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

[Bertfish]

Ok, before I get my head bit off here for asking some questions that likely sit atop a well-beaten horse (especially as a newb), I want to clarify that I just read the amended bill and also looked back a reasonable distance in this thread. Regardless, I can't decisively interpret the answers be they obvious. So, my interpretation of what I'm reading in the current proposed bill - correct or incorrect?:

1) A permit holder MAY carry on private property unless signs are conspicuously posted prohibiting such, or the property owner has otherwise stated such is not permitted;

2) A permit holder MAY NOT carry within the dwelling of another unless express permission is granted (verbally? written?) ;

3) A permit holder MAY carry in a restaurant or store, provided a) neither is designated a Special Purpose Area (alcohol sold or served), and b) a conspicuous sign prohibiting such is not visibly posted

4) This bill is intended to supplement, rather than replace, existing restrictions on the wear and carry of a handgun in the State of Maryland (ie state land, parks, etc still prohibited)

Thank you for your patience, and please support MSI if you haven't yet done so - can't express my appreciation enough for their efforts on our behalf.

From someone frustrated by noobs who won't read I thank you

What you've stated jives with my reading

Item 1 - there is private property which they proport to ban carry on regardless of the owners feelings. Hospitals come to mind. That will draw a lawsuit

 

[Doctor_M]

“Where can I carry?” by MGA


You will not carry on a boat.
We are aware that guns don’t float.
You will not, will not in a car,
Without a ride, you can’t get far.
You will not carry in the rain.
But we tax it so you feel the pain.
Not near a park! Not in a store!
Not near a doc! Not with a whore!
We do not like your guns you see!
They are too scary to stay free.
If you keep them in a box,
And with a lock, encased in rocks,
We may allow them in a house,
But don’t you use them, don’t you grouse.
For we do not like them here or there.
We do not like them anywhere.
So we will ban the pew-pew-pew.
You’re lucky we don’t ban you too.

 

[AboutTime]

From someone frustrated by noobs who won't read I thank you

What you've stated jives with my reading

Item 1 - there is private property which they proport to ban carry on regardless of the owners feelings. Hospitals come to mind. That will draw a lawsuit

Ok, thank you

“Where can I carry?” by MGA


You will not carry on a boat.
We are aware that guns don’t float.
You will not, will not in a car,
Without a ride, you can’t get far.
You will not carry in the rain.
But we tax it so you feel the pain.
Not near a park! Not in a store!
Not near a doc! Not with a whore!
We do not like your guns you see!
They are too scary to stay free.
If you keep them in a box,
And with a lock, encased in rocks,
We may allow them in a house,
But don’t you use them, don’t you grouse.
For we do not like them here or there.
We do not like them anywhere.
So we will ban the pew-pew-pew.
You’re lucky we don’t ban you too.

Instant classic, lol

 

[Biggfoot44]

@ AboutTime :

That's pretty much it for the parts you referenced .

Of course as Mark75 pointed out , much additional shenanigans can happen being written into COMAR .

 

[thomfantomas]

“Where can I carry?” by MGA


You will not carry on a boat.
We are aware that guns don’t float.
You will not, will not in a car,
Without a ride, you can’t get far.
You will not carry in the rain.
But we tax it so you feel the pain.
Not near a park! Not in a store!
Not near a doc! Not with a whore!
We do not like your guns you see!
They are too scary to stay free.
If you keep them in a box,
And with a lock, encased in rocks,
We may allow them in a house,
But don’t you use them, don’t you grouse.
For we do not like them here or there.
We do not like them anywhere.
So we will ban the pew-pew-pew.
You’re lucky we don’t ban you too.

Thank you Dr. Suess

 

[esqappellate]

Ok, before I get my head bit off here for asking some questions that likely sit atop a well-beaten horse (especially as a newb), I want to clarify that I just read the amended bill and also looked back a reasonable distance in this thread. Regardless, I can't decisively interpret the answers be they obvious. So, my interpretation of what I'm reading in the current proposed bill - correct or incorrect?:

1) A permit holder MAY carry on private property unless signs are conspicuously posted prohibiting such, or the property owner has otherwise stated such is not permitted;

2) A permit holder MAY NOT carry within the dwelling of another unless express permission is granted (verbally? written?) ;

3) A permit holder MAY carry in a restaurant or store, provided a) neither is designated a Special Purpose Area (alcohol sold or served), and b) a conspicuous sign prohibiting such is not visibly posted

4) This bill is intended to supplement, rather than replace, existing restrictions on the wear and carry of a handgun in the State of Maryland (ie state land, parks, etc still prohibited)

Thank you for your patience, and please support MSI if you haven't yet done so - can't express my appreciation enough for their efforts on our behalf.

