MSI SB 1 law guide

[joppaj]

About two months ago the Home Depot in Bowie detector caught me walking out the in...

That's not a metal detector though.

 

[D&Ds]

“-any private property location which is posted conspicuously or after being notified by the owner or owner’s agent that the wearing, carrying, or transporting a firearm is prohibited on the property. “

Would a no guns sign at, say, Whole Foods have the force of law?

I'd think bigger. HOA's, apartment complexes, etc will have a field day putting up signage

 

[Bertfish]

“-any private property location which is posted conspicuously or after being notified by the owner or owner’s agent that the wearing, carrying, or transporting a firearm is prohibited on the property. “

Would a no guns sign at, say, Whole Foods have the force of law?

Yes

Signs backed by law aren't uncommon even in other states. As much as we may disagree private property is private property. It's the government making the decision for property owners which is the big issue.

 

[D&Ds]

Agreed 100%. The intent of this law is not to reduce crime, it’s to fvck with legal gun owners. Just leftist virtue signaling.

Absolutely

 

[Allen65]

I'd think bigger. HOA's, apartment complexes, etc will have a field day putting up signage

I'm waiting to see the first civil rights suit against a HOA or apartment complex that does that, from one or more of its residents. That sh*t will stop quickly, because courts will (hopefully) see it as infringement on carrying in the home and curtilage. HOA property and common areas of apartments aren't the same as a privately-owned commercial businesses because they have a direct effect on rights in the residence, and the entities being sued don't have bottomless pits of taxpayer dollars to defend themselves in court..

 

[rondon600]

Agreed 100%. The intent of this law is not to reduce crime, it’s to fvck with legal gun owners. Just leftist virtue signaling.

I think we need to review all the statements made by these idiots and see where the cross the line of this US code

 

[Mark75H]

They have immunity

 

[Allen65]

They have immunity

The legislators do. The Everytown staffers who drafted the bill with a specific intent of defying Bruen do not.

And neither 1A, nor attorney-client privilege, protect speech that is in active furtherance of a conspiracy to commit a crime.

 

[rambling_one]

Not 10yrs until October .

And will likely be gone before then .

?

 

[jc1240]

?

Technicality with the date. It's been a little less than 9 1/2 years. And gone by then refers to the expected court rulings in favor of freedom.

 

[Doctor_M]

 

[Biggfoot44]

Technicality with the date. It's been a little less than 9 1/2 years. And gone by then refers to the expected court rulings in favor of freedom.

This .

Of course the tinge to the victory is the taking 9.5 yrs .

 

[rambling_one]

Technicality with the date. It's been a little less than 9 1/2 years. And gone by then refers to the expected court rulings in favor of freedom.

I’ll be just this side of 92 at that point. Not confident a permit will mean much then.

 

[Jake4U]

Moved to SC last year. Got my CWP easily enough, but the state is also on the verge of constitutional carry. The MGA is on the wrong side of history with their histronics. When their wet dream of screwing over law abiding citizens gets swatted down by the courts, stay away from old Ellicott City. The liberal tears will wash away more than the clock ...

 

[AndyP21502]

As infuriating as this is, I can't help but laugh. The members of the MGA just can't help themselves.

The prohibition on carrying a firearm on private property that's conspicuously posted and/or where you have been personally advised that you cannot carry firearms will almost certainly survive judicial review as will the sections prohibiting the carry of firearms in government buildings and polling places. The rest of the place based restrictions on carrying firearms are dead on arrival; there simply isn't adequate (or, in some cases, any) text, history or tradition to support them. The fact that you appear to be prohibited from carrying a pistol into Sheetz under this law since they have machines that dispense lottery tickets will not amuse SCOTUS, nor will the youth camp prohibition since it appears to prohibit earning a merit badge in marksmanship and similar activities.

I understand that it's frustrating but ultimately this type of legislation will lead to excellent case law that will definitively foreclose on these types of infringements. Once 90 percent of the sensitive place restrictions are held to be unconstitutional, Maryland and other states will try to impose onerous training requirements (i.e. 40+ hour training courses that approximate going through the firearms training found in a Police Academy) or truly exorbitant fees (i.e. $1,000 per year with annual renewal). Once those get struck down, their quiver will essentially be empty. In the end, we win as long as we keep fighting diligently. Having been born and raised in NYC, I can tell you from experience what truly draconian gun control looks like. The strides we've made over the last forty years are nothing short of miraculous.

This type of legislation is rearguard harassment. The Second Amendment is here to stay. This nonsense is a form of theater. If Maryland were serious about crime control, it wouldn't have abolished the death penalty, violent felons would have to serve 85 percent of their sentences before seeing the parole board and the MGA wouldn't be considering shielding 24 year old felons from being charged with first degree murder for rape-homicide.

Best reply I've seen so far. Shall not be infringed means just that. But that's not going to stop the left from trying. They couldn't care less about the weekly gun violence in Baltimore. I foresee all their attempts eventually failing once the higher courts sees them.

 

[jc1240]

Best reply I've seen so far. Shall not be infringed means just that. But that's not going to stop the left from trying. They couldn't care less about the weekly gun violence in Baltimore. I foresee all their attempts eventually failing once the higher courts sees them.

They encourage it. Their desire to not punish real criminals is proof to me.

 

[RFBfromDE]

When their wet dream of screwing over law abiding citizens gets swatted down by the courts, stay away from old Ellicott City. The liberal tears will wash away more than the clock ...

Nice visual!

 

[PO2012]

They encourage it. Their desire to not punish real criminals is proof to me.

Absolutely. Baltimore City's initial collapse was unplanned and disorderly but at a certain point politicians realized they could guide and weaponize the collapse. Baltimore is deliberately allowed to exist in its current state to justify expanding state power and to conceal and facilitate all manner of embezzlement and similar offenses.

The fact that there are no mandatory minimums for murder, rape and robbery tell you everything you need to know. Maryland has the weakest homicide laws in the United States with the average time served upon conviction for 1st degree murder being 11.5 years. Crime here is a problem because certain people want it to be.

 

[Ovechtrick]

Changes to Legal Handgun Carry in Maryland

With Governor Moore's approval, The Maryland General Assembly has passed two bills that substantially burden Marylanders' right to armed self-defense in public. Starting October 1st, 2023, SB 1 bans public carry in most buildings by default unless a building's owner or agent provides express...

www.marylandshallissue.org

Dont blame the messenger

I’ve been trying to keep up with the restrictions noted in this bill and they seem to be ever changing. From reading this it seems like the restriction of carrying within 100 yards of prohibited places has been removed? Earlier language also seemed to prohibit carrying at every place imaginable that they broadly defined as a “place of public assembly” including most retail locations. That’s no longer the case, correct? The prohibited areas in the bill are now just what are strictly listed above in the MSI link?

Can someone advise if I’m understanding this correctly?

 

[eruby]

I’ve been trying to keep up with the restrictions noted in this bill and they seem to be ever changing. From reading this it seems like the restriction of carrying within 100 yards of prohibited places has been removed? Earlier language also seemed to prohibit carrying at every place imaginable that they broadly defined as a “place of public assembly” including most retail locations. That’s no longer the case, correct? The prohibited areas in the bill are now just what are strictly listed above in the MSI link?

Can someone advise if I’m understanding this correctly?

The restrictions are:

Any place with metal detectors