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

[Doctor_M]

We do probably have a few"wanna bes" in our ranks, but most are mid-career professionals or retirees who want to provide community service (mostly helping with boating, hunter education, and search and rescue programs). There are a lot of young folks looking to get some experience as well before entering the academy. All in all it is a good program and I think probably we save a few lives every year.

Sorry for the thread derail folks... back to topic.

 

[miles71]

Wait I’ll fix all of this. Just leave all the new bills in place but add to the list of individuals it does not apply to: “individuals who possess a Md Wear and Carry permit.”

Simple ………


TD

 

[Garet Jax]

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

That's not the right question. The change in this law will make people criminals for doing something they have been doing potentially for years. The question is should be the government be able to change laws that make criminals of good people for doing the thing(s) they have been doing for years.

Under the current laws, home and business owners can post a sign saying that they don't want people to carry in their homes.

 

[lazarus]

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

It’s a hard sell trying to say someone who voted for it feared it was unconstitutional. If you have the main sponsor of the bill, committee chair, party majority leader, or speaker/senate President saying that, let alone the governor, that is a much better sell. Single digit democratic regular house members saying it won’t sway much.

 

[Blaster229]

Yes if they have a permit.

So what you are saying is that the permit scheme is needed.
As long as someone goes through the training and permit process they should be allowed to carry a gun.
Permitless and Constitutional carry has no place in our society.

 

[coinboy]

So what you are saying is that the permit scheme is needed.
As long as someone goes through the training and permit process they should be allowed to carry a gun.
Permitless and Constitutional carry has no place in our society.

Well, no. That's not what I said. That's what you inferred.

I support constitutional and permitless carry.

Prohibited people are already prohibited from wear, carry, transport, or possession of a weapon.

What I was actually saying is that I would feel more comfortable about the wear and carrier having a permit because they have had training, a background check, and learned some of the legal issues. They could protect my wife and kid if some issues went down.

I was also going to say concealed means concealed.

So if someone carries a firearm into the house of another, how will the homeowner know if the weapon is concealed?

That's regardless if they have a permit. Just because it's illegal doesn't mean a criminal won't do it anyway. Only the law abiding will follow this law.

I would ask you if you are going to have a metal detector or pat down at the door of your house or are you just not going to let anyone in? How would you enforce the presumptive no guns policy made by the state?

Moreover, say a repairman was there and a guy started breaking into the house with you both there. The repairman shoots the intruder. Are you really going to tell the state you want the repairman prosecuted?

 

[BradMacc82]

Pretty simple philosophy for me - you don't reach for yours, I won't reach for mine.

 

[lazarus]

Well, no. That's not what I said. That's what you inferred.

I support constitutional and permitless carry.

Prohibited people are already prohibited from wear, carry, transport, or possession of a weapon.

What I was actually saying is that I would feel more comfortable about the wear and carrier having a permit because they have had training, a background check, and learned some of the legal issues. They could protect my wife and kid if some issues went down.

I was also going to say concealed means concealed.

So if someone carries a firearm into the house of another, how will the homeowner know if the weapon is concealed?

That's regardless if they have a permit. Just because it's illegal doesn't mean a criminal won't do it anyway. Only the law abiding will follow this law.

I would ask you if you are going to have a metal detector or pat down at the door of your house or are you just not going to let anyone in? How would you enforce the presumptive no guns policy made by the state?

Moreover, say a repairman was there and a guy started breaking into the house with you both there. The repairman shoots the intruder. Are you really going to tell the state you want the repairman prosecuted?

But by that logic, who cares if it is illegal if concealed means concealed?

I think the point is, if it becomes not concealed, then the homeowner is legally allowed to make a criminal issue out of it.

To Rickp's last point, that would be my only real concern is someone not being smart while carrying and either risking themselves, my family, or my property by doing something that might lead to an ND working while carrying, or them getting hung up working in a tight space (sure, could with their tool belt too, but probably more likely to take off a tool belt than their gun), etc. I guess for other people with little kids, if one was dumb enough to take it off to access a tight space and left it in plain sight with little kids in the house.