1. Maybe, see answer to 3 below.
2. Correct. Does not require written, but some sort of express permission
3. Complicated.
IN section 4-111, SB1 bans firearms in 3 areas and then defines each of the three. The three are 1. "Area for children and vulnerable individuals" 2. A "special purpose area," and 3. "government or public infrastructure area." No signage is required for any of these three areas. Firearms are flatly banned. Pay careful attention to the definitions, which often cross reference other statutes. In Section 6-411, SB 1 addresses other private property areas, banning firearms in dwellings without permission and allowing private property owners to post GFZ signs and giving those signs the force of law. A sign matters only for these non-dwelling private property areas (e.g., a hardware store). No sign required for a dwelling.

A restaurant falls within the "special purpose area" category and is covered where it is licensed to sell for consumption on the premises, regardless of whether it is doing so at the time. Likewise merely selling alcohol is not covered, but rather firearms are banned where it is sold for consumption on the premises. The licensing is what matters. No sign required. Same is true of other specific areas designated in Section 4-111 in each of the three categories. In the special area category, that includes health care facilities, museums, racetracks, and video lottery facility, regardless of ownership. Firearms are banned at any location being used as a (a) fair or carnival, (b) a live theater performance, (c) a musical concert for which you need a ticket, or an organized sporting event, regardless of ownership. No sign required for any of these places. Only the owner, security guard or volunteers selected by the owner can carry in the private properties within any any of the 3 categories. No sign required for the "area for children and vulnerable persons" or for the "government or public infrastructure area"
4. Correct, bill does not affect existing bans imposed by other statutes or regulations. Don't possess or carry in schools, or on public transit run by the Dept of Transportation, for example.

 

[AboutTime]

@ AboutTime :

That's pretty much it for the parts you referenced .

Of course as Mark75 pointed out , much additional shenanigans can happen being written into COMAR .

Yes, I'm sure there's plenty of time to ruin anything permissive that's still in the bill.

1. Maybe, see answer to 3 below.
2. Correct. Does not require written, but some sort of express permission
3. Complicated.
IN section 4-111, SB1 bans firearms in 3 areas and then defines each of the three. The three are 1. "Area for children and vulnerable individuals" 2. A "special purpose area," and 3. "government or public infrastructure area." No signage is required for any of these three areas. Firearms are flatly banned. Pay careful attention to the definitions, which often cross reference other statutes. In Section 6-411, SB 1 addresses other private property areas, banning firearms in dwellings without permission and allowing private property owners to post GFZ signs and giving those signs the force of law. A sign matters only for these non-dwelling private property areas (e.g., a hardware store). No sign required for a dwelling.

A restaurant falls within the "special purpose area" category and is covered where it is licensed to sell for consumption on the premises, regardless of whether it is doing so at the time. The licensing is what matters. No sign required. Same is true of other specific areas designated in Section 4-111 in each of the three categories. In the special area category, that includes health care facilities, museums, racetracks, and video lottery facility, regardless of ownership. Firearms are banned at any location being used as a (a) fair or carnival, (b) a live theater performance, (c) a musical concert for which you need a ticket, or an organized sporting event, regardless of ownership. No sign required for any of these places. Only the owner, security guard or volunteers selected by the owner can carry in the private properties within any any of the 3 categories. No sign required for the "area for children and vulnerable persons" or for the "government or public infrastructure area"
4. Correct, bill does not affect existing bans imposed by other statutes or regulations. Don't possess or carry in schools, or on public transit run by the Dept of Transportation, for example.

Thank you for those important clarifications. One will have to be very careful should they strive to follow the law explicitly. Hopefully your future work with the courts will systematically ease the burden.

 

[smokey]

Again, it is an EXCEPTION to the prohibitions otherwise set forth in THIS SECTION. The section is 4-111. If Section 4-111 does not cover it, then the exception does not cover it. This exception does not apply to possession of firearms that banned or regulated in OTHER provisions of MD law. I don't know how else to say it.

yup, that was my understanding. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something where the MGA may have inadvertently created an exemption to carry on currently prohibited places in the manner laid out in sb1

 

[Biknman]

Saw this on fox 45 tonight thought I’d share

 

[King of COD]

Saw this on fox 45 tonight thought I’d share

I saw the same thing this isn’t the only time this has happened it’s just the first time it’s reported on FOX 45

 

[lazarus]

“Where can I carry?” by MGA


You will not carry on a boat.
We are aware that guns don’t float.
You will not, will not in a car,
Without a ride, you can’t get far.
You will not carry in the rain.
But we tax it so you feel the pain.
Not near a park! Not in a store!
Not near a doc! Not with a whore!
We do not like your guns you see!
They are too scary to stay free.
If you keep them in a box,
And with a lock, encased in rocks,
We may allow them in a house,
But don’t you use them, don’t you grouse.
For we do not like them here or there.
We do not like them anywhere.
So we will ban the pew-pew-pew.
You’re lucky we don’t ban you too.

