Permit restrictions have changed

swinokur · Apr 8, 2016

N3YMY said:
Do signs displayed stating no concealed weapons have force of law in the PMRD...?

no law can be found according to handgunlaw.us
.

redeemed.man · Apr 8, 2016

N3YMY said:
My take is one gray area traded for another.

"Where prohibited" could be if there is a sign displayed.

"Where prohibited by law" is less gray.

Do signs displayed stating no concealed weapons have force of law in the PMRD...?

What you point out is by design of the MSP and the signs don't have the force of law BUT violation of restrictions does have the force of law. Violate the sign, you violate your restriction because the "by law" part is missing. :mad:

torched02 · Apr 8, 2016

boundlessdyad said:
Excellent. Ben ran a great class. Glad it worked out for you.

Yes sir, thanks buddy appreciate it!

mcbruzdzinski · Apr 9, 2016

Ben Kelke is a great instructor.

press1280 · Apr 9, 2016

Any documented incidents of permit holders being revoked because of a gray area violation?

steveh326 · Apr 9, 2016

press1280 said:
Any documented incidents of permit holders being revoked because of a gray area violation?

apparently both of the permit holders in MD have somehow managed to stay away from the gray areas...

ericahls · Apr 9, 2016

N3YMY said:
My take is one gray area traded for another. "Where prohibited" could be if there is a sign displayed. "Where prohibited by law" is less gray. Do signs displayed stating no concealed weapons have force of law in the PMRD...?

Maryland is a preemptive state. No sign or jurisdiction has the force of law over state.

You are prohibited in cases where the firearm is prohibited by a state or federal law.

magnetic1 · Apr 9, 2016

shootin the breeze said:
Thanks, I'll give him a holler and see what happens.

Where is contact info?

Mine was renewed earlier this year AFTER the SOP was issued and I still have the old language but w/ the new "not where firearms are prohibited".

Plus some grammatical errors,
It says:

"Valid only between residence All businesses owned by XXX or while actively involved in financial business transactions as Owner of the same. (MD only) Not valid where Firearms are prohibited."

LCPIWB · Apr 9, 2016

press1280 said:
Any documented incidents of permit holders being revoked because of a gray area violation?

You will not have to worry about it getting revoked, because you will be sitting in jail with a criminal violation and no longer allowed to firearms because you are now a prohibited person.
It may sound like I am joking, but sadly I am not. I forget what year, and which bill, but permit restriction violations were made criminal as if you did not have a permit at all.

dblas · Apr 9, 2016

boundlessdyad said:
What you point out is by design of the MSP and the signs don't have the force of law BUT violation of restrictions does have the force of law. Violate the sign, you violate your restriction because the "by law" part is missing.

Since the sign carries no force of law, you are not outside your restrictions. Best they can do is ask you to leave the business, and if you don't charge you with trespassing.

redeemed.man · Apr 9, 2016

dblas said:
Since the sign carries no force of law, you are not outside your restrictions. Best they can do is ask you to leave the business, and if you don't charge you with trespassing.

With the "by law" part missing if someone decides to prohibit you from carrying in their business via a sign you are indeed in violation of your restrictions if you do so. I am not suggesting you would or would not be prosecuted. I am simply breaking down the plain English. MSP by omitting the "by law" is allowing third parties to prohibit you from carrying in certain areas thereby creating a restriction violation. This was acknowledged by MSP in a HPRB hearing a few months back.

HeatSeeker · Apr 9, 2016

All of this always leaves too much to the interpretation of each individual. One says it is in violation and another says it's not. The debate goes on and on and on no matter what the language in the restriction says or has changed to. MSP needs to make it crystal clear what is in violation of restrictions and what is not. No gray area!!

redeemed.man · Apr 10, 2016

HeatSeeker said:
All of this always leaves too much to the interpretation of each individual. One says it is in violation and another says it's not. The debate goes on and on and on no matter what the language in the restriction says or has changed to. MSP needs to make it crystal clear what is in violation of restrictions and what is not. No gray area!!

Good luck with that. Gov. Hogan has not yet given this direction to his MSP Superintendent or the LD Commander. Until/unless he does more of the same is what we can expect.

ironpony · Apr 10, 2016

boundlessdyad said:
Good luck with that. Gov. Hogan has not yet given this direction to his MSP Superintendent or the LD Commander. Until/unless he does more of the same is what we can expect.

