SB 1 - Dont’s

[emerald]

Close, you can’t be intoxicated and carry.

TD

Yep, I guess technically it's under the influence. I figure in this state, it's not worth finding out what they consider under the influence.

 

[miles71]

Yep, I guess technically it's under the influence. I figure in this state, it's not worth finding out what they consider under the influence.

I would agree and personally would not drink while carrying. TD

 

[rseymorejr]

When I;m out I'll have 1 beer with dinner sometimes. I have no qualms about driving or carrying a gun with 1 beer, but that's it.

 

[emerald]

I would like to think 1 beer would be OK too. I'm thinking there's a standard for driving, and that same standard would apply, but I've never seen it formally stated for firearms.

 

[Phoenix_1295]

Two great resources for Maryland firearms related laws.

Maryland Gun Laws 2023 (2A Maryland)

https://www.2amaryland.org/legislative/2023/MARYLAND_GUN_LAWS_2023.pdf

Maryland and local firearms laws (MSI)

Maryland State and Local Weapons Laws

...

www.marylandshallissue.org

 

[swinokur]

The statute makes no mention or a definition of what level of alcohol constitutes “under the influence” while carrying

 

[Biggfoot44]

That is always the retort.

In this case , it is correct & true .

Sure , plenty of companies and Orgs have suck technology because of beaurocratic intertia , or the vendor is the boss's brother in law .

But MSI is all volunteer , and and all $ goes to litigation , except what's absolutely necessary . So a volunteer with Geek Skills would be of great benefit to the Org , and by extension , the 2A .

 

[Biggfoot44]

The statute makes no mention or a definition of what level of alcohol constitutes “under the influence” while carrying

Sure doesn't . Nor case law .

The one time it came to trial ( with a politician ) , he was literally falling down drunk , so subtlies of required levels didn't come up .

 

[remrug]

The statute makes no mention or a definition of what level of alcohol constitutes “under the influence” while carrying

Wonder why they keep it so vague?

 

[emerald]

Sure doesn't . Nor case law .

The one time it came to trial ( with a politician ) , he was literally falling down drunk , so subtlies of required levels didn't come up .

Was his BAC measured or failing a field sobriety test etc.? Just looking for anything that could be helpful in a defense.

 

[Muleskinner]

Don't comply...gotcha, thanks...wasn't going to anyway...

 

[thomfantomas]

Which month of this year will sb1 be ruled unconstitutional?

 

[Mark75H]

Which month of this year will sb1 be ruled unconstitutional?

2025

 

[BurkeM]

I am in Starbucks in Maryland carrying my Glock 43X. I still don’t know if 1) I am allowed to concealed carry in Starbucks, and 2) open carry (which I can’t figure out is legal or no longer legal).

If you don't have a HGP, that's illegal.

If you have a valid HGP, read it.

2) Open carry is prohibited, unless:

THE REQUIREMENT IN PARAGRAPH (1) OF THIS SUBSECTION TO
KEEP A HANDGUN CONCEALED IS NOT VIOLATED BY:
(I) THE MOMENTARY AND INADVERTENT EXPOSURE OF A
HANDGUN; OR
(II) THE MOMENTARY AND INADVERTENT EXPOSURE OF THE
IMPRINT OR OUTLINE OF A HANDGUN.

(C) A PERSON IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENT IN SUBSECTION (B)
OF THIS SECTION TO KEEP A HANDGUN CONCEALED IF THE PERSON IS AUTHORIZED
AT THE TIME AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO WEAR, CARRY, OR TRANSPORT
THE HANDGUN AS PART OF THE PERSON’S OFFICIAL EQUIPMENT, AND IS:

(1) A PERSON EXEMPTED UNDER § 4–203(B)(1) OF THE CRIMINAL
LAW ARTICLE;

(2) A SECURITY GUARD LICENSED UNDER TITLE 19 OF THE BUSINESS
OCCUPATIONS ARTICLE ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT;

(3) A CORRECTIONAL OFFICER OR WARDEN OF A CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY IN THE STATE ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT;

(4) A RAILROAD POLICE OFFICER APPOINTED UNDER TITLE 3,
SUBTITLE 4 OF THIS ARTICLE ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT; OR

(5) AN EMPLOYEE OF AN ARMORED CAR COMPANY ACTING WITHIN THE
SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT.

 

[BurkeM]

Wonder why they keep it so vague?

It's probable that the statute was written before we had blood alcohol testing.

Like obscenity, the judge would decide.

 

[Garet Jax]

It's probable that the statute was written before we had blood alcohol testing.

Like obscenity, the judge would decide.

You give them too much credit. They could easily change the statute to include a blood alcohol level.

They keep it so vague IMO so they can use it in situations where including a blood alcohol level would limit them.

 

[Bob A]

Wonder why they keep it so vague?

Possibly to address the fact that tolerance to alcohol is a fact. What would render me a puking mess worshiping the porcelain god would have no real effect on someone used to that level of excess.

Whether his judgement would be seriously impaired may be another issue entirely. I recall a guy whose blood alcohol was about 500mg/dl; he was walking around seeming sober as a judge, but had just wrecked his car.

 

[BurkeM]

You give them too much credit. They could easily change the statute to include a blood alcohol level.

They keep it so vague IMO so they can use it in situations where including a blood alcohol level would limit them.

Someone would have to care enough to sponsor a new bill, and expend political capital to push it thru committee hearings.

Nobody has cared enough to bother.

 

[Threeband]

Wonder why they keep it so vague?

Many, many laws are similarly vague. This is deliberate. It allows maximum flexibility for prosecutors and lawyers in general.

All that vagueness creates a vast playing field in which the lawyers can romp and play.

 

[rseymorejr]

Many, many laws are similarly vague. This is deliberate. It allows maximum flexibility for prosecutors and lawyers in general.

All that vagueness creates a vast playing field in which the lawyers can romp and play.

And rack up billable hours