And don't forget how likely you are to leave your fingerprints in the adhesive when you peel the backing off and handle a sticker. Speaking hypothetically, of course.
SB1 (2023) - Criminal Law - Wearing, Carrying, or Transporting Firearms - Restrictions (Gun Safety Act of 2023)
- Thread starter dblas
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
D&Ds
Member
plus hoodie and glasses, or go antifa style ?Take care of that by disguising yourself like the enemy.
Wear 'rona gloves and a mask.
Jake4U
Now with 67% more FJB
- Sep 1, 2018
- 1,098
Go all Bud Light for the adventureplus hoodie and glasses, or go antifa style ?
MeatGrinder
Active Member
The stickers are an interesting idea since there is no regulation about size or font.
Does COMAR fill in those blanks?
MeatGrinder
Active Member
Micro dot?
I "might" have enough clear ink jet printable self adhesive sticker material to make 120 4x5 stickers.
If you do this use clear material and print it in the reverse in color so it can be stuck on the inside of a door or window. Being inside will protect it from UV, make it impossible to just scrap off after hours, and being inside it looks more legit.
Of course only do this at places you have permission to.
Bertfish
Throw bread on me
It'll be a bit til the regulation is actually written I'm sure
Oh yeah, I just was trying to figger out if that would be the normal process.
Don't matter to me...
Have to make the stickers rainbow colored. So its a hate crime to remove it 
Trip Advisor will have to add a "Pew Friendly" category.
Raineman
On the 3rd box
It was an attempt at humor. Apparently it failed.
Now that you mention it, they did borrow a good bit of their "look" from the unabomber.plus hoodie and glasses, or go antifa style ?
ustasc
Junior Member
- Jan 14, 2014
- 59
DISCLAIMER: The following is NOT legal advise and should not be taken as such. ALWAYS check with your attorney or the state's attorneys office in your county for clarification and advice. The following is informational only as we are not legal experts and you should not make decisions solely based on the following text.
Licensed security guards are exempt from SB1. There is nothing in the law that states that the security guard has to be on duty or working at a particular site location. (loophole!)
Starting probably in July 2024, MSP Maryland will start requiring all security guards, regardless if they work for a security company OR they work for in house security to be 1) licensed with MSP, 2) receive 10 hours training, 8 hours per renewal - every 3 years, and be have received the training certified by the Maryland Police and Corrections Training Academy.
Which means that you can register to be a security guard with either A) a security company if they will allow you to do so and keep you "on call" or B) become a security guard at your residence after SB760 passes. The only issue with this is that you would have to carry 500,000 in liability insurance for security guard insurance at your residential address after July 2024 to license yourself as a security guard on your own property.
However, currently, you are not required to undergo any training requirements. Theoretically a security company could license you as a security guard by you getting your fingerprints taken and applying for the security guard card through the security company and keep you "on call". Some shady potentially security companies, in our opinion, will allow you to do this for money and/or training cost. But if they license you as a security guard, the liability probably would fall onto them if one of their licensees did anything illegal or civilly actionable.
No. The bill doesn't say it has to be posted signage. That is mentioned in the bill as one of the options. But the owner or owner's agents of Walmart's buildings can give permission to employees as well as the public who are buying guns, without needing to post and allow the general public who are not purchasing a firearm to possess firearms on the premises. As much screwed up as this law is, that's relatively clear in the bill.
Its been a lot of years since I worked in retail and worked the sporting goods counter in K-Mart, but the employees who had access to the gun cabinet, had express permission. It wasn't anything implicit, so I doubt Walmart or the other big box sellers would need to change anything in employment contracts or policy for their employees. They might in policy for dealing with the public to give explicit permission in writing or verbally that the customer can possess the firearm in order to leave the building with it after purchase.
One other issue, many (most?) Walmarts are not in corporate property. The real estate are leases, as is most commercial real estate.
So they'll need to get express permission from the owner, and the way the language of the law is written, probably have the commercial real estate owner just post the stores as firearms allowed. Otherwise they can't just extend that permission to customers...
Apparently they can't "Walk and chew bubble gum at the same time" as someone thought they could, eh?
Last edited:
§6–301.
(a) A person may not willfully and maliciously destroy, injure, or deface the real or personal property of another.
(b) A person who, in violation of this section, causes damage of at least $1,000 to the property is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding $2,500 or both.
(c) A person who, in violation of this section, causes damage of less than $1,000 to the property is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 60 days or a fine not exceeding $500 or both.
(d) (1) For purposes of this subsection, an act of “graffiti” means a permanent drawing, permanent painting, or a permanent mark or inscription on the property of another without the permission of the owner of the property.
(2) In addition to the penalties set forth in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, the court shall order a person convicted of causing malicious destruction by an act of graffiti to pay restitution or perform community service or both.
(3) Title 11, Subtitle 6 of the Criminal Procedure Article applies to an order of restitution under this subsection.
(e) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, to determine a penalty, the court may consider as one crime the aggregate value of damage to each property resulting from one scheme or continuing course of conduct.
(2) If separate acts resulting in damage to the properties of one or more owners are set forth by separate counts in one or more charging documents, the separate counts may not be merged for sentencing.
(f) (1) The value of damage is not a substantive element of a crime under this section and need not be stated in the charging document.
(2) The value of damage shall be based on the evidence and that value shall be applied for the purpose of imposing the penalties established in this section.
(3) If it cannot be determined from the evidence whether the value of the damage to the property is more or less than $1,000, the value is deemed to be less than $1,000.
That would likely fall under deface. Subject to less than $1000 damage penalty. 60 days or a fine of $500, or both.
Probably a stretch, but I could absolutely see a pissed off store owner calling police if they twig to it. And I could see a DA in this state absolutely charging you and giving you the option of community service and a fine, or they'll go after you for the 60 days in jail/prison.
Also just because YOU put a sticker there, doesn't actually confer that permission to people entering. You are neither the owner, nor their agent. The law does NOT require mens rea. You really think a DA in this state will NOT attempt to indict a W&C permit holder carrying on private property, if that person was caught, simply because the W&C permit holder can point to a sign or sticker someone ELSE put out there? I have a hard time imagining a jury isn't going to exonerate the person, but based on the liberal judges and liberal DAs in this state, I can absolutely see that one getting to trial.
You are still out tens of thousands in legal fees, and they probably tried to fork you over seizing your guns and what not pending trial.
Dave, my eyes read those words about not needing a gun in a hospital.
I would have thought this until that night about 5 years ago in the GBMC ER waiting room as my dad was being seen in the ER.
Balto COunty cops with a perp in handcuffs. I noticed the cop was not disarmed.
I also realized as the light bulb went off in my head. Dangerous criminals also come into Hospitals.
