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

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!
  • Bertfish

    Throw bread on me
    Mar 13, 2013
    17,936
    White Marsh, MD
    Thanks for the clarification. This being Maryland, we should be jumping for joy at ONLY a 50-67% increase in fees. What a bunch of garbage politicians in the MGA.
    It is ripe for challenge because the fiscal note stated that anything above the current fees would be pure profit for the state. They cannot profit off licensing of rights.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,894
    It is ripe for challenge because the fiscal note stated that anything above the current fees would be pure profit for the state. They cannot profit off licensing of rights.
    This. The chair noted that the new fees wouldn’t cover the entire the insurance of licenses. Which is contrary to the fiscal note.

    I believe the conflict, as noted by one of the Republican delegates (I don’t remember who) is that the chair was mentioning the costs to run the entire licensing division. The fiscal policy note and MSP budget shows the handgun permits themselves were already more than covered. Especially with the lower workloads involved in not needing to interview and deeply research every applicant.

    Bruen is for sure not going to allow fees beyond the cost to issue the license. Not run the ENTIRE department (which also does lots of other work).
     

    wreckdiver

    Ultimate Member
    Nov 13, 2008
    2,973
    We are putting a lot a faith on Bruen. This Commie POS state will weasel out of any legal action using our tax dollars to fight it.
     

    Apd09

    Active Member
    May 30, 2013
    996
    Westminster, MD
    Can't even make bank deposits without being in violation, but i wouldn't be shocked if someone actually calls a bank to be given permission to make a bank deposit while carrying :lol2:

    I’ll say this, I imagine phone companies are already devising packages for this.
    Add an unmonitored mailbox for 9.99 a month with your own prerecorded message stating your organizations stance of Concealed Carry.

    Just going to a message saying “company ABC does not allow Concealed Carry” or “company ABC will allow Concealed Carry”

    And the service will come with a personalized PDF to print and hang on the door with your phone number.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk no
     

    Some Guy

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 26, 2017
    1,069
    The MGA passed crappy SB-1 on the back of a statement that claims "the regulatory analog to SB-1 from the period of the founding is the 3rd Amendment."

    OK, MGA. We'll play your stupid little game. How about this: The 3rd Amendment is not a regulation. Nor is it a tradition. It's a principle upon which laws are based. Therefore, your argument fails because in fact an Amendment to the Constitution is not a law. Laws are made within the scope of an Amendment's principle requirements.

    This is not unlike the stupid leftist claim that the Paris Accord isn't a treaty. Nope. It's an accord, so it's different and it doesn't require Senate ratification. Same as the Iran nuke deal. That's a deal. Not a treaty. So no Senate ratification required. Same thing as the stupid UN "platform" for international crises to which the dementia in chief is about to try to obligate the US. Nope. That's a platform. Not a treaty, so no need for Senate ratification.

    This is another way to argue against the stupid notion that the 3rd Amendment could be used as a basis to deprive the People of rights under the 2nd Amendment. In fact, the 3rd Amendment is a principle, not a regulatory analog. It's not a tradition, either. So take your SB-1 BS and go pound sand, Clippinger + Walstreicher. Find a real regulatory analog and tradition that work because the 3rd Amendment ain't it.
     

    BeoBill

    Crank in the Third Row
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 3, 2013
    27,584
    南馬里蘭州鮑伊
    license.jpeg
     

    ustasc

    Member
    Jan 14, 2014
    59
    You apparently haven't ben paying attention to the state of things since July. Many people have been open carrying in Maryland without nearly any issue. Have there been a few calls to police? Yep. Have they been cordial, informative, and none issues? yep. But, the majority of people just really don't care or don't pay attention.
    From a LE perspective, most don't really care, so long as you aren't doing anything stupid or illegal, they really only make contact, ask a few questions and let you go.

    You really need to get over your BGOS.
    Oh okie dokie.
     

    ustasc

    Member
    Jan 14, 2014
    59
    I've open carried now in AA, PG, St Marys, Calvert and Charles... some places I've even gone were cops frequent (The Wawa right by DII in PG on 301) never even a second glace... the ONLY interaction I had from LE, was asking what type of 1911 I had and how I liked it....
    The first form of retention is that people don't know you are carrying... of course there are some people that just like to make a point that they can and look tough...

    There have been several cases recently of open carry people being disarmed and shot with their own guns or having their guns stolen. A lot of people that carry openly don't have retention holsters.

    As a former police officer I never carried openly while off duty and I don't know any cop that has. We don't want the attention. Just because we can doesn't mean it's smart. We want the element of surprise and retention.
     

    coinboy

    Yeah, Sweet Lemonade.
    Oct 22, 2007
    4,480
    Howard County
    The MGA passed crappy SB-1 on the back of a statement that claims "the regulatory analog to SB-1 from the period of the founding is the 3rd Amendment."

    OK, MGA. We'll play your stupid little game. How about this: The 3rd Amendment is not a regulation. Nor is it a tradition. It's a principle upon which laws are based. Therefore, your argument fails because in fact an Amendment to the Constitution is not a law. Laws are made within the scope of an Amendment's principle requirements.

    This is not unlike the stupid leftist claim that the Paris Accord isn't a treaty. Nope. It's an accord, so it's different and it doesn't require Senate ratification. Same as the Iran nuke deal. That's a deal. Not a treaty. So no Senate ratification required. Same thing as the stupid UN "platform" for international crises to which the dementia in chief is about to try to obligate the US. Nope. That's a platform. Not a treaty, so no need for Senate ratification.

    This is another way to argue against the stupid notion that the 3rd Amendment could be used as a basis to deprive the People of rights under the 2nd Amendment. In fact, the 3rd Amendment is a principle, not a regulatory analog. It's not a tradition, either. So take your SB-1 BS and go pound sand, Clippinger + Walstreicher. Find a real regulatory analog and tradition that work because the 3rd Amendment ain't it.
    I wrote this to Clippinger before the Bills passage:

    Dear Delegate Clippinger,

    In a recent House hearing you stated that the 3rd Amendment allows for the prohibition of firearms on private property.

    I would like to remind you that the 3rd Amendment was about the quartering of soldiers not the prohibiting of arms on private property by non soldiers.

    Quartering is providing housing and food.

    The argument that was made doesn't comply with text and tradition of the founding area.

    Therefore, I request you vote against the passage of SB1.

    I will not go into the other constitutional issues with this bill at this time however if you would like to know more about my views about the unconstitutionality of this bill, please feel free to contact me.
     

    CaptChaos

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Mar 1, 2008
    751
    Calvert County, MD
    Can't even make bank deposits without being in violation, but i wouldn't be shocked if someone actually calls a bank to be given permission to make a bank deposit while carrying :lol2:
    Which is extremely ironic because "owning a business that required one to handle a lot of cash" was on of the "good and substantial" reasons you could use to obtain a permit before the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision. Imagine a world where SCOTUS rights some wrongs and now everyone (including those who were special enough to get permits before) have even LESS rights. What a messed up state this is, blatantly passing laws and getting away with it. At one point during one of the hearings a couple of weeks ago, I heard Clippinger say something like, "That is for the courts to decide." Sure, let's have the state pay for defense of your unconstitutional law you forced through knowing full well it was unconstitutional. No penalty for him, so no big deal, right?
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    277,301
    Messages
    7,365,485
    Members
    33,779
    Latest member
    chilidog

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom