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!
  • Aug 3, 2022
    867
    Mount Airy
    Nice to see a little common sense come through. We still have a long ways to go. I still hope the SC says **** it and declares constitutional carry across all states and gets rid of the unconstitutional stupidity that these gun hating twats have put into laws.

    And that little MoCo turd can choke down 5 bags of dicks.
     

    DaveP

    Member
    Jan 27, 2013
    611
    St. Marys county
    They will continue to pass "creative" legislation to circumvent the supreme Court until one of two things happen

    The court slaps them down or

    The political leanings of the court shifts. This is what they're counting on.

    I predict the next time the political influence of the court shifts you're going to see the second amendment struck down as military and law enforcement only.

    Then what?
    Even IF the Court slaps them.down, the Court will go hard left at some not too distant point, and then...
     

    Phoenix_1295

    Creature of Life and Fire
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 6, 2010
    1,489
    MD
    Folks can find the answers to the majority of their questions by reading the two files, below. The first one is a compilation of applicable Maryland firearms laws as they will be on October 1, and the second is the recent injunction order. By reading the laws, first, then reading the injunction, it’s very clear as to what applies and what does not apply.

    2A Maryland _ 2023 updated handgun laws:
    Title 4 Subtitle 1 §4-111 (pages 34-38)
    Title 4 Subtitle 6 §6-411 (pages 80-81)
    https://www.2amaryland.org/legislative/2023/MARYLAND_GUN_LAWS_2023.pdf

    Injunction filed 9/29/23
    https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.536809/gov.uscourts.mdd.536809.32.0.pdf

    [edited for typo]
     
    Last edited:

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    19,332
    Montgomery County
    Yet the CRA forces these private property owners to admit people of a particular race, religion, and ethnicity that the owner did not want in his/her business. How are 2A rights any different?
    On private property? That's a little tricky. Sort of like the 1A doesn't guarantee you can spend your day in someone's private business screaming political screeds at the top of your lungs or even just politely but creepily proselytizing someone's customers. There's a difference between "no black people allowed" and "no hoodies that hide your face while you're in my place of business." I'd like to preserve the right to tell people to get out of my private property if I don't like their conduct or bearing, and so I can't very well complain when another person wants the same. Hence the "don't carry here" signs followed up by invoking trespass if someone won't leave, that's not incoherent, philosophically. Forcing me to put up a "you can carry here" sign certainly is.
     

    1time

    Active Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    2,157
    Baltimore, Md
    But to echo Welder's point, they will not give up.


    An incremental infringement is a big deal, but that is just my opinion.

    I could argue , the biggest deal. A huge infringement pisses a bunch of people off. The incremental one guy by with only a few of us pissed.
     

    Crazytrain

    Certified Grump
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 8, 2007
    1,519
    Sparks, MD
    Which is what I was trying to say in my initial comment. I said it would take a new version to protect 2A rights. "The Second Amendment Act of 2024" that would require places of public accommodation to allow CCW on their premises, for example.
    I'd be so against something like this. Private property rights are super important. I'd go so far as to roll back the civil rights act stuff as it applies to
    Private property. You have the right to be a dick.

    However, specifically making private businesses liable for your safety should they disarm you and something happens... rights balancing can be tricky, but I feel like there might be something here. Although, perhaps it is better to just destigmatize gun ownership. Somehow. Perhaps by being less polite and grayman and hiding like we're doing something wrong.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,080
    Bel Air
    I'd be so against something like this. Private property rights are super important. I'd go so far as to roll back the civil rights act stuff as it applies to
    Private property. You have the right to be a dick.

    However, specifically making private businesses liable for your safety should they disarm you and something happens... rights balancing can be tricky, but I feel like there might be something here. Although, perhaps it is better to just destigmatize gun ownership. Somehow. Perhaps by being less polite and grayman and hiding like we're doing something wrong.
    Good post.
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    19,332
    Montgomery County
    Which is what I was trying to say in my initial comment. I said it would take a new version to protect 2A rights. "The Second Amendment Act of 2024" that would require places of public accommodation to allow CCW on their premises, for example.
    Remember: the Bill of Rights is designed to prevent THE GOVERNMENT from infringing on your rights. Not to prevent a private property holder from deciding how to use their own property. If you start requiring (for example) retailers to tolerate one particular form of conduct, you're opening the floodgates to them being required to (for example) allow sit-in protests that run off all of their paying customers, all in the name of the 1A. The 1A and the 2A are limitations on the government, not on you if you own property.
     

    AKbythebay

    Active Member
    Remember: the Bill of Rights is designed to prevent THE GOVERNMENT from infringing on your rights. Not to prevent a private property holder from deciding how to use their own property. If you start requiring (for example) retailers to tolerate one particular form of conduct, you're opening the floodgates to them being required to (for example) allow sit-in protests that run off all of their paying customers, all in the name of the 1A. The 1A and the 2A are limitations on the government, not on you if you own property.

    Excellent points and I tend to agree.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    272,047
    Messages
    7,133,165
    Members
    32,695
    Latest member
    Gunfixer

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom