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

[jc1240]

No, it didn't. I posted the enrolled date and surmised it was sent to him on that date. It was actually delivered to his office days after it was enrolled.

Insert missing thumb-up response here.

 

[sclag22]

I'm curious why not challenging the dwelling portion?

Everything else looked great from my non lawyerly opinion - thank you!! I am a recent MSI member, and I appreciate everything you are doing for us!!

 

[AKbythebay]

I just read the entire suit. Nice work by MSI. I would be shocked if MSI doesn't get a full win on all counts here.

I'm hoping they later file a second suit challenging the fee increases which in my view were simply done to discourage people from applying for permits.

Just extended my MSI membership another year. Thanks Mark and MSI for all you do!

 

[AKbythebay]

I'm curious why not challenging the dwelling portion?

Everything else looked great from my non lawyerly opinion - thank you!! I am a recent MSI member, and I appreciate everything you are doing for us!!

I'm no layer but I think that might be a tough one to win. Not sure if you have a constitutional right to carry into another person's private dwelling/home without permission. Is the ban bullsh!t, yes of course it is, but they (MSI) have to dedicate their resources to the parts of the bill most likely to secure a victory initially.

 

[swinokur]

Yep a dwelling and a pice of property are not the same

 

[MigraineMan]

I'm no layer but I think that might be a tough one to win. Not sure if you have a constitutional right to carry into another person's private dwelling/home without permission. Is the ban bullsh!t, yes of course it is, but they (MSI) have to dedicate their resources to the parts of the bill most likely to secure a victory initially.

I, the property owner, have the right to tell you to take your scary boom-stick elsewhere. This is about the government establishing that restriction, not the property owner.

"... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed [by the government]"

 

[sclag22]

I, the property owner, have the right to tell you to take your scary boom-stick elsewhere. This is about the government establishing that restriction, not the property owner.

"... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed [by the government]"

This is the way I understood it too. Our rights are our rights, by default, but if you as a private homeowner wish to limit it, you can. Not the govt saying you have no rights on private property unless the person says so.

I imagine we have a right to speak freely, and all the other constitutional rights by default. If a person disagrees and wishes you off their property then they have that right.

Anyway, pretty stoked about everything else. Seems like a slam dunk, but who knows in MD...

 

[eruby]

Insert missing thumb-up response here.

 

[rbird7282]

This is the way I understood it too. Our rights are our rights, by default, but if you as a private homeowner wish to limit it, you can. Not the govt saying you have no rights on private property unless the person says so.

I imagine we have a right to speak freely, and all the other constitutional rights by default. If a person disagrees and wishes you off their property then they have that right.

Anyway, pretty stoked about everything else. Seems like a slam dunk, but who knows in MD...

This. I don’t see how the government can tell someone that they can’t exercise their right on someone else’s property. They are taking that decision away from the property owner which I believe in unconstitutional


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[elwojo]

Neither the NRA nor the MSI suit go after the "dwelling" portion of the law.

NRA:

29. Senate Bill 1 adds Section 6-411 to Title 4 of the Criminal Code, which is contrary
to the presumptive right to carry outside the home on private property absent a posting to the
contrary by forbidding ordinary, law-abiding Maryland citizens with a carry permit from
possessing or carrying a firearm for self-defense in:
a. The Property of another 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. “Property” means “a building” and is different than the separately defined
“Dwelling,” which is not at issue in this lawsuit.

MSI:

16. Section 6-411(c) is the dwelling presumption. This subsection provides that “a
person wearing, carrying, or transporting a firearm may not enter or trespass in the dwelling of
another unless the owner or the owner’s agent has given express permission, either to the person or
to the public generally, to wear, carry, or transport a firearm inside the dwelling.” Section 6-
411(a)(2)(i) defines “dwelling” for purposes of Section 6-411 to “mean[] a building or part of a
building that provides living or sleeping facilities for one or more individuals.” “[A] person who
willfully violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to
imprisonment not exceeding 1 year or a fine not exceeding $1,000 or both.” Section 6-411(e).
Plaintiffs do not challenge Section 6-411(c).

There seems to be a reason why the Vampire clause is sticking around since both suits ignore it, but I'm not keen on understanding why. Is this because it is effectively a trespassing law? I'm not sure how this works. I would think that realtors would want this struck as well. Who knows who the owner is? If the owner is a bank, then what?

Edit: Adding that I could be wrong. But the bolded language above leads me to believe I am correct.

 

[rbird7282]

Neither the NRA nor the MSI suit go after the "dwelling" portion of the law.

NRA:


MSI:


There seems to be a reason why the Vampire clause is sticking around since both suits ignore it, but I'm not keen on understanding why. Is this because it is effectively a trespassing law? I'm not sure how this works. I would think that realtors would want this struck as well. Who knows who the owner is? If the owner is a bank, then what?

That’s ridiculous if they’re not putting that in the lawsuit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Biggfoot44]

Why aren't they challenging ALL of the law but just a few of the places that carry is prohibited?

Bite by Bite

 

[jc1240]

haha...I forgot it was an "emoji" Insert brain in noggin....

 

[Lafayette]

Bite by Bite

I won’t live to see this elephant devoured.

 

[eruby]

I won’t live to see this elephant devoured.

I'm hoping I won't see Decoration Day

 

[My Toy]

Neither the NRA nor the MSI suit go after the "dwelling" portion of the law.

NRA:


MSI:


There seems to be a reason why the Vampire clause is sticking around since both suits ignore it, but I'm not keen on understanding why. Is this because it is effectively a trespassing law? I'm not sure how this works. I would think that realtors would want this struck as well. Who knows who the owner is? If the owner is a bank, then what?

Edit: Adding that I could be wrong. But the bolded language above leads me to believe I am correct.

Please explain terminology "Vampire clause" for the less astute among us.

 

[Phoenix_1295]

Regarding the lawsuits, it seems to be good strategy to focus on the publicly accessible locations. This prevents arguments/discussions from getting into the weeds on one issue (dwellings), delaying a ruling on the other issues (publicly accessible places).

I don’t agree with the default prohibition for dwellings; however, it will, likely, not affect as many people as the publicly accessible places. I would think that most dwellings that permit holders visit are those of carry-friendly acquaintances.

 

[Garet Jax]

Please explain terminology "Vampire clause" for the less astute among us.

I assume blood sucking...

 

[Phoenix_1295]

Please explain terminology "Vampire clause" for the less astute among us.

@elwojo
??

 

[Bertfish]

Please explain terminology "Vampire clause" for the less astute among us.

Vampires must be invited in to a home