Can this be the opening page of the lawsuit against SB1?

 

[lennyk]

What if the healthcare facility is owned by a physician that wishes to carry. Is this also banned?

 

[teratos]

What if the healthcare facility is owned by a physician that wishes to carry. Is this also banned?

We just had a patient threaten one of our Nurse Practitioners the other day. We’ve had patients who said they were coming in with a gun because their pain meds were cut off. Healthcare facilities are dangerous places.

 

[esqappellate]

What if the healthcare facility is owned by a physician that wishes to carry. Is this also banned?

No

 

[Sundazes]

We just had a patient threaten one of our Nurse Practitioners the other day. We’ve had patients who said they were coming in with a gun because their pain meds were cut off. Healthcare facilities are dangerous places.

And now GFZ's...
WWNC

 

[Robertjeter]

Many people hate that we get to carry into retirement. I get it. People get their balls hurt. I and every one I know wants everyone to be able to carry. Don't lump retirees into the group of Licensing Division Troopers who happen to hate you.
Those who can suck it are the ones who hate that we get the carve out, like we had something to do with it. Don't bring that shit to us.
How is me carrying under LEOSA or with my WC permit a bribe? I don't vote for those assholes, and I don't work for any agency anymore. Also, I was Federal, so the state does not have any influence whatsoever.
I have been followed by real, actual terrorists. Guys in my agency had government imposters go to their house.
You ever arrest someone and then weeks later run into them at the mall? I have
Correction Officers spend YEARS with hardened criminals who eventually get out and could be a legit, targeted threat. Not some random act of violence. So those in LE get a double whammy. Threats AND random violence.
Those are some examples of probably/could be why the MGA allows it. I have no clue. More good guys with guns in more places. Lame, but that could be their reasoning as well.
Active duty cops should be allowed to carry everywhere in order for them to perform their duties. You're a cop 24/7.

You find me a cop or retiree who doesn't want you to be able to carry, and I'll take up for you, ok?
I am not going to feel guilty because I can and you can't. Like I said, I don't work in the licensing division, I'm not against people carrying. I also have no control if the MGA makes exemptions.

While it certainly isn't your or any retired LE's fault for the exemption, the logic as to the why is exactly what creates multiple classes of citizens.

Everyone has their own lives and run ins that can cause them harm or issues. Who's to say someone with a rife at work, termination of an employee, issues with children, divorce, etc that they may see that individual later not cause them the same issues? Being locked up can disrupt someone's life the same way losing an income, a house, a child, etc would and can expose any citizen in any job or role to the same potential for violence. That's the whole point of not exempting one profession or class over another.

I'm certain we're agreeing, but defending your, and other LE experience shouldn't hold water with MGA.

 

[Tower43]

LE are not special. especially retired and off duty.

Creating separate rules fails the test of equal protection under law and is therefore unconstitutional.

Don't get me wrong, i like cops, i support them. But they dont deserve special privileges based solely on their jobs. Period.

 

[Bertfish]

LE are not special. especially retired and off duty.

Creating separate rules fails the test of equal protection under law and is therefore unconstitutional.

Don't get me wrong, i like cops, i support them. But they dont deserve special privileges based solely on their jobs. Period.

The same can be said for any class of people.

I've been arguing with a local Delegate up here. He really loves proposing bills that exempt Firefighters and EMS from shit like property taxes. Why do they deserve that? They use resources like I do.

Division in to camps is a political control mechanism

 

[Blaster229]

While it certainly isn't your or any retired LE's fault for the exemption, the logic as to the why is exactly what creates multiple classes of citizens.

Everyone has their own lives and run ins that can cause them harm or issues. Who's to say someone with a rife at work, termination of an employee, issues with children, divorce, etc that they may see that individual later not cause them the same issues? Being locked up can disrupt someone's life the same way losing an income, a house, a child, etc would and can expose any citizen in any job or role to the same potential for violence. That's the whole point of not exempting one profession or class over another.

I'm certain we're agreeing, but defending your, and other LE experience shouldn't hold water with MGA.

We are. I just gave a few examples of why maybe a state would carve out for retirees. I have no clue as to their reasoning. Maybe that's it. I don't fight for those exemptions, but I certainly am not going to apologize or feel bad for enjoying them. And don't try to throw that shade at us because of it.
Has anyone ever asked why retirees get an exemption at testimony? My limited knowledge, I have no recollection if it's ever been posed.

 

[Blaster229]

LE are not special. especially retired and off duty.

Creating separate rules fails the test of equal protection under law and is therefore unconstitutional.

Don't get me wrong, i like cops, i support them. But they dont deserve special privileges based solely on their jobs. Period.

Neither are those with clearances or victims of a data breach. Now want to talk about ridiculous.