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

[dblas]

What's 12(b) at the end all about?

Deleted, It is current law, and will be removed on Oct 1.

 

[dblas]

This sounds ominously like BOHICA

Hopefully SCOTUS will smack this bullhonkery down

Maybe.....

 

[eruby]

Maybe.....

Facts, are the enemy of truth - Don Quixote de la Mancha

It feels like it's about to bourbon

 

[Hibs]

DISCLAIMER: The following is NOT legal advise and should not be taken as such. ALWAYS check with your attorney or the state's attorneys office in your county for clarification and advice. The following is informational only as we are not legal experts and you should not make decisions solely based on the following text.

Licensed security guards are exempt from SB1. There is nothing in the law that states that the security guard has to be on duty or working at a particular site location. (loophole!)

Starting probably in July 2024, MSP Maryland will start requiring all security guards, regardless if they work for a security company OR they work for in house security to be 1) licensed with MSP, 2) receive 10 hours training, 8 hours per renewal - every 3 years, and be have received the training certified by the Maryland Police and Corrections Training Academy.

Which means that you can register to be a security guard with either A) a security company if they will allow you to do so and keep you "on call" or B) become a security guard at your residence after SB760 passes. The only issue with this is that you would have to carry 500,000 in liability insurance for security guard insurance at your residential address after July 2024 to license yourself as a security guard on your own property.

However, currently, you are not required to undergo any training requirements. Theoretically a security company could license you as a security guard by you getting your fingerprints taken and applying for the security guard card through the security company and keep you "on call". Some shady potentially security companies, in our opinion, will allow you to do this for money and/or training cost. But if they license you as a security guard, the liability probably would fall onto them if one of their licensees did anything illegal or civilly actionable.

Only $15, why not???

 

[Sunrise]

“We’re going through and checking on the constitutionality now, but, yes, I plan on signing them soon,” Moore, a Democrat, said.

….

Mark Pennak, president of Maryland Shall Issue, said he planned a swift challenge to the measure that spells out particular areas where handguns would be banned.

“We’ll be challenging SB1 almost immediately after it’s signed,” Pennak said of the bill.

Here we go…

 

[Lafayette]

“We’re going through and checking on the constitutionality now, but, yes, I plan on signing them soon,” Moore, a Democrat, said.

….

Mark Pennak, president of Maryland Shall Issue, said he planned a swift challenge to the measure that spells out particular areas where handguns would be banned.

“We’ll be challenging SB1 almost immediately after it’s signed,” Pennak said of the bill.

Here we go…

Seems like checking on the constitutionality of the bills should have been done before passing them - but what do I know? I’m not an MGA lizard.

 

[Blacksmith101]

“We’re going through and checking on the constitutionality now, but, yes, I plan on signing them soon,” Moore, a Democrat, said.

….

Mark Pennak, president of Maryland Shall Issue, said he planned a swift challenge to the measure that spells out particular areas where handguns would be banned.

“We’ll be challenging SB1 almost immediately after it’s signed,” Pennak said of the bill.

Here we go…

So when Moore finds out that they are unconstitutional will he sign them anyway?

 

[Doctor_M]

Before you can blink twice.

 

[coinboy]

So when Moore finds out that they are unconstitutional will he sign them anyway?

Yes.

 

[AvidRider]

So when Moore finds out that they are unconstitutional will he sign them anyway?

He doesn't need to "find out". He already knows, and he doesn't care.

 

[Bertfish]

I look forward to tearing this and more down with MSI

 

[Georges2nd]

SB 1 is like that Germany wall. MR MOORE TEAR DOWN THAT WALL

 

[Tower43]

Moore is a coward and will sign what he's told to sign.

 

[coinboy]

Not that it matters but...

Dear Governor Wes Moore,

I am asking that you please veto SB1.

My name is Robert Marlowe and I used to work as a security guard for Dunbar Armored. We used to pick up the tax checks from the MD Comptrollers Office in Annapolis while I had my Maryland Wear and Carry Permit as a security guard. I have legally carried in resturants, bars, banks, Federal buildings, State buildings, County buildings, a courthouse in PG County as well as other places that will now be considered illegal. This bill would possibly criminalize people like me.

I believe that the sensitive places listed in the bill are unconstitutional and that this bill will incur significant and substantial lawsuits that cost the Maryland taxpayers money. MSI says they will sue if this bill passes and I fully support them. Montgomery County has already passed a similar bill and it is already in legal jeopardy. I doubt I have to mention the lawsuits in New York and New Jersey over their sensitive areas.

This legislation was only created to penalize lawful gun owners that have underwent background checks and does nothing to stop criminals from using firearms in crimes. This legislation does not comply with the Supreme Court ruling in Bruen for a multitude of reasons. This is why I am asking you to veto this problematic piece of legislation.

I also believe that minorities in our communities with a MD Wear and Carry Permit will be charged and prosecuted at higher rates. This is because many may not have a car to put their firearm in to stow it while visiting a sensitive place. I also believe they will be given increased scrutiny by police such as stop and frisk to see if they are armed or have a permit especially in lower income communities.

Many domestic violence victims spoke before the legislature about their true need to carry for personal protection and the legislature ignored their pleas.

I request that you seriously consider placing a red veto stamp on this bill.

Thank you,
[coinboy]

 

[Sunrise]

Seems like checking on the constitutionality of the bills should have been done before passing them - but what do I know? I’m not an MGA lizard.

Merely par for the course. They never cared whether it was constitutional or not, and they certainly don’t now. The anti-gun grift is irresistible. It’s also not their money they’re spending when it ultimately goes to Court.

 

[Bertfish]

I wouldn't waste my time typing it out to him

 

[Sunrise]

So when Moore finds out that they are unconstitutional will he sign them anyway?

Without a moment’s hesitation.

 

[danimalw]

Merely par for the course. They never cared whether it was constitutional or not, and they certainly don’t now. The anti-gun grift is irresistible. It’s also not their money they’re spending when it ultimately goes to Court.

And insult to injury, the subjects pay for fighting these laws at least 3 times..
1. with taxpayer's $ when the masters pass unconstitutional laws.
2. With private donations to fund lawsuits.
3. Masters use taxpayer's money to defend the lawsuits.

 

[ustasc]

Yes we know and thank you for posting 3 times in 6 posts. Not including the post in the carry section

Your welcome!

 

[Occam]

Your welcome!

"You're." The word you're looking for is "you're," which is a contraction of "you are," instead of the possessive "your," which makes no sense.