I'm inappropriate, disgusting, AND an anti semiteDid this get posted yet? @eruby making the news!
Guns rights supporters, opponents gather in Annapolis to be heard on changes to law - Maryland Matters
Supporters and opponents of proposed gun legislation converged in Annapolis to testify on proposed gun legislation to limit where people can wear, carry or transport a firearm.www.marylandmatters.org
Read to the end.
wtop.com
Start a different thread so it can be tracked and not get lost in this thread on SB1.
“You have a choice. If you believe that anyone should have any gun anywhere, at any time, then I imagine that you’ll be voting no on this bill,” Waldstreicher said at Tuesday’s hearing. “But if you’re like me and have kids… If you’re like me and want them to live safely… If you’re like me and want to go to a concert, or [Baltimore] Ravens game or children’s playground and know that the guy sitting next to you is not carrying an automatic weapon, [then] you’ll join me in voting for the Gun Safety Act of 2023.”Did this get posted yet? @eruby making the news!
Guns rights supporters, opponents gather in Annapolis to be heard on changes to law - Maryland Matters
Supporters and opponents of proposed gun legislation converged in Annapolis to testify on proposed gun legislation to limit where people can wear, carry or transport a firearm.
Read to the end.
No, not same reference. Public conveyances exclude private cars not used as taxis or ride share in all the Us states I can find including Maryland.
Whoever was ejected from the hearing yesterday may wish to consider filing a suit against the Chair for violating Article 10 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, which stipulates: "Article 10. That freedom of speech and debate, or proceedings in the Legislature, ought not to be impeached in any court of Judicature." There are probably other Articles that were violated in the ejection, too.
Booger Mcfarland scoffs....
Sure it may under existing law. But this bill defines public conveyance to include every vehicle that is registered under title 13. It does not say part XX of article 13, it says article 13, which would include everything article 13 covers. So this bill redefines a public conveyance when it comes to firearms. please read the below from the bill.
I broke both of mine before I was 50 years old.
Your private car wouldn't be in line with the first part "a conveyance to which the public or a portion of the public has access to and a right to use for transportation." No member of the public has a right to use my car. My reading is that public conveyance includes that list of things provided the first part (public has a right to access) is true.Sure it may under existing law. But this bill defines public conveyance to include every vehicle that is registered under title 13. It does not say part XX of article 13, it says article 13, which would include everything article 13 covers. So this bill redefines a public conveyance when it comes to firearms. please read the below from the bill.
edit to add. It may not be the intention, but it is the effect. Thats what happens when they re write a law over night, there may be un intended consequences
Karma via elbowtit?
Normally I would agree with you. But the way I read it it says the things the public has access to but includes the additional following 7 items. I am just reading it how I think a court could/would argue. Also please note that the law linked below calls out school busses but this law adds vehicles that must be registered, so to me it looks like an expansion of the definition.
