SB118 (2023) - Criminal Law – Prohibitions on Wearing, Carrying, or Transporting Firearms

[lazarus]

So who else is going to ignore this and carry anyway. It's so blatantly unconstitutional that you can pretty much guarantee a court win and payday.

So you are going to ignore it and go to a gun range to shoot? Or go hunting on public land with a firearm? Because SB118 appears to ban both of those activities.

 

[Bertfish]

Actually, you could in that case. FOPA should protect you if you are traveling out of state IIRC.

One note, I didn't check all of the bills, but I think all of these are effective 10/1/2023 (at least one of them, SB1?, is). Not that it makes anything much better. But that does at least give some breathing room for lawsuits, versus NJ and NY which were "SCREW YOU GUN OWNERS. IMMEDIATELY!"

Be better if it was immediate. You'd have immediate standing.

 

[sclag22]

Be better if it was immediate. You'd have immediate standing.

Also this is right before hunting season '23. If the proposal is as insane as it sounds, that will absolutely kill the season waiting for it to be overturned.

 

[eruby]

So you are going to ignore it and go to a gun range to shoot? Or go hunting on public land with a firearm? Because SB118 appears to ban both of those activities.

No, but I'll go to the grocery store, has station, chick-fil-a, Walmart, Costco .....

 

[lazarus]

Be better if it was immediate. You'd have immediate standing.

If the law has passed, I'd think you would have immediate standing. You might not get a PI or TRO as there would be "plenty of time" to hear the case, unless that would go past when the law would go in to effect.

 

[Bertfish]

If the law has passed, I'd think you would have immediate standing. You might not get a PI or TRO as there would be "plenty of time" to hear the case, unless that would go past when the law would go in to effect.

Law might have passed but is not effective til 1 October. 30 September do as you will, 1 October the new restrictions take place and you are affected.

 

[Bikebreath]

Where is the precedence for these bills? Allow the mayhem in Baltimore and restrict CCW holders based on what?

 

[beetles]

The state's selling a wear and carry permit and then making its use illegal amounts to conspiracy and fraud by the state legislature, never mind a violation of federal law as defined by Bruen.

This really isn't different than passing a state law that establishes a poll tax.

 

[CrueChief]

So who else is going to ignore this and carry anyway. It's so blatantly unconstitutional that you can pretty much guarantee a court win and payday.

 

[Biggfoot44]

86 is a real piece of crap. Poorly written as all 2A infringements are.
It also makes anyone who sought in patient treatment at a drug or alcohol rehab a prohibited person for life.

Another reason to never be on record for seeking any type of counseling or head shrinking .

 

[sclag22]

The state's selling a wear and carry permit and then making its use illegal amounts to conspiracy and fraud by the state legislature, never mind a violation of federal law as defined by Bruen.

This really isn't different than passing a state law that establishes a poll tax.

I'm with Lazarus though. Where does it specify wear and carry permit holders? It doesn't, this is a broad restriction on firearms. Wearing, carrying or transporting. I do not see any carve outs for hunters, only LEO, security and military going to post. Maybe that wasn't their intention, but with the wording, in my non-legal scholar interpretation, it appears that's what they did.

 

[Biggfoot44]

CG is not a law enforcement agency. It's a military branch.

What's the purpose of this post?

It's both .

 

[BADSHOT]

I guess we all are going to become security officers

 

[gtodave]

Actually, you could in that case. FOPA should protect you if you are traveling out of state IIRC.

And FOPA would protect people traveling here to stay in a hotel here, if I'm not mistaken, which would make their "inn, hotel, or other that provides lodging to transient guests" portion of this unlawful (as if we didn't already know it was)

 

[lazarus]

And FOPA would protect people traveling here to stay in a hotel here, if I'm not mistaken, which would make their "inn, hotel, or other that provides lodging to transient guests" portion of this unlawful (as if we didn't already know it was)

I am pretty sure it wouldn't. I think it MIGHT, if they are traveling through the state and need to temporarily stay. But it wouldn't if they were coming TO Maryland and staying in an inn, hotel, motel, etc.

 

[smokey]

So you are going to ignore it and go to a gun range to shoot? Or go hunting on public land with a firearm? Because SB118 appears to ban both of those activities.

I'm absolutely going to fight it being passed, but once it is, it's the duty of the people to exercise their rights and to not comply with unconstitutional tyranny.

 

[Mister F]

CG is not a law enforcement agency. It's a military branch.

What's the purpose of this post?

USCG is indeed a law enforcement agency. Not a military branch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Objee]

USCG is indeed a law enforcement agency. Not a military branch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Incorrect.

14 U.S. Code § 101 - Establishment of Coast Guard

www.law.cornell.edu

14 U.S. Code § 101 - Establishment of Coast Guard​

The Coast Guard, established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times.

 

[trickg]

And yet it falls under the Department of Transportation, not the DoD.

 

[Objee]

And yet it falls under the Department of Transportation, not the DoD.

Incorrect.

It falls under the Department of Homeland Security.