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!
  • rondon600

    Mar 16, 2009
    They are adding a clause that states restrictions on private property includes LEO. They too need a permission slip.

    Deep Lurker

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Mar 22, 2019
    This article offers some clues:


    Last edited:

    Deep Lurker

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Mar 22, 2019
    This article offers some clues:

    View attachment 399363

    WaldstriKKer as usual has to lie about his bill:

    “The Bruen decision gets rid of Maryland’s ‘good and substantial’ requirements in order to own and possess a handgun,” said Waldstreicher. “By eliminating that requirement, now anyone can get a gun and bring it anywhere. That is unacceptable and creates a tremendous danger in our state…

    “It has forced our hand here in the legislature, and we need to act.”

    Mark Pennak of MSI gets in his licks:

    “It would adversely affect public safety. It certainly would adversely affect the rights of concealed carry permit holders to be able to protect themselves,” said Mark Pennak, president of Maryland Shall Issue, a Maryland gun rights group. “It will have no effect on actually promoting public safety because everyone agrees – permit holders do not commit crimes.”

    “It is so plainly contrary to how the Supreme Court ruled in Bruen that it effectively denies the right to public safety in all urban and many rural areas in Maryland,” said Pennak. “This area doesn’t even begin to qualify as a sensitive area under the Supreme Court’s ruling, so it’s dead on arrival, because if it does pass, we will bring suit, and it will fail.”

    Jill Carter’s comment, perhaps the most significant, is of course buried at the end:

    “Sen. Jill Carter, D-Baltimore City, member of the Judicial Proceedings Committee, said that further distinctions must be made to decipher which public places qualify as sensitive.”

    “I can certainly understand the lack of permission if someone has private property and they don’t want it there; they have every right to prohibit it,” said Carter. “However, I think that we are going to have some conversations about the 100 feet within public accommodations because that’s very broad.”

    Looks like one Dem identity politics group didn’t bother to check with another Dem identity politics group - - as usual - - and took them for granted, and the second group just got woke.***
    Last edited:


    Active Member
    Aug 4, 2013
    I have not read all 350 posts so I don't know if it has not already been brought up but doesn't SB-1 violate the constitution on the separation of Church and State when a state Bill or law says I cannot carry in a Synagogue, Church or Mosque. If a Rabbi says I can carry within the confines of the Synagogue and its properties, the government cannot have any say in that. Or, am I thinking wrong? I was thinking about that when the piece of chit Waldwhatever walked past the Patriot Picket on Monday.


    MDS Supporter
    Aug 14, 2007
    Mt Airy


    • By jurisdiction.png
      By jurisdiction.png
      114.2 KB · Views: 46


    Active Member
    Nov 12, 2018
    Baltimore County
    Have a peaceful million man march with an actual million people blocking all entrances to the mga and don't let them into the building to talk about this. This would be a message that they would have to hear. Other than something extreme like that it will fall on deaf ears. They only permit people to oppose and speak because it is protocol, not because it changes anything.

    NO pro gun lobby group could possibly affect the change using the courts in the same manner as the citizens using the streets.

    Imagine if George Washington Stopped after he wrote a sternly worded letter and imagine if he asked to speak in court to get his point across and change their mind. How do you think things would have gone had he gone that route. I'm not saying that violence is needed. I am saying that fighting in court is a way that things erode at a slightly slower pace. They need to realize that the people won't tolerate bs. They don't have that realization because people play their game.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Latest member

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom