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

[dlmarion]

FOR the purpose of prohibiting a person from knowingly wearing, carrying, or transporting a firearm onto the real property of another unless the other has given certain permission

Just curious who the "other" is in the case of leased property. Retail establishments don't typically own the building they are located in, do lease holders have ownership rights?

 

[fishgutzy]

This bill is fully endorsed by every criminal, including evey corrupt public official, in the state. Criminals love it when the state makes their workplace safer.

 

[lazarus]

What is the difference in SB 118 and this bill?

This one just bans it around places where food is served or people sleep.

SB118 bans guns EVERYWHERE.

ALL federal, state, and local property and any private property that is not conspicuously posted.

There are only exemptions for things like police.

No exemptions for the kind of activities or anything else like that.

Of note, hunting will be banned with firearms, as there are NO exceptions for hunting. Buying and selling guns is going to be banned unless maybe it is your neighbor.

Unless a private road (which would need to be conspicuously marked), all roads are federal, state, or local property. Sidewalks, parking lots, etc.

There are NO exceptions for government owned property that is marked. So even if roads were somehow NOT government property, the parks, WMAs, etc. ARE.

Perhaps the stupidest thing I've read. I know they don't care. It is intentional. But man, what a crock of crap. I think even the 3 liberals on SCOTUS would strike that one down.

 

[lazarus]

So they allow us to get a permit. Then change the laws so we can't carry anywhere? Sorry. These laws weren't on the books when I got mine.

No, no, no. Look at the laws, this isn't just that permits are worthless because you literally cannot use them anywhere.

These laws ban firearms EVERYWHERE. This is in effect (especially SB118) a total ban on firearms going ANYWHERE. It is wear, carry or transport ANY firearm on any government controlled property. So you may not use roads, sidewalks, parking lots, etc. And for private property, it has to be conspicuously marked or you need express permission. So that gun store in a strip mall or rents the property with a shared parking lot is going to need to be marked to allow firearms at all.

This is way worse than just a ban on wear and carry for a regulated firearm. This is ban of firearms almost ANYWHERE in the state, for any reason, by effectively non-law enforcement.

 

[Bob A]

This sort of legislation is the exact equivalent of a tantrum thrown by a 3 year old child.

There is a difference, though. I doubt that a room full of three-year-olds could maintain a mutual screeching whining purple-faced tantrum together for hours, days, months. It takes a depraved heart, or a mentally/emotionally unstable mind, to go to this extreme.

 

[eruby]

If this law is passed, I wonder how many days I will be a criminal, until SCOTUS slaps it down

 

[6-Pack]

These restrictions are not going to stand. "A certain distance" They are trying to make every place a prohibited place. The Bruen decision specifically stated these kinds of laws are shenanigans, and will be treated like shenanigans.

"

 

[BADSHOT]

If this law is passed, I wonder how many days I will be a criminal, until SCOTUS slaps it down

This right here ^^^

 

[BW460]

I've heard the issue of "public roads" come up a couple of times here. I want to clarify something. I have personally designed and created many "public roads". Roads exist as three possible entities; actual fee ownership of the right of way by the governmental entity, private ownership (this is common in townhouse or condominium communities), and the 3rd is road right of ways that are dedicated to the public. Roads that are dedicated to the public are easements. They are not owned by the governmental entity. Most State roads, but not all, are owned by the State. But, most County roads are easements with the road bed owned by the adjoining property owner. This is true in most all subdivisions. So, why the lecture on roads? Because - good fricking luck to the average citizen trying to figure this out. When driving through a subdivision, you would need a sign in front of every single lot giving you permission to carry while driving down the road!

 

[pbharvey]

I've heard the issue of "public roads" come up a couple of times here. I want to clarify something. I have personally designed and created many "public roads". Roads exist as three possible entities; actual fee ownership of the right of way by the governmental entity, private ownership (this is common in townhouse or condominium communities), and the 3rd is road right of ways that are dedicated to the public. Roads that are dedicated to the public are easements. They are not owned by the governmental entity. Most State roads, but not all, are owned by the State. But, most County roads are easements with the road bed owned by the adjoining property owner. This is true in most all subdivisions. So, why the lecture on roads? Because - good fricking luck to the average citizen trying to figure this out. When driving through a subdivision, you would need a sign in front of every single lot giving you permission to carry while driving down the road!

That's important information, thank yo.

 

[BW460]

Technically, there is a forth way that roads can be created. It's called a prescriptive easement. These are common in rural areas where the road right of ways are created by continued usage. Again, the adjoining property owner owns the land typical out to centerline of the road. My whole point of this is that just saying "public road" doesn't necessarily mean anything and just adds to the intended confusion.

 

[GTOGUNNER]

Why not support all of the anti bills? I’d rather give my gas money to MSI and 2nd Amendment foundation than beat my head against stupid politicians.
Some bill’s won’t pass anyway and the ones that do, we fight in court as we do anyway.

 

[Mark75H]

Technically, there is a forth way that roads can be created. It's called a prescriptive easement. These are common in rural areas where the road right of ways are created by continued usage. Again, the adjoining property owner owns the land typical out to centerline of the road. My whole point of this is that just saying "public road" doesn't necessarily mean anything and just adds to the intended confusion.

My deed says my property extends to the centerline of the state highway in front of my house. That adds more than a thousand square feet to my property that I am taxed on as if I can use it as private land. Every few years they widen the road and decrease what I have personal access to.

 

[BeoBill]

Or every opposition testimony is a copy of the bruen decision. They aren't going to let us testify in person.

Then they cannot say they were unaware of the legal precedent when the bitch slap comes.

I like that idea.

 

[BeoBill]

This sort of legislation is the exact equivalent of a tantrum thrown by a 3 year old child.

There is a difference, though. I doubt that a room full of three-year-olds could maintain a mutual screeching whining purple-faced tantrum together for hours, days, months. It takes a depraved heart, or a mentally/emotionally unstable mind, to go to this extreme.

 

[teratos]

Why not support all of the anti bills? I’d rather give my gas money to MSI and 2nd Amendment foundation than beat my head against stupid politicians.
Some bill’s won’t pass anyway and the ones that do, we fight in court as we do anyway.

Agree. They don’t need our input. Make it as ugly and egregious as possible. Anything else helps them. No opposition testimony at all.

 

[Mark75H]

Precident shows they will pass what ever they want regardless of testimony other than children and the disabled. Able white conseratives need not speak up.

 

[4g64loser]

I like that idea.

It's a perversion of one that I use for other things.

In my vehicles and range bags are copies of various advisory opinions, law excerpts, etc. If I am arrested, my accompanying property will be seized by the arresting officer as evidence. My attorney will ask the nice officer (under oath) if he was in possession of relevant and exculpatory information that would indicate that his client (me) was indeed within his rights. The first "no" gets a criminal compliant for perjury. Only way it gets settled is if the officer is stripped of credentials and fired (no creds, can't work as LE).

A guy I grew up with was arrested rather roughly for having a suppressor. The officer had his form 4. Said he was not in possession of any evidence that suggested the arrestee could have suppressors. Under oath. In writing. The evidence log (as compiled by his own department) was the only evidence required to sink that particular ship. The department wanted that one to go away FAST.

Send copies of the bruen decision to every committee. When they pass their unconstitutional ********, send legal correspondence to each "yea" voter asking them if they were aware of the unconstitutional nature of their bill. Demand the answer in sworn affidavit. Perjury conviction.

 

[beetles]

Maybe it is time to file a class-action lawsuit in federal court against the State of Maryland for fraud of honest services for soliciting applications for wear and carry, handgun permits, 77R transfer and charging fees for the same.

 

[teratos]

It's a perversion of one that I use for other things.

In my vehicles and range bags are copies of various advisory opinions, law excerpts, etc. If I am arrested, my accompanying property will be seized by the arresting officer as evidence. My attorney will ask the nice officer (under oath) if he was in possession of relevant and exculpatory information that would indicate that his client (me) was indeed within his rights. The first "no" gets a criminal compliant for perjury. Only way it gets settled is if the officer is stripped of credentials and fired (no creds, can't work as LE).

A guy I grew up with was arrested rather roughly for having a suppressor. The officer had his form 4. Said he was not in possession of any evidence that suggested the arrestee could have suppressors. Under oath. In writing. The evidence log (as compiled by his own department) was the only evidence required to sink that particular ship. The department wanted that one to go away FAST.

Send copies of the bruen decision to every committee. When they pass their unconstitutional ********, send legal correspondence to each "yea" voter asking them if they were aware of the unconstitutional nature of their bill. Demand the answer in sworn affidavit. Perjury conviction.

You aren’t even required to show your stamp to anyone but ATF. That’s BS