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

[Bertfish]

You never will when their very own FOP PAC endorsed Wes Moore for governor and Anthony Brown for attorney general. The same political party that created this bill and gave the special exemptions based on occupation.

The FOP's own mission statements seem to be a stark contrast to their actions here in MD.

I've got one friend who is LEO. I asked him about this back when it happenes. He said it's very much like any other union where the leadership is politically disconnected from the membership. They lean left because that's what gets them appointed.

 

[ICW2019]

I've got one friend who is LEO. I asked him about this back when it happenes. He said it's very much like any other union where the leadership is politically disconnected from the membership. They lean left because that's what gets them appointed.

Yep I completely agree that they don't represent the majority opinion of their core members and people with the loudest voices in that organization won't change exemptions for reasons you already mentioned.

Could you imagine the membership decline if they told their members you can't carry in a normal restaurant because of SB1 and not supporting the occupational exemptions lol.

 

[scottyfz6]

Here's Carroll County's law:
§ 94.053 HUNTING AND FIREARMS.
No person in a park shall hunt, trap, or pursue wildlife at any time. No person shall use, carry, or possess firearms of any description, air-rifles, spring-guns, bows and arrows, slings, or any other form of weapons potentially dangerous to wildlife or to humans, or any instrument that can be loaded with and fire blank cartridges, or any kind of trapping device, except as designated by the Manager. No person shall shoot into park areas from beyond park boundaries. This section does not apply to the Cooperative Hunting Program conducted by the State of Maryland and the Hap Baker Firearms Facility.

The fact they say "weapons potentially dangerous to humans" by definition excludes only hunting activities.

That says to me its a poaching law. It says no hunting or trapping in the first sentence. Then they add the weapon stuff to prevent poaching.

It goes on to state no bringing anything in that could be used to hunt. It is a simple way of covering their ass for the guy caught with a bow in the bed of his truck with an arrow in the bow. We know he probably there to illegally shoot a deer, but unless caught there is no proof. So you just write the law to stop the person from bringing the bow in, in the first place.

They added the human thing in for the same reason, it says "weapons potentially dangerous to wildlife or two humans" for the same reason. To stop someone from bringing in something and saying its not suitable for hunting, like a 22lr. But we know a 22lr will kill a deer.

Your quote of "weapons potentially dangerous to humans" is an intentional misquote, as you removed the "wildlife or" part. That totally removes its validity in the discussion

 

[AKbythebay]

I get it, I agree. And yes, they will have a very hard time with it. At least I hope so.

I'm curious why you feel there is a good chance of overturning this part of the bill/law? Aren't alcohol restrictions fairly common in other shall issue carry states? Have these been challenge before? Have any been overturned?

I find it ridiculous that somone who wants to go to a restaurant for dinner and doesn't drink cannot carry. Of all the idiocy in this bill that particular rule bothers me the most. It will also lead to more people just ignoring that language and carrying inside restaurants -or- it will lead to more guns being stollen out of cars when people feel they need to leave it in their vehicle while eating.

 

[scottyfz6]

I'm curious why you feel there is a good chance of overturning this part of the bill/law? Aren't alcohol restrictions fairly common in other shall issue carry states? Have these been challenge before? Have any been overturned?

I find it ridiculous that somone who wants to go to a restaurant for dinner and doesn't drink cannot carry. Of all the idiocy in this bill that particular rule bothers me the most. It will also lead to more people just ignoring that language and carrying inside restaurants -or- it will lead to more guns being stollen out of cars when people feel they need to leave it in their vehicle while eating.

My debbie downer response. It will probably hold up, as other states of had it for a while, and no one has fought it much. In Virginia you can not concealed carry in a place that serves booze, but you can open carry. Yes its stupid, but they wrote their CCW law to say no concealed in a bar. They just never touched on the open carry part.

 

[rbird7282]

That's probably pushing the limit a bit too far

Well they push it at every turn, why not our side?

 

[rbird7282]

My debbie downer response. It will probably hold up, as other states of had it for a while, and no one has fought it much. In Virginia you can not concealed carry in a place that serves booze, but you can open carry. Yes its stupid, but they wrote their CCW law to say no concealed in a bar. They just never touched on the open carry part.

Yes but they didn’t eliminate carry completely in a restaurant which is what MD will do.

 

[teratos]

K

My debbie downer response. It will probably hold up, as other states of had it for a while, and no one has fought it much. In Virginia you can not concealed carry in a place that serves booze, but you can open carry. Yes its stupid, but they wrote their CCW law to say no concealed in a bar. They just never touched on the open carry part.

Were there prohibitions on such activities in 1789? Recall that Bruen overturned a 100 year history of gun control in NY because it wasn’t in the spirit of the 2A as envisioned by the Framers and ratified by the States.

 

[ICW2019]

I'm curious why you feel there is a good chance of overturning this part of the bill/law? Aren't alcohol restrictions fairly common in other shall issue carry states? Have these been challenge before? Have any been overturned?

I find it ridiculous that somone who wants to go to a restaurant for dinner and doesn't drink cannot carry. Of all the idiocy in this bill that particular rule bothers me the most. It will also lead to more people just ignoring that language and carrying inside restaurants -or- it will lead to more guns being stollen out of cars when people feel they need to leave it in their vehicle while eating.

South Carolina has some of the same language for permission before carrying in another person's private dwelling.
Texas expects you not to carry in a establishment that 51% or more of their income is alcohol related.

 

[Occam]

Were there prohibitions on such activities in 1789? Recall that Bruen overturned a 100 year history of gun control in NY because it wasn’t in the spirit of the 2A as envisioned by the Framers and ratified by the States.

I think this is a really important point. A lot of antis seem to think that the lack of a focused (or successful) fight on many of these fronts - for many decades - somehow establishes their infringements as legitimate. It doesn't. It just means that the constitution got ratified back when virtually nobody would have expected the infringements that came along later, and that for any number of reasons, those infringements didn't get a solid fight until something like Heller came along. Heller didn't suddenly reverse the nation's take on self defense. It was the Bill of Right waking up from a long troubled sleep and being reasserted as written. Likewise Bruen.

I hate that so many places DID get so complacent over the long years, but they did. And the right cases handled by the right people at the right time are dragging us back from the abuse, not "changing" anything. I'd like to see the alcohol thing get Thomas's sharpened quill. We need a Brew-en ruling.

 

[ICW2019]

My debbie downer response. It will probably hold up, as other states of had it for a while, and no one has fought it much. In Virginia you can not concealed carry in a place that serves booze, but you can open carry. Yes its stupid, but they wrote their CCW law to say no concealed in a bar. They just never touched on the open carry part.

That law changed in 2010

"No person who carries a concealed handgun onto the premises of any restaurant or club as defined in § 4.1-100 for which a license to sell and serve alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption has been granted by the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board under Title 4.1 may consume an alcoholic beverage while on the premises. A person who carries a concealed handgun onto the premises of such a restaurant or club and consumes alcoholic beverages is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. However, nothing in this subsection shall apply to a federal, state, or local law-enforcement officer."

 

[Trm]

What they don’t know won’t hurt them. When it comes down to me and mines screw that law. I rather be judge by 12 than carry by 6. Ain’t like the cops gonna check everyone to see who complies.

 

[teratos]

I think this is a really important point. A lot of antis seem to think that the lack of a focused (or successful) fight on many of these fronts - for many decades - somehow establishes their infringements as legitimate. It doesn't. It just means that the constitution got ratified back when virtually nobody would have expected the infringements that came along later, and that for any number of reasons, those infringements didn't get a solid fight until something like Heller came along. Heller didn't suddenly reverse the nation's take on self defense. It was the Bill of Right waking up from a long troubled sleep and being reasserted as written. Likewise Bruen.

I hate that so many places DID get so complacent over the long years, but they did. And the right cases handled by the right people at the right time are dragging us back from the abuse, not "changing" anything. I'd like to see the alcohol thing get Thomas's sharpened quill. We need a Brew-en ruling.

Also important to note that Bruen did not re-write the 2A…it re-read it.

 

[teratos]

What they don’t know won’t hurt them. When it comes down to my kids I’m not following now law. I rather be judge by 12 than carry by 6. I have carry insurance for a reason.

Carry insurance won’t cover you if you are outside the law. They are not there to challenge the laws.

 

[ICW2019]

What they don’t know won’t hurt them. When it comes down to my kids I’m not following now law. I rather be judge by 12 than carry by 6. I have carry insurance for a reason.

I'm of this same sentiment until I realize I have a wife and four year old relying on me. The chances of me getting assaulted or killed vs carrying in a restricted area and being seen by a random Karen and going to jail for up to 3 years is vastly lopsided.

 

[Trm]

Carry insurance won’t cover you if you are outside the law. They are not there to challenge the laws.

Thanks I just realized that about the carry insurance when I posted this.

 

[chilipeppermaniac]

K

Were there prohibitions on such activities in 1789? Recall that Bruen overturned a 100 year history of gun control in NY because it wasn’t in the spirit of the 2A as envisioned by the Framers and ratified by the States.

THIS

 

[Brute]

My debbie downer response. It will probably hold up, as other states of had it for a while, and no one has fought it much. In Virginia you can not concealed carry in a place that serves booze, but you can open carry. Yes its stupid, but they wrote their CCW law to say no concealed in a bar. They just never touched on the open carry part.

Was that recently enacted? I've been carrying down there based on this:

B. No person who carries a concealed handgun onto the premises of any restaurant or club as defined in § 4.1-100 for which a license to sell and serve alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption has been granted by the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Authority under Title 4.1 may consume an alcoholic beverage while on the premises. A person who carries a concealed handgun onto the premises of such a restaurant or club and consumes alcoholic beverages is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. However, nothing in this subsection shall apply to a federal, state, or local law-enforcement officer.

**Edit - Sorry, missed the other response above. Please disregard.

 

[johnkn]

That law changed in 2010

"No person who carries a concealed handgun onto the premises of any restaurant or club as defined in § 4.1-100 for which a license to sell and serve alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption has been granted by the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board under Title 4.1 may consume an alcoholic beverage while on the premises. A person who carries a concealed handgun onto the premises of such a restaurant or club and consumes alcoholic beverages is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. However, nothing in this subsection shall apply to a federal, state, or local law-enforcement officer."

Correct,

handgunlaw.us currently shows that it’s ok to CC in VA in a restaurant which serves alcohol, but not drink. Under VA 18.2-308.012

.

 

[chilipeppermaniac]

I am no Lawyer nor am I an expert in memorizing and retrieving legal cases, news stories, acts against the Constitution, and which swamp thing is out to get us or not.

BUT I do remember a number of cases where Conservative legislators were hassled while simply eating lunch or dinner in California, or harassed in DC. Those that did the hassling could have elevated their ignorant behavior into worse than verbal insults. If it wasn't for armed police, what possibly could have happened to Rand Paul, his wife, and friends.

BUT, WHAT IF? It had turned for the worse? Unless the defenseless legislator had paid armed protection/police, he/she would have been defenseless by current and these proposed new laws banning concealed carry or even open carry in the LEFTY states like MD who pass these oppressive and unconstitutional laws.

RAND SPEAKS TRUTH in this clip.


If the violent or murderous single person or mob will pose a threat or attack a Government official like Rand Paul or a Policeman, what makes the common citizen feel safe if he can't even carry a firearm to protect themselves?