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

[lazarus]

I'm recalling when the Mommy types tried to pressure Starbucks into banning carry in their stores. The CEO politely declined to do so, indicating that he made the distinction between law abiding carriers and criminals, and that such policies are ignored by criminals. Now, would they be willing - in states where it comes down to that - to actually put up "carry allowed here" signs? Prolly not, but you never know.

Next the state is going to require stores to put up signs allowing pants. No sign, you may not wear pants on to the private property.

Also where does the sign need to go? I believe the judge in NJ asked that question. Do you have to post the private property at the bottom of the driveway? All approaches to the private property? Does it need to be marked like properties are marked for hunting (or even no trespass for hunters)? Do we need a prominent sign or blaze a certain height from the ground every so often all around the property? Or is just a sign at the entrance to a store fine? And if we are arriving at a business we aren't going to know until we get to the store and we are already ON private property when we parked in the parking lot.

It is just so much stupid it hurts.

 

[Blacksmith101]

I have been researching Maryland laws. The first state gun control law in Maryland that pertains to citizens (the Maryland Act of February 26th 1872) prohibited concealed carry in Annapolis. This was almost 100 years after the 2nd Amendment and is not able to be leveraged as text and history per the Bruen decision. Before 1872 there were no state laws against the carry or transportation of firearms.

“
CHAPTER 42.
AN ACT to add an additional section to article two
of the Code of Public Local Laws, entitled "Anne
Arundel county," sub-title "Annapolis," to pre-
vent the carrying of concealed weapons in said
city.
SECTION 1. Be it en-acted by the General Assembly of
Maryland, That the following section be added to
article two, of the Code of Public Local Laws, entitled "Anne Arundel county," sub-title "Annapolis:"”

Archives of Maryland, Volume 0190, Page 2635 - Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, 1872

Thank you for your research. One more arrow in the quiver.

 

[Phoenix_1295]

Chris Tomlinson and Eric Bouchat both sent me positive replies to the emails I had sent to them regarding opposing SB001 and SB118.

 

[dblas]

Based on the name, I'm stereotypicaly presuming Jewish

As I've said many times, any Jew in favor of gun control is either ignorant of the Holocaust, or an absolute moron

Or he comes from a family of collaborators.

 

[dblas]

Smith and I have a good working and very civil relationship going back multiple Sessions. And he does listen. He did not have to invite me to speak to the Committee. For purposes of what Maryland will do the stay by the 2d Circuit is pretty far down in the weeds. My written testimony given to the committee notes that NY cases were up on appeal and that the cases were not final. So Levy's point was really a nothing. The NJ case, in contrast is not on appeal if only because a TRO can't be appealed. What will matter is the merits ruling and that will come after the Session is over. The point is to get them to read the DCT opinions. The 2d Circuit stay pending appeal in the NY cases (not the NJ case) was not explained, as the SCT Justices Alito and Thompson noted.

That relationship with Smith and MSI started back in 2014 when he was a Freshman Delegate. I found him to be attentive to issues and arguments, but analytical as well. He asked (back then) good questions to better understand where we were coming from, and I assume he continues to do the same (hopefully even more so) now that he not only a Senator but the Chair of the Committee.

I liken him to his predecessor, who understood the issues from both sides and did what he could, within the constraints that he had/has, to be as fair as he could to both sides. While many here may not like the treatment, it is a damn sight better than anything we got 10 years ago, by Frosh and then his successor.

The very same could be said for Chairman Vallerio in the House.

 

[dblas]

I seem to remember a record turn out, by their own admission, in Annapolis almost 10 years ago for SB281 and I’m not really sure it did much good. It took getting things to the courts before anything favorable happened. BLM is a favored child. Gun owners are the black sheep.

So you only remember one day out of 90 and we failed?

mmmkay

 

[dblas]

View attachment 397213 View attachment 397214 View attachment 397215 View attachment 397216 View attachment 397217 View attachment 397218 View attachment 397219 View attachment 397220
I remember that too... along with the balt sun claiming we were "hundreds" when over 13,000 signed up to testify. There were so many of us there that they literally shut down the entrances of the buildings and wouldn't let anyone else in for a while because the buildings exceeded the fire code capacity. Take a look at the copycat definition in the fsa2013 and realize it's extremely easy to get around it with most semiautos because of the work done. A lot of other stuff got gutted from the original versions of the bills.

However, we played nice and got all the permits/insurance required to hold the event. I don't see why we need to do that when BLM and other groups didn't. Since then, covid gave them the excuse to break the testimony process. It doesn't matter. We need a crowd at least this big that surrounds the buildings and doesn't leave until well after dark. They're trying to strip us of our ability to protect the lives of our families. We need to act like it.

Long time no see brother, I miss sitting beside you in the gallery and MSP reminding you "No videoing the session".

 

[dblas]

Working on testimony:


My name is hodgepodge. I am a resident of Distict 33C.

Maryland’s proposed reaction to the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision reminds me of the reaction to the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision. The Supreme Court recognized that the right to an education extended to all citizens.

Multiple states, governors, and senators resisted the decision. Senator Byrd of Virginia declared the decision “the most serious blow that has yet been struck against the rights of the states in a matter vitally affecting their authority and welfare.” Governor Stanley created the Gray Commission to remove mandatory school attendance and remove state funding for integrated schools.

I see numerous parallels in states’ resistance to the Bruen decision. Despite the Court’s clear statement that “respondents’ attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law lacks merit because there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department.”

This is exactly what SB1 is attempting to legislate. The bill expands “sensitive places” to the entire state unless specific permission is obtained. It is no less egregious than the closing of public schools for four years in multiple Virginia counties.

My right to protect my family is no less significant than the right to an equal education. My right to protect my family is no less than any other right. My right to protect my family, at all times and in all places, must not be further restricted by the State of Maryland.

Numerous suits are challenging the restrictions states have enacted post-Bruen. While it took almost 20 years for multiple Court decisions to fully enact he Brown decision, I urge this committee to reject attempts to postpone the recognition of the rights upheld by Bruen. I urge this committee to reject the passive aggressive laws restricting the right of self-defense.

“Sure, you can attend public schools. You just have to attend certain schools” and “Sure, you can use public transportation. You just have to sit in a certain section.” has become “Yes, certain people may carry a gun, but only in certain places.”

Reject SB1.


Not sure about that last paragraph. May be too "in your face".

There is no such thing as "too, in your face" when it comes to calling them out. Leave it as it is.

 

[smokey]

Long time no see brother, I miss sitting beside you in the gallery and MSP reminding you "No videoing the session".

Haha yup, fun times. I'm going to have to be in Annapolis this year, but young kids make it tougher than before. It is nice recording the sausage being made and making the mga critters aware that what they are doing will actually be shared with the public.

I think that was the session I almost got shot by the police there by clapping loud during a testimony.

 

[Bertfish]

That relationship with Smith and MSI started back in 2014 when he was a Freshman Delegate. I found him to be attentive to issues and arguments, but analytical as well. He asked (back then) good questions to better understand where we were coming from, and I assume he continues to do the same (hopefully even more so) now that he not only a Senator but the Chair of the Committee.

I liken him to his predecessor, who understood the issues from both sides and did what he could, within the constraints that he had/has, to be as fair as he could to both sides. While many here may not like the treatment, it is a damn sight better than anything we got 10 years ago, by Frosh and then his successor.

The very same could be said for Chairman Vallerio in the House.

Who was after Frosh? Wasn't it the Senator from Baltimore County who retired? Can't think of his name now

 

[Allen65]

Who was after Frosh? Wasn't it the Senator from Baltimore County who retired? Can't think of his name now

Zirkin?

 

[dblas]

Who was after Frosh? Wasn't it the Senator from Baltimore County who retired? Can't think of his name now

I thought there were two between Frosh and Smith, but only one, Zirkin, who did listen somewhat better than Frosh, and understood the ramifications of some of the bills on his desk.

 

[Bertfish]

Zirkin?

Yep that's it. Bobby Zirkin

 

[Bertfish]

I thought there were two between Frosh and Smith, but only one, Zirkin, who did listen somewhat better than Frosh, and understood the ramifications of some of the bills on his desk.

Yep and he quit citing the increasingly polarized nature of politics

 

[dblas]

Yep and he quit citing the increasingly polarized nature of politics

Yep.

 

[Biggfoot44]

There is no such thing as "too, in your face" when it comes to calling them out. Leave it as it is.

Practice your timing to make sure you can fit it into your 2 minutes .

 

[P-12 Norm]

Working on testimony:


My name is hodgepodge. I am a resident of Distict 33C.

Maryland’s proposed reaction to the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision reminds me of the reaction to the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision. The Supreme Court recognized that the right to an education extended to all citizens.

Multiple states, governors, and senators resisted the decision. Senator Byrd of Virginia declared the decision “the most serious blow that has yet been struck against the rights of the states in a matter vitally affecting their authority and welfare.” Governor Stanley created the Gray Commission to remove mandatory school attendance and remove state funding for integrated schools.

I see numerous parallels in states’ resistance to the Bruen decision. Despite the Court’s clear statement that “respondents’ attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law lacks merit because there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department.”

This is exactly what SB1 is attempting to legislate. The bill expands “sensitive places” to the entire state unless specific permission is obtained. It is no less egregious than the closing of public schools for four years in multiple Virginia counties.

My right to protect my family is no less significant than the right to an equal education. My right to protect my family is no less than any other right. My right to protect my family, at all times and in all places, must not be further restricted by the State of Maryland.

Numerous suits are challenging the restrictions states have enacted post-Bruen. While it took almost 20 years for multiple Court decisions to fully enact he Brown decision, I urge this committee to reject attempts to postpone the recognition of the rights upheld by Bruen. I urge this committee to reject the passive aggressive laws restricting the right of self-defense.

“Sure, you can attend public schools. You just have to attend certain schools” and “Sure, you can use public transportation. You just have to sit in a certain section.” has become “Yes, certain people may carry a gun, but only in certain places.”

Reject SB1.


Not sure about that last paragraph. May be too "in your face".

This is really good. Other than the first sentence identifying you, this would make a good email to representatives and senators in the MDGA.

 

[ChannelCat]

This is really good. Other than the first sentence identifying you, this would make a good email to representatives and senators in the MDGA.

Hodgepodge, this is excellent. Do you mind if I use it?

 

[Tower43]

View attachment 396375
This is the clown in the video you can thank for this infringement on your rights.

he looks like he got beat up in HS

 

[Tower43]

Even if there are 100,000 W&C holders... thats 1.6% of the population of the state (Last Census, 6.165M) they don't care if EVERYONE showed up. The best hope is to give them the court documents on record as infringement and fight it in court. Period.