SB1 - Injunctive relief is provided for private property, locations that sell alcohol, and public demonstrations.

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Deep Lurker

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Mar 22, 2019
    2,289

    Phoenix_1295

    Creature of Life and Fire
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 6, 2010
    1,491
    MD
    I'm confused now....

    Explain in layman's terms!

    Can we still CC like we did before October 1st or no and how will the defendants motion alter the partial PI?
    The new laws are in effect EXCEPT for the 3 items listed in the PI. (The 10/2/23 defendants document was simply a clerical correction that “dwellings” is not included in the Order.)

    Laws

    PI Order
     
    Last edited:

    rbird7282

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 6, 2012
    17,698
    Columbia
    The State filed a motion today asserting the relief granted in the PI enjoining enforcement of restrictions on carry without the owner’s consent in private dwellings was error.

    The State asserts the original PI order enjoined enforcement of the restrictions in both dwellings as well as buildings containing businesses open to the public, but neither Novotny nor Kipke challenged the restrictions on carry without consent in dwellings, thus plaintiffs are not entitled to this relief in the PI:


    View attachment 433767 View attachment 433768 View attachment 433769
    View attachment 433770
    These people sound like whiny 5 years olds that didn't get what they wanted.
     

    smokey

    2A TEACHER
    Jan 31, 2008
    30,825
    Screenshot_20231002_210959_Word.jpg

    So this is the language that clarifies what makes a firearm concealed in sb1. So does a fanny pack or backpack qualify as "under or within an article of the person's clothing"?
     

    Stoveman

    TV Personality
    Patriot Picket
    Sep 2, 2013
    26,035
    Cuba on the Chesapeake
    Yes .
    But alas in this narrow instance they are correct.
    Which begs the question, why wasn't carry in private property not open to the public part of the PI request? And open carry? Seems like an unforced error, if you're asking for the cake back why would you not ask for ALL the cake? As it is we only got a couple of (medium sized) slices.

    K9Mc6Jq.png
     

    Stoveman

    TV Personality
    Patriot Picket
    Sep 2, 2013
    26,035
    Cuba on the Chesapeake
    Seems like some of "our" folk want to seem reasonable instead of:

    hqdefault.jpg


    And by terrorists I mean WaldstreiKKKer, the Fresh Prince, Clippinger, etc.... All I've heard is that if we negotiate we can make this part of the law not so bad and keep the uninformed from getting jacked up. Meanwhile, the usual suspects are doubling down on pissing on the constitution and will fvck us any chance they get. The Fresh Prince's quotes on WMAL make it crystal clear where he stands.

    No more, zip, zero, nada.
     
    Last edited:

    rbird7282

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 6, 2012
    17,698
    Columbia
    Seems like some of "our" folk want to seem reasonable instead of:

    hqdefault.jpg


    And by terrorists I mean WaldstreiKKKer, the Fresh Prince, Clippinger, etc.... All I've heard is that if we negotiate we can make this part of the law not so bad and keep the uninformed from getting jacked up. Meanwhile, the usual suspects are doubling down on pissing on the constitution and will fvck us any chance they get. The Fresh Prince's quotes on WMAL make it crystal clear where he stands.

    No more, zip, zero, nada.

    THIS.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    John from MD

    American Patriot
    MDS Supporter
    May 12, 2005
    21,800
    Socialist State of Maryland
    I was just doing some research and found that Bay Woods Annapolis is a Continuing Care Co Op that is regulated by the Dept of Aging. It doesn't appear that it falls under the § 15-10B-01(G)(1),(2),(3), and (4) of the Insurance Article. Additionally, it is regulated by the Dept of Aging and not by the Office of Health Care Quality.

    My FIL has an appt there is the reason this came up.

    Any thoughts?
     

    ChannelCat

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Taking a leap of assumption that said hypothetical person is going to/ from said Cindy Hot Shots , and doesn't have a W&C , and their route of travel only Includes B-W Parkway & rt 175 , tben probably not require locked case .

    But yeah , I had to put enough caveats and assumptions into that statement .

    So between now and December 31 , I'll be generous , and not accuse anyone of BGOS for transporting with locked case . Kind of a 90 day window for everyone to get up to speed , and learn all the sensitive boundaries .
    That's about right. The hypothetical involves going directly to the range with no detours.
     

    ChannelCat

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    272,142
    Messages
    7,137,218
    Members
    32,716
    Latest member
    scheber

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom