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

[lazarus]

I understand your premise.

The concern that I have that was never really addressed,

The permit was granted for self defense of the holder.

What is to stop the owner of a property from banning a person from possessing firearms on the property and then assaulting or killing the unarmed party knowing they are unarmed? From what I understand, most killings are done by people the victim knew.

Then don't go in that person's house if you don't like the fact that they don't want you having a gun in their house.

It works both ways.

What is stopping the owner of the property from sneaking up behind you and stabbing you in the back with a kitchen knife? Or hitting you in the head with a hammer from behind? Or just walking into the room with a gun and shooting you multiple times?

If someone was particularly devious and inclined to kill you, if you are willing to go into their house, having a concealed firearm on you does not make you particularly more likely to be able to defend yourself in that situation. Having a concealed firearm really only helps if the "bad guy" does not have the drop on you or does not intend to kill YOU. Or, you are there intending to kill them so you are the one getting the drop on them.

Most killings are done in a way that having a concealed firearm on you, would still give you no realistic chance to defend yourself unless you walk around with it in your hand, sleep with it in your hand, shower with it in your hand, and are alert 24x7x365.

I am pro carry, but when it comes down to it, if you trust the person so little you feel you must carry a concealed firearm into that person's house, knowing they don't want you to have a gun in their house, then you are making some really awful choices in life about who you associate with.

 

[Derek]

This is why you carry at home and others homes.

 

[coinboy]

Then don't go in that person's house if you don't like the fact that they don't want you having a gun in their house.

It works both ways.

What is stopping the owner of the property from sneaking up behind you and stabbing you in the back with a kitchen knife? Or hitting you in the head with a hammer from behind? Or just walking into the room with a gun and shooting you multiple times?

If someone was particularly devious and inclined to kill you, if you are willing to go into their house, having a concealed firearm on you does not make you particularly more likely to be able to defend yourself in that situation. Having a concealed firearm really only helps if the "bad guy" does not have the drop on you or does not intend to kill YOU. Or, you are there intending to kill them so you are the one getting the drop on them.

Most killings are done in a way that having a concealed firearm on you, would still give you no realistic chance to defend yourself unless you walk around with it in your hand, sleep with it in your hand, shower with it in your hand, and are alert 24x7x365.

I am pro carry, but when it comes down to it, if you trust the person so little you feel you must carry a concealed firearm into that person's house, knowing they don't want you to have a gun in their house, then you are making some really awful choices in life about who you associate with.

I disagree.

Just because you think you know someone doesn't mean you do.

Jeffrey Dahmer probably could have gotten positive character references.

Didn't make him any less psycho.

 

[lazarus]

I disagree.

Just because you think you know someone doesn't mean you do.

Jeffrey Dahmer probably could have gotten positive character references.

Didn't make him any less psycho.

So don't trust people and don't go into anyone's house, and keep a gun on you at all times in case your spouse decides to do you in.

 

[Allen65]

So don't trust people and don't go into anyone's house, and keep a gun on you at all times in case your spouse decides to do you in.

Among all the prickly curmudgeons here on MDS, I have no doubt there are some whose spouses wouldn't want to do them in. In some cases, it might be considered justifiable homicide.

 

[lazarus]

Among all the prickly curmudgeons here on MDS, I have no doubt there are some whose spouses wouldn't want to do them in. In some cases, it might be considered justifiable homicide.

My wife often claims she will. I keep telling her any day she wants to try to sex me to death, she is welcome to try.

 

[Alutacon]

My wife often claims she will. I keep telling her any day she wants to try to sex me to death, she is welcome to try.

Your living forever my man

 

[coinboy]

So don't trust people and don't go into anyone's house, and keep a gun on you at all times in case your spouse decides to do you in.

Well, the same could be said for other so-called sensitive areas, in public, or even getting a carry permit in general.

That's not how rights work.

...and technically under SB1 a person would need permission to have a firearm on their own property from their spouse under a logical approach of Clippinger's argument in the House hearing.

 

[coinboy]

Any word on the bill?

 

[elwojo]

...and technically under SB1 a person would need permission to have a firearm on their own property from their spouse under a logical approach of Clippinger's argument in the House hearing.

Absolutely true here. Permission has to be universal, otherwise it is a denial even if you are one of the owner's - not even considering the idea of leases here.

The idea that personal property needs EXTRA SPECIAL DOUBLE PROTECTION just from firearms is outrageous. I contend that if this were to be enforceable, the same could be done with almost anything. The easy options I presented earlier were alcohol, marijuana, and porn, which have already morality codes surrounding them. There's no reason gluten couldn't have this same enforcement for the same reasons. A big old "no gluten" sign on a person with Celiac's house, and you walk in with a granola bar that has gluten in it, and you go to jail for 90 days. Anything for people to feel safe.

The existing trespassing laws already cover everything here. This is no different than "you can't carry in places with licenses to consume alcohol" - when there are already protections around carrying while inebriated.

Since just regular illegal isn't enough, we need DOUBLE ILLEGAL! (insert double secret probation gif)

 

[Bertfish]

Any word on the bill?

They have 11.5 hours to pass it. I'm sure they will.

 

[44man]

Say I own a rental house in a shyte neighborhood so I am stuck with shyte renter’s because of the hood.

When I go to do repairs, if they don’t want me to carry does that mean I can’t carry in my own house?

 

[Batt816]

They have 11.5 hours to pass it. I'm sure they will.

I wouldn't doubt if they run it right to the buzzer, just to fvck with us.

 

[elwojo]

They have 11.5 hours to pass it. I'm sure they will.

If they can't do it in 11.5 hours, I would bet they could pass a bill explicitly changing the date of tomorrow so they could work out any details.

Say I own a rental house in a shyte neighborhood so I am stuck with shyte renter’s because of the hood.

When I go to do repairs, if they don’t want me to carry does that mean I can’t carry in my own house?

I think that will depend a lot on the prosecutor and how they interpret the law. It is not clear cut at this moment - especially given that the Senate and House have different bills at this moment.

There's a chance that you won't have to worry about it for another year...

 

[Jaybeez]

The mga can vote to set the clocks to whatever time they desire, and can vote to make it whatever legislative day they want it to be.

 

[Occam]

I am not a scholar of the Constitution. But I believe that the 13th Amendment may differ from other Amendments that protect speech, religion, assembly, etc. because the 13th Amendment empower the state to act to prevent slavery from occurring/existing in any of its jurisdictions; whereas the other Amendments limit the power of the state to prevent speech, assembly, free exercise of religion, etc. The 13th seems to operate differently than others in how the state can and cannot wield its power.

Think it through, though. Let's say you're in Montgomery County and you request a permit to assemble and speak on county grounds where various organizations routinely hold such events. In filling out the paperwork, you provide information that some county muckity-muck uses to conclude you're not their kind of people, and you should be blocked from holding your rally and speaking. Shy of paperwork that says, "We will be holding an event intended to incite a riot" or such, being denied because of your ideology would be a blatant 1A violation. Then what? You turn to the government (up the food chain from the agency/official who's violating your rights) and have them step in to prevent that infringement.

The Bill of Rights does indeed spell out things that the government (and, as amended later, state and local governments as well) CANNOT do with respect to your liberties. But shy of taking matters (and perhaps weapons) into your own hands and fighting another revolution, it IS the government - just as it is with the 13th amendment - that is supposed to look at the events in question, compare them to the Constitution's plain language, and then step in - with compulsion or even force if it ultimately comes to that - to prevent your rights from being infringed by another layer or piece of government. This might happen through a direct appeal to a law enforcement agency or prosecutor, or it might involve litigation in order to produce an order lifting the infringement. But the BoR is definitely a list of things that, ironically, you turn to the government for relief when some other piece or layer of the government violates. And the framers were clear what the moral framework supports if NO layer of the government is willing to step in and provide protection against infringements. Which is why they all wore Hawaiian shirts on the day the Constitution was ratified.

 

[Doctor_M]

The mga can vote to set the clocks to whatever time they desire, and can vote to make it whatever legislative day they want it to be.

So it isn't Sine Die, it is Groundhog Day.

 

[Muff Hucka]

So on page 7 of SB1 (https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2023RS/bills/sb/sb0001T.pdf) it looks like they are making exceptions to the law for people who have a valid state permit. Is that the correct understanding?

 

[eruby]

I disagree.

Just because you think you know someone doesn't mean you do.

Jeffrey Dahmer probably could have gotten positive character references.

Didn't make him any less psycho.

Konerak Sinthasomphone weeps

WWNC, and EBMD

p. s. fvck you MGA

 

[Occam]

So on page 7 of SB1 (https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2023RS/bills/sb/sb0001T.pdf) it looks like they are making exceptions to the law for people who have a valid state permit. Is that the correct understanding?

To the extent I can make sense of that, it appears they are talking about retired LEOs as "the persons" with permits. Not us peasants.

Also: what the hell is a "government or public infrastructure" area? Sounds like that could be anyplace with storm water management, or power line right or ways, or ... roads. Still sits there in the bill along with things like parking garages. Such fun.