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

[BeoBill]

How about the Number of UNF -- Unfavorable on witness list. 259 entries.

Witness Signup

When did they start caring about that?

 

[lazarus]

Originally it specifically exempted the common use areas. Who knows now though. Until I see final text I'm holding back

Shame is there is some good in this. Forcing MSP to write the training curriculum for one.

It was, and I think still is. But that is still at conflict with all private property (buildings) require explicit permission.

I just feel like they are opening a can of worms without thinking about it. Or, they have, and don't GAF.

For example, my LGS is a privately owned building. So...does my LGS need to post a sign to allow firearms? Because, unless it has been amended and I haven't noticed, this isn't just carry, transport there is forbidden. And this includes long guns too now.

So I can't, for instance, carry in a gun to my LGS I am looking to sell/consign/repair. Unless they give permission or post that guns are allowed.

Izzak Walton is going to need to post that guns are allowed at their ranges. It is private property. Are covered pavilions or covered ranges considered buildings? Clipplinger was asked about marinas and parking garages and he seemed to indicate if it has a roof, walls, or anything like a man-made structure, it is a building. So don't sit on a deck with a gun, or walk under an awning. At least not without permission. So not even taking it in to the club house, but using a covered range probably violates the law if it isn't posted allowing guns.

Dick's, Bass Pro, Cabelas, etc. are going to need to post signs that guns are allowed or its is going to be mighty hard to buy a gun there. Not like you could leave with it, because you can't be in possession in these places without explicit permission once the bill is enacted. This isn't just packing heat, but carrying a gun out in a case/box would be prohibited under the law if explicit permission is not granted.

 

[elwojo]

Dick's, Bass Pro, Cabelas, etc. are going to need to post signs that guns are allowed or its is going to be mighty hard to buy a gun there. Not like you could leave with it, because you can't be in possession in these places without explicit permission once the bill is enacted. This isn't just packing heat, but carrying a gun out in a case/box would be prohibited under the law if explicit permission is not granted.

You would have to wonder: is Bass Pro at Arundel Mills going to be able to say that they allow the carry of guns if the rest of the mall decides it doesn't?

 

[RFBfromDE]

You would have to wonder: is Bass Pro at Arundel Mills going to be able to say that they allow the carry of guns if the rest of the mall decides it doesn't?

They have their own entrance. It's the only one I use. It would be safer if they walled off the entrance to the mall.

 

[elwojo]

They have their own entrance. It's the only one I use. It would be safer if they walled off the entrance to the mall.

But does Bass Pro own that location? Or are they leasing it? Does Simon Property Group decide or Bass Pro? How many other locations like this might have that same problem?

Can property owners divide the property up into "carry allowed" and "carry not allowed" zones?

 

[RFBfromDE]

EBMD

YMMV

 

[lazarus]

They have their own entrance. It's the only one I use. It would be safer if they walled off the entrance to the mall.

Delegate Wivell pointed out that the reading of SB1 is that it is the building owner, not the tenant who has to give express permission.

“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"

Owner's agent is NOT the tenant in residential or commercial rental situations. The owner's agent would someone employed by the owner.

So in the case of Bass Pro at Arundle mills, it is going to be the owner of the mall or their agent has to give permission to have firearms in bass pro.

Let that sink in. This is going to include any LGS that rent. I'd hope in that circumstance permission would be real easy for the tenant LGS to get, but it is still going to be on the owner/agent to post a "guns allowed" sign at the LGS tenant's building/shop. It doesn't say the tenant upon receiving permission can post a sign.

I missed the end of the exchange, but it sounded a whole lot like if your lease doesn't now include the fact that you can have guns there, well guess what. You have no explicit permission. I caught Clipplinger say something about "well rent somewhere else then".

Yeah, A that is F-ed up. B, and what about people on existing leases as of October 1st if the owner doesn't want to give the tenant express permission to have guns?

 

[lazarus]

But does Bass Pro own that location? Or are they leasing it? Does Simon Property Group decide or Bass Pro? How many other locations like this might have that same problem?

Can property owners divide the property up into "carry allowed" and "carry not allowed" zones?

I highly doubt it. Now, I suspect the interpretation of a law would be that after giving explicit permission, the owner or their agent could withdraw that permission (and you'd need to leave, not that you'd face immediate arrest).

Not sure how that is going to work giving permission for only part of a building. Is that considered withdrawal of permission if you stray in to the non-gun part of the building?

But yes, the reading of the law is that is the owner or their agent, NOT the tenant that gets to decide. So as of October 1st, all commercial and residential tenants are at risk of arrest if they have guns on the property and don't have permission from the owner. That really needs to get messaged out to the Delegates before 3rd reader. They need to be pointing that out in even more strong terms, either by amending it to change the owner/owner agent language, or again, by making this an affirmative action on the part of the owner or their agent to ban guns, not that guns are defacto banned.

This will screw over tens of thousands of residential and commercial tenants, as well as possibly putting some businesses out of business if they cannot immediately secure permission from the owner.

 

[elwojo]

This will screw over tens of thousands of residential and commercial tenants, as well as possibly putting some businesses out of business if they cannot immediately secure permission from the owner.

It's not a bug. It's a feature.

On the plus side: it'll be a feature that gets courts to act with immediacy. That's assuming that the House and Senate can reconcile this bill, which is looking less and less likely as the "practicalities" of it are exposed.

 

[Billyb]

But does Bass Pro own that location? Or are they leasing it? Does Simon Property Group decide or Bass Pro? How many other locations like this might have that same problem?

Can property owners divide the property up into "carry allowed" and "carry not allowed" zones?

When I picked up my pistol at BPS in February, the last thing they told me was that I could not take it into the mall even though it had a lock on the trigger and was in the box. Don't know (or care, really) about the legality of this, but it's what they told me.

 

[dblas]

Didn't some of those who signed up as in favor really do that to take some of their spots, but were against it?

Yes, yes I did.

 

[dblas]

EBMD

YMMV

CMC

 

[ironpony]

Haha. It’s hilarious to see all of these for instances, i’m guessing people believe these lawmakers are really concerned about their citizens, their legally state permitted citizens and will make changes once they get wind of various circumstances.

I personally do not hold the proper legal vernacular for the fact that they don’t GAF, can someone else please remind them?

If we are lucky, they will not find a way to impeach justice Thomas in the next eight years

 

[pcfixer]

When did they start caring about that?

I didn't say they started caring! There is always a BUT-- This number CAN and should be used to call
on telephone the leadership-- Maybe--or more than likely call the governor's office.

Hey- Look SB-1 & HB 284 does have a large number of people--Maryland People buy the way- citizens who
opposed. Will this work, probably NOT. So We continue to TRY.

HERE Ya Go...

“By the way I call it "moral obedience" rather than "civil disobedience" because it is God's law". Those who try to promote un-natural laws on us are committing moral disobedience. It is our duty to resist immoral laws and actions.” By Richard Fry.

 

[Some Guy]

Is there a published version of the second House reading of this bill, with all the Committee's amendments included in the bill? I didn't find it on the SB0001 page.

 

[lazarus]

Haha. It’s hilarious to see all of these for instances, i’m guessing people believe these lawmakers are really concerned about their citizens, their legally state permitted citizens and will make changes once they get wind of various circumstances.

I personally do not hold the proper legal vernacular for the fact that they don’t GAF, can someone else please remind them?

If we are lucky, they will not find a way to impeach justice Thomas in the next eight years

Man, you had to say that...

And just today it comes out that Justice Thomas was taking lavish trips paid for by a billionaire Republican donor and decided not to disclose any of that because at the time, he was supposedly advised that he didn't need to disclose that a major political donor was footing bills probably totaling tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars (it was several trips) for Justice Thomas.

I'd say if true, but according to the statement he released through the court, it sounds like it is, that's more than a little corrupt sounding. Supposedly said donor is a close family friend. The appearance is still at least bad. Especially since said close friend's think tank also files friend of the court opinions with SCOTUS as well as many members of these lavish trips also had business before the court.

 

[pcfixer]

10 Worst Laws In American History - Listverse

Revolutions begin when a group of people refuse to abide by the laws of their society. That's exactly why the American colonists broke away from British

listverse.com

 

[ironpony]

Crap.
Oh well, we know they play dirty so we will just have to continue accepting that having an individual parking lot removed from sensitive places is a WIN. Woo Hoo.

 

[Billyb]

And just today it comes out that Justice Thomas was taking lavish trips paid for by a billionaire Republican donor and decided not to disclose any of that because at the time, he was supposedly advised that he didn't need to disclose

Until the rules on financial disclosure where changed last month, there was no requirement for these trips to be reported.

Supreme Court justices, including Clarence Thomas, are their own ethics police

The latest questions about Supreme Court ethics were raised by a ProPublica article alleging that Justice Clarence Thomas went on lavish trips funded by a conservative billionaire.

www.nbcnews.com

"The "personal hospitality" exemption means judges and justices don’t have to disclose certain gifts, including accommodations and food, when the person involved is a friend. The new interpretation made it clear that travel by private jet and stays at resort-type facilities owned by private entities have to be disclosed. "

 

[Georges2nd]

But does Bass Pro own that location? Or are they leasing it? Does Simon Property Group decide or Bass Pro? How many other locations like this might have that same problem?

Can property owners divide the property up into "carry allowed" and "carry not allowed" zones?

Just like smoking section