I don't have some immense outrage that a trades person would carry on the job into someone's house. But I do think it leads to a significant more risk than someone carrying in their everyday life not on the job for that kind of job. Just like I think carrying in construction adds a ton more risk (while working).

 

[D&Ds]

I support constitutional and permitless carry.

What I was actually saying is that I would feel more comfortable about the wear and carrier having a permit because they have had training, a background check, and learned some of the legal issues.

cant just pick one?

 

[pcfixer]

cant just pick one?

Blaster229 said:
So you are ok with a stranger plumber/hvac/ or any other home service type tech coming into your home packing?

Yea. Are they packing or are loaded?

 

[coinboy]

But by that logic, who cares if it is illegal if concealed means concealed?

I think the point is, if it becomes not concealed, then the homeowner is legally allowed to make a criminal issue out of it.

To Rickp's last point, that would be my only real concern is someone not being smart while carrying and either risking themselves, my family, or my property by doing something that might lead to an ND working while carrying, or them getting hung up working in a tight space (sure, could with their tool belt too, but probably more likely to take off a tool belt than their gun), etc. I guess for other people with little kids, if one was dumb enough to take it off to access a tight space and left it in plain sight with little kids in the house.

I don't have some immense outrage that a trades person would carry on the job into someone's house. But I do think it leads to a significant more risk than someone carrying in their everyday life not on the job for that kind of job. Just like I think carrying in construction adds a ton more risk (while working).

The homeowner can already make an issue out of it without SB1 because they have property rights and can tell anyone to leave and enforce it with trespassing laws.

We don't need the state to have the right to tell people what to do with regards to gun rights on their own property. They have inverted the private property rule.

I used to work as an armed guard and our revolvers got pretty banged up. Lifting, lowering, carrying, bumping into things, and never had an ND.

People can do labor jobs and carry firearms just fine. The ND's happen when people remove the guns from the holsters for whatever reason.

At the Armored Car Company, the only ND we ever had was when the guard was turning the gun in after the shift and pulled the trigger in the cage by accident.

Luckily they shot into the wall and no one got hurt.

 

[Doco Overboard]

I don’t want or need somebody in my house that I don’t know with a gun on them.
If they don’t like it they go somewhere else and work.
Now that I think about it, I don’t want anybody in or around my house that I don’t know or for whom I’m not familiar with anyhow.
I don’t fall into the train of thought either,well they are law abiding have a permit yada yada.
Permit issued by who?
BFD. The same people who gave you SB1?which coincidentally hPpens to be the same authority that wants to tell a person who can do what and where with a firearm.
Since when does having a permit or good conceal method prohibit someone from being a dumbass with some iron in my house?
Yeah right.
I’ll be giving the permits at my place thank you very much.
Others may want to pull some role reversal BS like anti 2A Uncle Tom for sB1 etc.
that’s horse shit pot meet kettle bs too.
Sorry to disappoint any constitutionalist here. You can let ‘em in all you want at your place.

 

[Lafayette]

I don’t want or need somebody in my house that I don’t know with a gun on them.
If they don’t like it they go somewhere else and work.
Now that I think about it, I don’t want anybody in or around my house that I don’t know or for whom I’m not familiar with anyhow.
I don’t fall into the train of thought either,well they are law abiding have a permit yada yada.
Permit issued by who?
BFD. The same people who gave you SB1?which coincidentally hPpens to be the same authority that wants to tell a person who can do what and where with a firearm.
Since when does having a permit or good conceal method prohibit someone from being a dumbass with some iron in my house?
Yeah right.
I’ll be giving the permits at my place thank you very much.
Others may want to pull some role reversal BS like anti 2A Uncle Tom for sB1 etc.
that’s horse shit pot meet kettle bs too.
Sorry to disappoint any constitutionalist here. You can let ‘em in all you want at your place.

And no one disagrees with you that you have the right to not allow someone to carry on your property. You can trespass anyone from your property that attempts to bring a firearm into your domain without permission.

That is your right and I respect that right.

What many of us (well, at least me) have a problem with is 1) the state having the right to determine who can carry and who can’t and 2) compelling a property owner into speech by requiring them to explicitly allow a person to carry onto their property.