Yup,
where's that dog and pony pic.

Straightshooter · Apr 10, 2016

boundlessdyad said:
Good luck with that. Gov. Hogan has not yet given this direction to his MSP Superintendent or the LD Commander. Until/unless he does more of the same is what we can expect.

Day 1 is only 2 days away.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Straightshooter · Apr 10, 2016

Oops, I forgot. Better give that another day for good measure to make sure it's safe.

Oops, that'll be a Thursday. He can't do it on a Thursday because his phone would be ringing off the hook on Friday.

Maybe a Monday would be better. Nobody pays attention to what's happening on Mondays.

Now, if only we knew which Monday.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

ericahls · Apr 10, 2016

boundlessdyad said:
With the "by law" part missing if someone decides to prohibit you from carrying in their business via a sign you are indeed in violation of your restrictions if you do so. I am not suggesting you would or would not be prosecuted. I am simply breaking down the plain English. MSP by omitting the "by law" is allowing third parties to prohibit you from carrying in certain areas thereby creating a restriction violation. This was acknowledged by MSP in a HPRB hearing a few months back.

I hear you BUT no where in the COMAR or State regs does it say that a 'no gun' sign carries the force of law.

So, if my permit is invalidated because a business owner displays a sign that says 'no guns' and my permit doesn't specify 'By law', then by the same logic he could simply just tell the MSP that he "Prohibits" firearms verbally and presto my permit would be invalid, no sign necessary. Since neither of those examples requires any legal precedent to invalidate my permit.

In other words, having the thought in a business owner's head that guns are prohibited is just as valid as having a sign.

To the best of my understanding all they can ask you to do is leave IF they find out you are carrying your CONCEALED firearm. If you refuse then the police can arrest you for trespassing.

POP57 · Apr 10, 2016

ericahls said:
To the best of my understanding all they can ask you to do is leave IF they find out you are carrying your CONCEALED firearm. If you refuse then the police can arrest you for trespassing.

^^^This

redeemed.man · Apr 10, 2016

ericahls said:
I hear you BUT no where in the COMAR or State regs does it say that a 'no gun' sign carries the force of law.

So, if my permit is invalidated because a business owner displays a sign that says 'no guns' and my permit doesn't specify 'By law', then by the same logic he could simply just tell the MSP that he "Prohibits" firearms verbally and presto my permit would be invalid, no sign necessary. Since neither of those examples requires any legal precedent to support it.

In other words, having the thought in a business owner's head that guns are prohibited is just as valid as having a sign.

To the best of my understanding all they can ask you to do is leave IF they find out you are carrying your CONCEALED firearm. If you refuse then the police can arrest you for trespassing.

This is Maryland. What you are speaking of does apply in other jurisdictions. In Maryland the MSP is purposely leaving the "except where prohibited by law" part off of restrictions just in case they decide they want use it against you. Remember where you are. Remember MSP testified to basically exactly what I am saying when someone (a member here) tried to get the restriction modified to include the "by law" part.

I am not saying you will be prosecuted. I am not saying you will be arrested. I am not saying signs carry the force of law in MD. I am not saying I believe it to be a violation of restrictions personally. I am simply saying MSP worded it the way they did to be able to use it against you if they want to. Never underestimate the intent of those who wish to disarm you.

dblas · Apr 10, 2016

boundlessdyad said:
With the "by law" part missing if someone decides to prohibit you from carrying in their business via a sign you are indeed in violation of your restrictions if you do so. I am not suggesting you would or would not be prosecuted. I am simply breaking down the plain English. MSP by omitting the "by law" is allowing third parties to prohibit you from carrying in certain areas thereby creating a restriction violation. This was acknowledged by MSP in a HPRB hearing a few months back.

Ummm, No, again, because the sign carries no force of law. In order to be outside your restrictions, you have to be violating a law, not a request, which is exactly what the signs are, since they have absolutely no force of law behind them.

Yes, it was acknowledged by MSP, but that still doesn't make it illegal to do so, since again, there is no law that requires the signs and no law that requires permit holders to abide by the signs.

Permit restrictions have changed

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

In a State of Bliss

Attachments

Ultimate Member

Rottie's Rule!

NRA Training Counselor

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Active Member

Needs an avatar

Past President, MSI

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Past President, MSI

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics