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

[teratos]

SB 1 is MD’s temper tantrum because SCOTUS shot down G&S.

No different thanks child lying on the floor kicking and screaming

No, except many of these vindictive children have law degrees and the bill’s sponsor feltches and has Koro at the same time.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Is there a specific time in a bills travels to where SCOTUS may get wind of it?

After it takes effect , And a plaintiff suffers harm thereby ( i.e. Standing for a Civil Challenge ).

Or : After it takes effect , And a Defendant is charged .

 

[Biggfoot44]

Sounds like a Sneaky Pete might be out then too.

Things like those , and fanny packs have had a wide variety of interpretation in the various states .

 

[Bob A]

No, except many of these vindictive children have law degrees and the bill’s sponsor fetches and has Koro at the same time.

Ever useful; Mencken might get more than a week from me:

It is the classic fallacy of our time that a moron run through a university and decorated with a Ph.D. will thereby cease to be a moron.
H. L. Mencken

 

[teratos]

Ever useful; Mencken might get more than a week from me:

It is the classic fallacy of our time that a moron run through a university and decorated with a Ph.D. will thereby cease to be a moron.
H. L. Mencken

Fantastic.

Oh, autocorrect changed “feltches” to “fetches”

 

[RFBfromDE]

SB 1 is MD’s temper tantrum because SCOTUS shot down G&S.

No different thanks child lying on the floor kicking and screaming

Like this?

WHAAAAaaaaaaaaaaa!

 

[GTOGUNNER]

A statute says whatever it says .

But the usual language , and usual case law adressing such matters is to the effect of " readily identifiable to the common person , with casual observation as being a ( fill in blank ) . Statutes can fine tune details , in either direction .

Random examples :

A totally enclosed holster , that looks like a holster wouldn't be conealed .

The NAA Mini Revolver mounted on a belt buckle , while literally fully exposed , would be concealed , because to casual observation of common person , it's something to hold your pants up , not apparent as a firearm .

The problem with what you say is when the statute is written to specify X. Y is ok. And thats what they are doing. An enclosed holster is just that. If it was empty it would only be an enclosed holster.
DC out lawed by name the Tec 9. Low and behold the new exact same gun was now called the DC Tec 9. Which was legal. Just as if Bushmaster changed the name of their AR to Maryland Bushmaster. It too would be legal.

 

[rbird7282]

You need to read the updated bill I think. The 100 ft buffer thing is gone so who cares about the schools just don't go in them.

This. Get your permit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[holesonpaper]

Like this?

WHAAAAaaaaaaaaaaa!

Yes, you got it

 

[lazarus]

A statute says whatever it says .

But the usual language , and usual case law adressing such matters is to the effect of " readily identifiable to the common person , with casual observation as being a ( fill in blank ) . Statutes can fine tune details , in either direction .

Random examples :

A totally enclosed holster , that looks like a holster wouldn't be conealed .

The NAA Mini Revolver mounted on a belt buckle , while literally fully exposed , would be concealed , because to casual observation of common person , it's something to hold your pants up , not apparent as a firearm .

Not entirely true. I have a completely enclosed holster for my M57 Yugo tok. Not a bit of it is showing with it snapped in place.

But yeah, what you say is generally true.

 

[lazarus]

I do have questions about the sensitive places. Is it the entire property or said things? Or just the building?

For example, if I go out to dinner and alcohol is served there, can I leave my handgun in my car? I have and would intend to use a cable locked box. I have not intention to unload the futzing thing and store the outside of said locked container unless the law is saying the parking lot is sensitive too and it would need to be locked up with ammunition separate and not in the locked container.

I get the idea the law is saying before you roll on to the property the firearm better already be unloaded and locked up with ammo separate and you better wait until you’ve left to strap up again.

This is part of what to me is so odious. It doesn’t just leave us unprotected there. But for the most part, all along the way if we are going to comply with it if a stop is at one of those sensitive places. I guess I could pull out of the parking lot and pull to the curb to take a few seconds to pull out my carry price, load it and attach my holster and gun again. Those chambered rounds are going to get a lot more wear and tear on them.

 

[Bertfish]

Lazarus it gets a lot easier when you realize concealed is concealed and we have no duty to follow unconstitutional law

 

[lazarus]

Things like those , and fanny packs have had a wide variety of interpretation in the various states .

Yeah. Sadly I expect a Fanny pack is not going to be considered an article of clothing in this state for thud purposes of carry. It might be as a case though…

We should have a CC fanny pack luncheon at mission BBQ after the law goes in to effect. Would fanny packs with AR-15s on them be too gauche?

 

[Phoenix_1295]

I do have questions about the sensitive places. Is it the entire property or said things? Or just the building?

For example, if I go out to dinner and alcohol is served there, can I leave my handgun in my car? <snip>

The way I read it, it only applies to the building, with regard to the ones that are structures. So, yes, you can lock your gun in your car in parking lot.

The "sports/athletic activity" one is more ambiguous. Not sure where the boundary is, with regard to outside athletic activities. It states the "activity" not the "property" where the activity is located. (For example, if it is a large multi-field area and only one field is being used for a league baseball game, it is not clear if the other areas/fields not being used for a league activity, but on the same property, are prohibited.) Most of the athletic fields near me are on school property, so I'm already used to them being prohibited.

ETA: Health care facilities is broader than previous law.

Health care facility definitions - Insurance Article section 15-10B-01:

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2021RS/Statute_Web/gin/gin.pdf

 

[coinboy]

So I'm confused, Waldstriker said during the hearings that one could run to render aid and protect the life of another with a firearm however I thought Maryland had a duty to retreat.

So which one is it?

A duty to retreat or a right to protect?

 

[teratos]

So I'm confused, Waldstriker said during the hearings that one could run to render aid and protect the life of a other with a firearm however I thought Maryland had a duty to retreat.

So which one is it?

A duty to retreat or a right to protect?

Right! If some dumbass didn’t retreat, ain’t my problem.

 

[Uncle Duke]

Fantastic.

Oh, autocorrect changed “feltches” to “fetches”

You sent me to Google.

There I discovered that I lead a sheltered life.....

 

[lazarus]

So I'm confused, Waldstriker said during the hearings that one could run to render aid and protect the life of a other with a firearm however I thought Maryland had a duty to retreat.

So which one is it?

A duty to retreat or a right to protect?

He also urged the dems to vote against (and they did) an amendment spelling out an exception to violate the sensitive areas for the imminent protection of self or others from a clear and present danger. Because it is perfectly legal to break the law to protect yourself or others. West and others called him on it and pointed out that Maryland's Good Samaritan law would not cover this. Because it is a general law, and specific laws override general laws. Which this would, without an exemption.

Wald was too worried about introducing loopholes.

HOW THE HELL IS RUSHING TO SOMEONE'S DEFENSE A LOOPHOLE?!?

Clear and present danger. That is a standard in law. If you aren't rushing to someone's defense to a clear and present danger, no protection. "I am nervous about getting attacked in an establishment selling alcohol, that's why I am carrying officer" is NOT going to be a defense. "I was carrying and I heard gun shots from in the bar, so I rushed in there" WOULD protect you from prosecution under SB1 if that amendment was in there.

 

[teratos]

You sent me to Google.

There I discovered that I lead a sheltered life.....

Sorry…

 

[Uncle Duke]

Sorry…