 

[BeoBill]

Semi on-topic:

I feel like he's got SB-1 in mind...

 

[Bertfish]

I don’t want or need somebody in my house that I don’t know with a gun on them.
If they don’t like it they go somewhere else and work.
Now that I think about it, I don’t want anybody in or around my house that I don’t know or for whom I’m not familiar with anyhow.
I don’t fall into the train of thought either,well they are law abiding have a permit yada yada.
Permit issued by who?
BFD. The same people who gave you SB1?which coincidentally hPpens to be the same authority that wants to tell a person who can do what and where with a firearm.
Since when does having a permit or good conceal method prohibit someone from being a dumbass with some iron in my house?
Yeah right.
I’ll be giving the permits at my place thank you very much.
Others may want to pull some role reversal BS like anti 2A Uncle Tom for sB1 etc.
that’s horse shit pot meet kettle bs too.
Sorry to disappoint any constitutionalist here. You can let ‘em in all you want at your place.

Yes yes yes the woods behind your house are also verboten we know

 

[JohnnyE]

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.

On his Four Boxes Diner YouTube channel Mark Smith points out that Bruen is really just paint-by-numbers instructions to the courts on how to implement Heller correctly because far too many federal district and circuit judges aren't doing it. If it's a challenge to get these highly educated and experienced legal professionals to respect the Constitution, what chance is there to get what are in many respects lay-person legislators to do so?

 

[Bob A]

On his Four Boxes Diner YouTube channel Mark Smith points out that Bruen is really just paint-by-numbers instructions to the courts on how to implement Heller correctly because far too many federal district and circuit judges aren't doing it. If it's a challenge to get these highly educated and experienced legal professionals to respect the Constitution, what chance is there to get what are in many respects lay-person legislators to do so?

We need a batch of young Heller wannabees. Get busted for an essentially unConstitutional law, get it to SCOTUS, and immortalize your name in history for as long as this nation still stands.

If Smith is correct, there's pretty much zip to justify anti-gun legislation written after 1866.
Hell's bells, there were privately owned and armed warships with letters of marque that had governmental permission to go forth and seize enemy shipping for private profit. If you can own a frigate, a machine gun is small beer. We have some fine traditions . . .

Eventually, most of the nation's restrictive gun laws will go away. IMO, the sooner, the better.

 

[JohnnyE]

We need a batch of young Heller wannabees. Get busted for an essentially unConstitutional law, get it to SCOTUS, and immortalize your name in history for as long as this nation still stands.

If Smith is correct, there's pretty much zip to justify anti-gun legislation written after 1866.
Hell's bells, there were privately owned and armed warships with letters of marque that had governmental permission to go forth and seize enemy shipping for private profit. If you can own a frigate, a machine gun is small beer. We have some fine traditions . . .

Eventually, most of the nation's restrictive gun laws will go away. IMO, the sooner, the better.

Smith reports the line isn't as recent as 1866, but 1791. Either way, most modern gun laws are in doubt.

Ah privateers and letters of marque. Those were some times.

 

[swinokur]

He includes 1868 because of the 14th Amendment.

 

[cobra]

Interesting thread. Constitutional carry. No back ground check or training required.

Shall issue, some amount of training and background check required????

strange how some who now recently have gotten a permit but then suddenly question others that did the same, went thru same training, background checks,etc. but should be questioned if around one’s family Because they have permit.
After all we all went thru same back ground checks and training? This question should be answered requardless of person permitted or not

several years ago friend got permit for his small business .asked him if he would allow his employees to carry. Definitely no. I asked because of a liability issue. He said no I don’t trust others carrying.

plenty of hypocrisy out there on both sides

this is a dilemma we are going to need to come to terms on ow MD became shall issue.
just some personal thoughts/ questions as I read post like these Now that MD. Is shall issue.

as for having a service/ repair person in my house armed or not. This person would be someone I know or who had a personal recommendation based on their work from another contractor reference I know regardless off having a permit or not. Never had issue with contractor trying to steal,terrorize my family in 40 years due to my vetting them. Them having a permit carrying in my house does’t change that.