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

[Bertfish]

Does the bill give the signs force of law against all?

I still think these things don’t pass without the use of their carve out tool.

Yes. A new charge called armed trespass goes with it. It's non-prohibiting

 

[cjroman]

I saw this today and thought of this thread. Place is in Howard County.
View attachment 411892

I was there last September to get fitted for a club and that sign wasn't there, or else I wouldn't have even gone in. Looks like they won't get anymore business from me, either in person or online. I did like their services, especially the ability to demo numerous used clubs on a launch monitor for free, but there are other places that aren't as obviously ignorant.
The company is based out of Minnesota, so it's probably a corporate stance, not just the Columbia location.

 

[ironpony]

Yes. A new charge called armed trespass goes with it. It's non-prohibiting

So no po po?
Interesting

 

[lazarus]

Never underestimate the willingness of True Believers to engage in ultimately self-defeating and/or self-destructive behaviors.

It is beyond that. If you think for a minute if the constitution of the court changes legislatures aren't going to immediately throw the exact same or nearly identical bans on permits, carry restrictions, or sensitive places at the courts?

Sure, lower courts ARE bound. In theory. Plenty of inferior courts come up with real novel legal arguments. Sometimes up to and including "I am a judge and I say so".

Just like abortion. States were bound by decades of solid legal precedent and for decades they tested the waters to work around said legal precedent. Until they saw the composition change with much more conservative members and the last few years until Dobbs succeeded, they started throwing near total bans.

You think if Alito or Thomas left the court tomorrow, states wouldn't throw good and substantial at the wall again? I am sure it wouldn't stick with 5 of the 6 current conservative judges. Even ole Roberts I don't think really liked how strict some states were. If NY hadn't mooted NYC the year before, that one was going to be the Bruen decision. Before that, NYC hadn't yet gotten to SCOTUS and it (and then Bruen) were just about THE perfect vehicles for a SCOTUS decision limiting the power of states to infringe on the right to bear arms. Even if it was not THT, there was no way it was going to continue standing with a solid 5 seat majority on the court, let alone 6 seat.

Kennedy? More than squishy. But frankly, NYC might still haven't gotten a favorable decision even from him. But not a fat chance in weight watcher hell of Bruen being something Kennedy would have signed his name to.

Roberts DID sign his name to Bruen even if he wouldn't have written it himself.

But I suspect anytime there is a court change, especially if it goes liberal, 100% states will throw just as bad or worse stuff and see if the new SCOTUS will overturn Bruen (or whatever the sensitive place restriction court case ends up being that SCOTUS decides on).

It might be 10 years from now. 20. 30. 50. But likely someday the court will change sufficiently that they'll likely change Bruen. Sometimes SCOTUS precedent gets changed. Current court for sure showed with Dobbs they had no problem doing it. Think some future liberal court is going to think it is more tradition bound not to find a constitutional right for government to limit the 2nd amendment? They'll for sure jettison THT.

Yes, I think in the SHORT term, legislatures are slamming their cocks in the door screaming YOLO! But that is only going to hurt them so long as SCOTUS doesn't change. If it does become a liberal court, all bets are now off. If it only changes by a seat, I am sure they'll be stuff that gets shoved through, but I suspect inferior courts are going to know which way the wind is blowing and probably give those new laws short shrift and SCOTUS will strike them down. But I still see some of them testing the waters.

No matter what comes on sensitive places and AWB, legislatures are going to continue testing the constitutional waters to see exactly how far courts and SCOTUS let them go in the interests of protecting people from scary guns.

Legislatures spent 50 years testing abortion and working around the edges to see how they could restrict it in the interests of protecting babies. Then they caught the car. Except in this case, they probably wouldn't have 2/3+ of the country thinking they were wrong and risking elections over absolute bans. Especially not in liberal states.

I'd like to hope if the court ever goes liberal that at worst legislatures will nibble at our 2A rights and the court will allow that nibbling, because I think there is no way a liberal SCOTUS isn't going to allow that erosion. Or they'll suddenly start throwing such patently ridiculous stuff that the courts up through SCOTUS render decision that are summed up as, "you are embarrassing yourselves. Just stop". I want my/our rights protected for my kids, and some day my kids' kids, etc.

But I've got, if I am mildly lucky, 40 more years on this Earth. 50 or 60 if I am extremely lucky. I'd at least like to get through most or all of them with my rights intact. At some point my kids or their kids will be the ones that have to worry about this. But I doubt I have 40+ years before SCOTUS changes enough to change the legal landscape on 2A. For now, I'll enjoy it while it lasts and vote and lobby to try to make it stick. Of course for us in MD, it'll be a couple or a few more years before we are likely enjoying all of the fruits of our rights restored on the 2nd.

