

You might make a good plaintiff for the next suit. Maybe mention your situation to MSI and see how they respond?

So you are ok with a stranger plumber/hvac/ or any other home service type tech coming into your home packing?

 

[Slackdaddy]

So you are ok with a stranger plumber/hvac/ or any other home service type tech coming into your home packing?

I am,, maybe his previous call, or next call is in Pioneer city, Temple Hills, Balt city.
I would much prefer he keep it on himself vs leaving it in the service van to be stolen and possibly used against me or a family member.

 

[danimalw]

Which is why there needs to be some kind of punishment for politicians who so willfully violate COTUS. As it is now, they don't care because they have nothing to fear. Too many sheeple who don't pay attention, so they won't be voted out as they should be.

YOU violate someones rights, you get sued and pay fines if guilty. Politicians violate rights...and nothing. The almighty immunity BS.

Legislatures that willfully violate COTUS should be tar and feathered....(insert full stop, period, dancing banana or whatever). unwillingly violate COTUS, fined, censured and charged with misdemeanor first offense with jail time, 2nd offense charged with felony, fined and removed from office and barred from future office on any level.

 

[Crazytrain]

So you are ok with a stranger plumber/hvac/ or any other home service type tech coming into your home packing?

Not directed at me, but, hell yes.

 

[Blaster229]

Not directed at me, but, hell yes.

So, you think they need it in your house, right?
You trust them, but ok with them not trusting you?

 

[Crazytrain]

So, you think they need it in your house, right?
You trust them, but ok with them not trusting you?

I believe in an armed populace. For me. For them. It'd be pretty hypocritical to expect someone whom I invited (for whatever reason) into my house to have to disarm first.

 

[Bertfish]

Most folks point of objection to the vampire rule IMO is that the state should have no say in the matter. It's up to me to prevent you from exercising your rights on my property, not up to me to positively approve of it.

 

[Sunrise]

So you are ok with a stranger plumber/hvac/ or any other home service type tech coming into your home packing?

Considering the likelihood that a legal/permitted gun carrier will commit a crime is substantially lower than someone who isn't (and statistics support this), then I'm fine with this as well.

 

[FrankZ]

So, you think they need it in your house, right?
You trust them, but ok with them not trusting you?

I don't have an issue with service people carrying in my house. I'd rather them carry then have their truck broken in to and have the firearm stolen. I may not be their only stop of the day.

If I can't trust them they don't come in to start with.