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

[esqappellate]

You nailed it!

Not so. All you have to do is get a law degree and study Maryland law, then study the firearms statutes applying general common law principles which may or may not apply in a given circumstance, read a whole bunch of caselaw of the Maryland Court of Appeals (now Supreme Court), and do this for years and you too might be able to decipher Maryland firearms law. Or not

 

[MigraineMan]

AFAIK, Gov. Moore still hasn't signed it....
From 4/27/2023: https://apnews.com/article/gun-cont...or-wes-moore-c0ea59d12933731c4d1189a8044fb1c4
“We’re going through and checking on the constitutionality now, but, yes, I plan on signing them soon,” Moore, a Democrat, said.
Some last minute hesitation due to constitutionality issues?

He doesn't want to get any unconstitutional on his as-yet-untainted Presidential campaign. I still think the smart-money is on "let it become law by default."

 

[Mark75H]

It's not dysfunction-free, but that's not really it. It's malice.

You are over estimating their intelligence.

 

[blipper]

He doesn't want to get any unconstitutional on his as-yet-untainted Presidential campaign. I still think the smart-money is on "let it become law by default."

I don’t think he’s counting on any votes from those who accept the SCOTUS decision.

 

[FrankZ]

Not so. All you have to do is get a law degree and study Maryland law, then study the firearms statutes applying general common law principles which may or may not apply in a given circumstance, read a whole bunch of caselaw of the Maryland Court of Appeals (now Supreme Court), and do this for years and you too might be able to decipher Maryland firearms law. Or not

You make it sounds so easy.

 

[GuitarmanNick]

He doesn't want to get any unconstitutional on his as-yet-untainted Presidential campaign. I still think the smart-money is on "let it become law by default."

Or he wants as many attempts to circumvent The Constitution as possible on his record to secure funding for his future, socialist political aspirations!
Even a child should be able to conclude the MGA legislation is unconstitutional and a direct middle finger the SCOTUS.

 

[Squaregrouper]

I predict he will not sign it, knowing it will eventually be smacked down and he doesn't want his name tied to it. He knows it will become law without his signature and he can distance himself from it when the courts strike it down.

In the eyes of future voters- yes. He will still do what the DNC machine wants, but in his bid for a higher office he can say he didn't sign the bill because he knew it was unconstitutional. That will pass the sniff test for a ton of uninformed voters.

He doesn't want to get any unconstitutional on his as-yet-untainted Presidential campaign. I still think the smart-money is on "let it become law by default."

There are two of us who are thinking this.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Dammit that's confusing!

I see where Mark is going . And he would be correct that that would be our comparitively best shot ( no pun intended) .

The big question will be : Is a Lease or Rental contract Substantially Similar to an easement or right of way ?

( Unless Mark knows about significant case law that escapes us mortal laymen ) At first glance a strong argument could be made those are different things .

A Right of Way presents a right to transit thru somewhere for the purpose of traveling to someplace else .

For examples : You have the right to travel a forestry road to access your inholding surrounded by State Forest lands. But that doesn't extend to building a cabin in the middle of the forestry road . Or you Own your actual condominium unit . You would have the right to transport firearms between your unit and the public street . But that doesn't convey the right to establish a gun store in the condo lobby , without the otherwise permission of the overall ownership entity of the entire building .

Oh, thanks! I guess that is my non-lawyerly brain. I was reading that not as a building, but about the properties surrounding one. And I definitely didn't connect or think of a property interest being a lease. That makes sense.

Clipplinger for sure though did say "yes" in the hearing on a claim that the bill would require tenants to secure permission from their landlord to possess firearms within the lease.

No question MGA's legislative intent was to restrict renters and leasees from being armed in most circumstances .

 

[Biggfoot44]

You are over estimating their intelligence.

They're not exclusive to each other . They can have malicious intent , and simultaneously be stupid .

 

[Blacksmith101]

He doesn't want to get any unconstitutional on his as-yet-untainted Presidential campaign. I still think the smart-money is on "let it become law by default."

I think he has realized that making a statement about checking to see if the law was Constitutional then having a big signing ceremony only to have the law later shot down by the Supreme Court (probably about the time he wants to run for something) will make a very bad looking sound bite for his future opponents which will loose him more votes than pictures with demanding moms will get.

 

[DaveP]

Only someone in the middle of an LSD trip or severe delusional psychotic episode could find some semblance of structure in it.

 

[Mark75H]

I think he has realized that making a statement about checking to see if the law was Constitutional then having a big signing ceremony only to have the law later shot down by the Supreme Court (probably about the time he wants to run for something) will make a very bad looking sound bite for his future opponents which will loose him more votes than pictures with demanding moms will get.

I bet a ham sammich he will have a big fat signing ceremony - not worried one bit about how it could be used against him. He thinks he is right.

 

[Biggfoot44]

There are two of us who are thinking this.

And with all respect , the two of you are on the wrong track .

Moore has already burned his bridges and written off " us " . Get overturned someday ? They'll spin it as a badge of honor .

In their minds , it's the equivalent of the 1850's , and Bruen is their moral equivalent of Dred Scott . In their minds they are courageously fighting evil , and will be vindicated by History , sooner rather than later .

 

[esqappellate]

I see where Mark is going . And he would be correct that that would be our comparitively best shot ( no pun intended) .

The big question will be : Is a Lease or Rental contract Substantially Similar to an easement or right of way ?

( Unless Mark knows about significant case law that escapes us mortal laymen ) At first glance a strong argument could be made those are different things .

A Right of Way presents a right to transit thru somewhere for the purpose of traveling to someplace else .

For examples : You have the right to travel a forestry road to access your inholding surrounded by State Forest lands. But that doesn't extend to building a cabin in the middle of the forestry road . Or you Own your actual condominium unit . You would have the right to transport firearms between your unit and the public street . But that doesn't convey the right to establish a gun store in the condo lobby , without the otherwise permission of the overall ownership entity of the entire building .



No question MGA's legislative intent was to restrict renters and leasees from being armed in most circumstances .

Ah, but the exception says any "other property interest" in the disjunctive so it need not be an easement or a right of way or even similar to those interests. It is a free-standing exception. "Other property interest" is quite broad. There is no doubt that a lease is a property interest in real property. The legislative intent is expressed in legislative language.

 

[Bob A]

You are over estimating their intelligence.

Malice doesn't require much in the way of brainpower, merely the ability to harbor hatred, and a bent toward sociopathy.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Malice doesn't require much in the way of brainpower, merely the ability to harbor hatred, and a bent toward sociopathy.

Indeed . But it does sometimes require smarts to carry out successfully .

@ Esqappelate. May it indeed carry out thusly . But still standing by for COMAR and test cases .

 

[MigraineMan]

I bet a ham sammich he will have a big fat signing ceremony - not worried one bit about how it could be used against him. He thinks he is right.

And with all respect , the two of you are on the wrong track .
Moore has already burned his bridges and written off " us " . Get overturned someday ? They'll spin it as a badge of honor .
In their minds , it's the equivalent of the 1850's , and Bruen is their moral equivalent of Dred Scott . In their minds they are courageously fighting evil , and will be vindicated by History , sooner rather than later .

What's the up-side to him signing it? Photo op with the Mad Mommies? He already has their votes, and that photo won't garner him any additional votes. Might ingratiate him with his Sorosian and Bloombergian overlords, but they already own him.

Without his Wes Hancock, he can claim to be fighting against "teh evil gunz," and point to the legislation passed during his administration ... even claim it as "his." He's leading the fight against gun-violins, as evidenced by yadda, yadda that all happened on his watch. No signature required.

The down-side is substantial. He's made the public statement that "we are checking on the Constitutionality." (I am inclined to consider that a tactical error ... should have kept his yap shut about that.) If he signs it and it is overturned on Constitutional grounds, the Republicans will trot out the video montage of "we're checking," the signing ceremony, and SCOTUS applying a weenie-whack to Maryland. "How can you consider electing someone to $OFFICE who can't spend months with his experts checking the Constitutionality of legislation, only to get it soooo wrong?" It would become a signature millstone around his neck.

Why would he take the risk when he can get all the benefits by just letting it default into law? If it defaults and is overturned by SCOTUS, "Well, I had some concerns about the Constitutionality, and in spite of the best efforts of legislators to combat gun violenz, I just had to put the Constitution and the people first ..." He's a pro at not-answering and deflecting, and he wouldn't break a sweat putting this back on the MDGA.

 

[Bob A]

What's the up-side to him signing it? Photo op with the Mad Mommies? He already has their votes, and that photo won't garner him any additional votes. Might ingratiate him with his Sorosian and Bloombergian overlords, but they already own him.

Without his Wes Hancock, he can claim to be fighting against "teh evil gunz," and point to the legislation passed during his administration ... even claim it as "his." He's leading the fight against gun-violins, as evidenced by yadda, yadda that all happened on his watch. No signature required.

The down-side is substantial. He's made the public statement that "we are checking on the Constitutionality." (I am inclined to consider that a tactical error ... should have kept his yap shut about that.) If he signs it and it is overturned on Constitutional grounds, the Republicans will trot out the video montage of "we're checking," the signing ceremony, and SCOTUS applying a weenie-whack to Maryland. "How can you consider electing someone to $OFFICE who can't spend months with his experts checking the Constitutionality of legislation, only to get it soooo wrong?" It would become a signature millstone around his neck.

Why would he take the risk when he can get all the benefits by just letting it default into law? If it defaults and is overturned by SCOTUS, "Well, I had some concerns about the Constitutionality, and in spite of the best efforts of legislators to combat gun violenz, I just had to put the Constitution and the people first ..." He's a pro at not-answering and deflecting, and he wouldn't break a sweat putting this back on the MDGA.

Your analysis is spot on, and your level of cynicism as well.

It's an interesting commentary on mankind and its purported "improvement" so passionately held by the Progressives, to note that the Cynics were first called that in 400 BC.

We may not be good, but at least we're consistent.

 

[rbird7282]

I think he has realized that making a statement about checking to see if the law was Constitutional then having a big signing ceremony only to have the law later shot down by the Supreme Court (probably about the time he wants to run for something) will make a very bad looking sound bite for his future opponents which will loose him more votes than pictures with demanding moms will get.

I doubt it. People on the far left would still vote for him and probably cheer the fact that he signed it in the first place. They hate the Constitution. People in the middle aren’t voting for his far left ass anyway


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kmittleman]

Yes, I would think so. We did manage to get a mens rea requirement inserted (the violation must be "willful" so that will help protect against misunderstandings and non-willful violations.

Cool thank you! How would the mens rea requirement affect businesses or property being rented/leased? Is that more to do with going to stores, people’s houses, etc?