 

[lazarus]

So no po po?
Interesting

? The new law does not apply to law enforcement.

 

[lazarus]

Does the bill give the signs force of law against all?

I still think these things don’t pass without the use of their carve out tool.

Oh, I see. Yeah, you've been under a rock on SB1. Yes, the law requires explicit permission to carry or possess a firearm on private property, with private property being defined as within any building that is privately owned. And the permission must be secured from the owner or the owner's agent (which makes things like renting a house or commercial property problematic as the landlord or their agent has to give permission. The renter is NOT the agent and they'd need permission from their landlord for themselves to have a gun).

No gun signs don't need the force of law as it is default no carry unless there is a sign saying you CAN carry a gun. Or the owner/agent tells you, you can carry. Jerry's Chicken shack or one of their employees cannot give you permission to carry in their store unless Jerry's Chicken Shack OWNS the property their store is in. The majority of commercial businesses operate out of leased property. So the real estate company could need to give permission. You think they are going to do that? HA!

So basically MD has gone no carry in any building that you do not own. Because SB1, as well as some of existing law in 4-203, bans carry of firearms in government buildings. Which makes the state nearly defacto no carry. I mean, you can carry while walking out and about in public, but you can't go IN to anything then. So fine taking a walk in your neighborhood. But can't even go to a park, because state parks are banned under regulation right now, and most counties and cities ban carry in parks. You could walk to your friend's house who allows you to carry a gun in their house. You can leave a gun in your car almost everywhere.

That is about it.

Hell, with the definition of what a building is in the law, a porta john might be considered a building under the law. A pavilion or covered marina might be.

“PROPERTY” MEANS A BUILDING.
(II) “PROPERTY” DOES NOT INCLUDE THE LAND ADJACENT TO A
BUILDING.

A PERSON WEARING, CARRYING, OR TRANSPORTING A FIREARM MAY
NOT ENTER OR TRESPASS IN THE DWELLING OF ANOTHER UNLESS THE OWNER OR
THE OWNER’S AGENT HAS GIVEN EXPRESS PERMISSION, EITHER TO THE PERSON OR
TO THE PUBLIC GENERALLY, TO WEAR, CARRY, OR TRANSPORT A FIREARM INSIDE 13 THE DWELLING

A PERSON WEARING, CARRYING, OR TRANSPORTING A FIREARM MAY
NOT:
(1) ENTER OR TRESPASS ON PROPERTY UNLESS THE OWNER OR THE OWNER’S AGENT HAS POSTED A CLEAR
AND CONSPICUOUS SIGN INDICATING THAT IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO WEAR, CARRY, OR
TRANSPORT A FIREARM ON THE PROPERTY; OR

ENTER OR TRESPASS ON PROPERTY UNLESS THE OWNER OR THE OWNER’S AGENT HAS GIVEN THE PERSON EXPRESS
PERMISSION TO WEAR, CARRY, OR TRANSPORT A FIREARM ON THE PROPERTY;

So what is a building?

Md. Code Regs. 08.15.01.02​

"Building" means the combination of materials having a roof to form a structure for the shelter of individuals, animals, or property, including any part of it.

So anything with a roof.

Standing under an awning is potentially an armed trespass under this law. Good luck walking down the street if any buildings have an awning you have to work under! You'll then get to argue what "in" means.

 

[lazarus]

I was there last September to get fitted for a club and that sign wasn't there, or else I wouldn't have even gone in. Looks like they won't get anymore business from me, either in person or online. I did like their services, especially the ability to demo numerous used clubs on a launch monitor for free, but there are other places that aren't as obviously ignorant.
The company is based out of Minnesota, so it's probably a corporate stance, not just the Columbia location.

Unless that sign went up months ago, I'd imagine they heard about SB1 and thought "this is fantastic! Imma put up a sign" Even though under the law, they don't actually need a sign 10/1. But them anti-gunners often don't read or understand the law.

 

[ironpony]

Oh, I see. Yeah, you've been under a rock on SB1. Yes, the law requires explicit permission to carry or possess a firearm on private property, with private property being defined as within any building that is privately owned. And the permission must be secured from the owner or the owner's agent (which makes things like renting a house or commercial property problematic as the landlord or their agent has to give permission. The renter is NOT the agent and they'd need permission from their landlord for themselves to have a gun).

No gun signs don't need the force of law as it is default no carry unless there is a sign saying you CAN carry a gun. Or the owner/agent tells you, you can carry. Jerry's Chicken shack or one of their employees cannot give you permission to carry in their store unless Jerry's Chicken Shack OWNS the property their store is in. The majority of commercial businesses operate out of leased property. So the real estate company could need to give permission. You think they are going to do that? HA!

So basically MD has gone no carry in any building that you do not own. Because SB1, as well as some of existing law in 4-203, bans carry of firearms in government buildings. Which makes the state nearly defacto no carry. I mean, you can carry while walking out and about in public, but you can't go IN to anything then. So fine taking a walk in your neighborhood. But can't even go to a park, because state parks are banned under regulation right now, and most counties and cities ban carry in parks. You could walk to your friend's house who allows you to carry a gun in their house. You can leave a gun in your car almost everywhere.

That is about it.

Hell, with the definition of what a building is in the law, a porta john might be considered a building under the law. A pavilion or covered marina might be.

“PROPERTY” MEANS A BUILDING.
(II) “PROPERTY” DOES NOT INCLUDE THE LAND ADJACENT TO A
BUILDING.

A PERSON WEARING, CARRYING, OR TRANSPORTING A FIREARM MAY
NOT ENTER OR TRESPASS IN THE DWELLING OF ANOTHER UNLESS THE OWNER OR
THE OWNER’S AGENT HAS GIVEN EXPRESS PERMISSION, EITHER TO THE PERSON OR
TO THE PUBLIC GENERALLY, TO WEAR, CARRY, OR TRANSPORT A FIREARM INSIDE 13 THE DWELLING

A PERSON WEARING, CARRYING, OR TRANSPORTING A FIREARM MAY
NOT:
(1) ENTER OR TRESPASS ON PROPERTY UNLESS THE OWNER OR THE OWNER’S AGENT HAS POSTED A CLEAR
AND CONSPICUOUS SIGN INDICATING THAT IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO WEAR, CARRY, OR
TRANSPORT A FIREARM ON THE PROPERTY; OR

ENTER OR TRESPASS ON PROPERTY UNLESS THE OWNER OR THE OWNER’S AGENT HAS GIVEN THE PERSON EXPRESS
PERMISSION TO WEAR, CARRY, OR TRANSPORT A FIREARM ON THE PROPERTY;

So what is a building?

Md. Code Regs. 08.15.01.02​

"Building" means the combination of materials having a roof to form a structure for the shelter of individuals, animals, or property, including any part of it.

So anything with a roof.

Standing under an awning is potentially an armed trespass under this law. Good luck walking down the street if any buildings have an awning you have to work under! You'll then get to argue what "in" means.

No rock.
How can a business tell a prison guard in plain clothes with a firearm is exempt. Just call 911. Easy.

No need to answer.

 

[rbird7282]

Yes. A new charge called armed trespass goes with it. It's non-prohibiting

However your permit can still be revoked by MSP for carrying where not permitting………..for those who care


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[workshop777]

I saw this today and thought of this thread. Place is in Howard County.
View attachment 411892

Is that a "please rob us, we are easy targets" sticker?

 

[lazarus]

No rock.
How can a business tell a prison guard in plain clothes with a firearm is exempt. Just call 911. Easy.

No need to answer.

Must have their credential on them per the law. If you are cop or corrections officer, or armed security guard and you don't have your relevant credentials and HGP on you, SOL. You are not exempt at that point. You going to jail.

 

[Lafayette]

Must have their credential on them per the law. If you are cop or corrections officer, or armed security guard and you don't have your relevant credentials and HGP on you, SOL. You are not exempt at that point. You going to jail.

Does a business have the right to demand credentials? I suppose they might (I.e. asking for proof of age to purchase alcohol, etc.)

 

[rbird7282]

Must have their credential on them per the law. If you are cop or corrections officer, or armed security guard and you don't have your relevant credentials and HGP on you, SOL. You are not exempt at that point. You going to jail.

Maybe, maybe not. You really think police want to deal with this crap with anyone? It will basically become an add on charge if someone is doing something else they shouldn’t be doing. Most cops have better stuff to do with their time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lazarus]

Does a business have the right to demand credentials? I suppose they might (I.e. asking for proof of age to purchase alcohol, etc.)

No. But when the police show up they do. They could sure ask and failure to produce ID then call the police.

 

[lazarus]

Maybe, maybe not. You really think police want to deal with this crap with anyone? It will basically become an add on charge if someone is doing something else they shouldn’t be doing. Most cops have better stuff to do with their time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If a property owner is calling them about it, they’ll likely show and you’ll likely get charges. DA might be more than happy to plea it as a Nole or PBJ for a first time or where the “armed trespasser” isn’t otherwise doing something bad.

I doubt cops will be hunting around for violators.

And it’ll need to be concealed for almost everyone in the future. So how would someone generally know? But of course sometimes someone prints. How often will someone care though?

 

[FatTony]

I saw this today and thought of this thread. Place is in Howard County.
View attachment 411892

This evening, WJZ-13 news reported the unfortunate death of the Baltimore T-MOBILE employee that was shot in an armed robbery a couple days ago. The reporter made sure to point out that this happened even though an obvious no guns allowed sign was posted on the storefront.

 

[teratos]

This evening, WJZ-13 news reported the unfortunate death of the Baltimore T-MOBILE employee that was shot in an armed robbery a couple days ago. The reporter made sure to point out that this happened even though an obvious no guns allowed sign was posted on the storefront.

I’d laugh if it weren’t for the tragic loss of life. People who think a “no guns allowed” sign will deter a person who will kill an employee in a store are probably gullible enough to believe that girls can have a penis.

 

[AliasNeo07]

Oh, I see. Yeah, you've been under a rock on SB1. Yes, the law requires explicit permission to carry or possess a firearm on private property, with private property being defined as within any building that is privately owned. And the permission must be secured from the owner or the owner's agent (which makes things like renting a house or commercial property problematic as the landlord or their agent has to give permission. The renter is NOT the agent and they'd need permission from their landlord for themselves to have a gun).

No gun signs don't need the force of law as it is default no carry unless there is a sign saying you CAN carry a gun. Or the owner/agent tells you, you can carry. Jerry's Chicken shack or one of their employees cannot give you permission to carry in their store unless Jerry's Chicken Shack OWNS the property their store is in. The majority of commercial businesses operate out of leased property. So the real estate company could need to give permission. You think they are going to do that? HA!

So basically MD has gone no carry in any building that you do not own. Because SB1, as well as some of existing law in 4-203, bans carry of firearms in government buildings. Which makes the state nearly defacto no carry. I mean, you can carry while walking out and about in public, but you can't go IN to anything then. So fine taking a walk in your neighborhood. But can't even go to a park, because state parks are banned under regulation right now, and most counties and cities ban carry in parks. You could walk to your friend's house who allows you to carry a gun in their house. You can leave a gun in your car almost everywhere.

That is about it.

Hell, with the definition of what a building is in the law, a porta john might be considered a building under the law. A pavilion or covered marina might be.

“PROPERTY” MEANS A BUILDING.
(II) “PROPERTY” DOES NOT INCLUDE THE LAND ADJACENT TO A
BUILDING.

A PERSON WEARING, CARRYING, OR TRANSPORTING A FIREARM MAY
NOT ENTER OR TRESPASS IN THE DWELLING OF ANOTHER UNLESS THE OWNER OR
THE OWNER’S AGENT HAS GIVEN EXPRESS PERMISSION, EITHER TO THE PERSON OR
TO THE PUBLIC GENERALLY, TO WEAR, CARRY, OR TRANSPORT A FIREARM INSIDE 13 THE DWELLING

A PERSON WEARING, CARRYING, OR TRANSPORTING A FIREARM MAY
NOT:
(1) ENTER OR TRESPASS ON PROPERTY UNLESS THE OWNER OR THE OWNER’S AGENT HAS POSTED A CLEAR
AND CONSPICUOUS SIGN INDICATING THAT IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO WEAR, CARRY, OR
TRANSPORT A FIREARM ON THE PROPERTY; OR

ENTER OR TRESPASS ON PROPERTY UNLESS THE OWNER OR THE OWNER’S AGENT HAS GIVEN THE PERSON EXPRESS
PERMISSION TO WEAR, CARRY, OR TRANSPORT A FIREARM ON THE PROPERTY;

So what is a building?

Md. Code Regs. 08.15.01.02​

"Building" means the combination of materials having a roof to form a structure for the shelter of individuals, animals, or property, including any part of it.

So anything with a roof.

Standing under an awning is potentially an armed trespass under this law. Good luck walking down the street if any buildings have an awning you have to work under! You'll then get to argue what "in" means.

I'm not sure how that translates to people that own businesses in buildings that they do not own not being able to carry. I thought it was written somewhere that explicitly stated that this does not apply to business owners. If I lease a building and own and operate a business out of it I am quite positive I can carry a firearm because it is my place of business.

I did not see that change anywhere but I may have missed it.

 

[Afrikeber]

I’d laugh if it weren’t for the tragic loss of life. People who think a “no guns allowed” sign will deter a person who will kill an employee in a store are probably gullible enough to believe that girls can have a penis.

….I think you just described them accurately.

 

[Biggfoot44]

I'm not sure how that translates to people that own businesses in buildings that they do not own not being able to carry. I thought it was written somewhere that explicitly stated that this does not apply to business owners. If I lease a building and own and operate a business out of it I am quite positive I can carry a firearm because it is my place of business.

I did not see that change anywhere but I may have missed it.

Next to last paragraph of Lazarus's posting excerpt from SB-1 above

OWNER of the PROPERTY or OWNER'S Agent .

Other statutes also call out Leasee and authorized Tennants.

As yet no COMAR or Case Law to clarify. Was MGA just stupid , or cleverly devious? TBD