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

[lazarus]

This all is only if you have minors or a prohibited person in the house, correct?

I guess I must have lived with and been the devil since loaded guns have always been laying around every house I ever lived in from infancy to now and kids were always around and, just imagine, nothing happened. Oh the horror

Yes.

If there are no UNSUPERVISED minors or prohibited people in the house, then nothing can be readily accessible.

Its Maryland. I am waiting for someone to break into your house and steal a gun you left in your night stand and the state prosecutes you. You had a prohibited person in your house and the gun was readily accessible.

Just a dark thought on this law.

But still substantially better.

 

[lazarus]

OH, hey look. An amendment for more lefties to take credit!

 

[lazarus]

They're all being rejected. Still no alcohol amendment but it'll get rejected too I'm sure

I hope it is offered and adopted. But yeah, color me skeptical.

 

[lazarus]

Special ordered to later today to consider more amendments?

 

[GTOGUNNER]

Special ordered to later today to consider more amendments?

One more was't printed in time.

 

[lazarus]

Amazing how an inanimate object never jumped up and hurt you, right? Also amazing what raising kids with discipline will accomplish? I like you grew up with guns in the house, accessible and ready for use. I would NEVER had touched them without my father’s explicit permission (or an actual honest-to-god emergency.)

I have two small children. Even though I am exposing them to gun safety rules early and often, I make the choice to lock up my guns in the safe unless they are on my hip. However, that is MY choice and I would never presume to make that choice for another person or their family.

The administrative, regulatory, intrusive state oozes more into our lives every day…and it seems like my fellow citizens not only welcome it - but they encourage it.

100% agree. But I do also believe in enforcing responsible parenting. I am all for parental judgement. But if their judgement was wrong, I have no problems with the adult being held accountable if a minor DOES get access to the firearm and does something bad with it.

If the minor never does anything bad with a firearm that they have access to, fantastic. The adult was correct in their judgement. That parent lets a minor have access to a firearm and the minor shoots themself, a friend, buts a round through the neighbor's window, whatever, then the parent should be legally/criminally responsible.

So long as there are legal mechanisms in place to go after the parents of school shooters, the parents of the kid who shows their friend a gun and shoots them, etc. then I am happy. No reason, purpose, or good thing comes from punishing an adult if a firearm is found laying around the house during one of those searches Bounty wants police to be able to do without a warrant because they asked nicely.

One thing that school shooter acquired a firearm without the parent's knowledge, and not from the parent. Another when they facilitated by providing the firearm or allowed easy access. Parents can only do so much and their child is not them, but it is another when their actions facilitated it. Hopefully I am making sense there.

I only see something like "ready access" being a problem if then a criminal action is taken by the minor who had access. Not the ready access itself.

 

[lazarus]

One more was't printed in time.

Do we know what it was?

 

[GTOGUNNER]

In the floor debate, Wally stated it's ok to break the law when acting in self-defense or defense of others. So... carry where you want, if you use it, no foul?

Jeffie cites Alexander v. State, 52 Md. App. 171, 447 A.2d 880 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1982) I don't see any exception to having a firearm in a GFZ based on this case.

Lexis+® - Sign In | LexisNexis

LexisNexis users sign in here. Click here to login and begin conducting your legal research now.

www.lexisnexis.com

 

[NatBoh]

This all is only if you have minors or a prohibited person in the house, correct?

I guess I must have lived with and been the devil since loaded guns have always been laying around every house I ever lived in from infancy to now and kids were always around and, just imagine, nothing happened. Oh the horror

Same, me and my brothers grew up in a household with loaded firearms not locked up. But we also had a high degree of discipline and knew to never ever touch them without asking Dad first.

 

[Twist]

There are gun related homicides in Annapolis almost weekly. You know where those almost never happen? At any of the places they're trying to make gun free zones like restaurants or movie theaters that serve alcohol or large assemblies of people. I'd love to hear just one legislator explain how any gun law they are discussing will address/reduce the number of homicides in Maryland.

 

[44man]

Yes.

If there are no UNSUPERVISED minors or prohibited people in the house, then nothing can be readily accessible.

Its Maryland. I am waiting for someone to break into your house and steal a gun you left in your night stand and the state prosecutes you. You had a prohibited person in your house and the gun was readily accessible.

Just a dark thought on this law.

But still substantially better.

Thank you, and I would not put that past maryland

 

[teratos]

I lock my guns up for safety. Not because I am told too. I will change none of my behavior regardless of what they pass

You've seen my safe storage plans.

 

[44man]

I lock my guns up for safety. Not because I am told too. I will change none of my behavior regardless of what they pass

Same goes for SB1.

I will not change any of my behaviors either

 

[Lafayette]

100% agree. But I do also believe in enforcing responsible parenting. I am all for parental judgement. But if their judgement was wrong, I have no problems with the adult being held accountable if a minor DOES get access to the firearm and does something bad with it.

If the minor never does anything bad with a firearm that they have access to, fantastic. The adult was correct in their judgement. That parent lets a minor have access to a firearm and the minor shoots themself, a friend, buts a round through the neighbor's window, whatever, then the parent should be legally/criminally responsible.

So long as there are legal mechanisms in place to go after the parents of school shooters, the parents of the kid who shows their friend a gun and shoots them, etc. then I am happy. No reason, purpose, or good thing comes from punishing an adult if a firearm is found laying around the house during one of those searches Bounty wants police to be able to do without a warrant because they asked nicely.

One thing that school shooter acquired a firearm without the parent's knowledge, and not from the parent. Another when they facilitated by providing the firearm or allowed easy access. Parents can only do so much and their child is not them, but it is another when their actions facilitated it. Hopefully I am making sense there.

I only see something like "ready access" being a problem if then a criminal action is taken by the minor who had access. Not the ready access itself.

I think we both agree that parents have a moral and legal obligation to keep children safe. AND if an adult does something dumb that results in the injury or death of a child (that can be shown to be "reckless" behavior under the law) then that parent should be prosecuted.I guess I'm wondering why we need an additional "safe storage" law. After all, Maryland code already has the following:

MD Code, Criminal Law, § 3-204
(a) A person may not recklessly:
(1) engage in conduct that creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another;

This law can (and has) been used to prosecute people who store firearms in a way that resulted in harm to a child. Do we have to make something "super-double-extra" illegal?

 

[lazarus]

I think we both agree that parents have a moral and legal obligation to keep children safe. AND if an adult does something dumb that results in the injury or death of a child (that can be shown to be "reckless" behavior under the law) then that parent should be prosecuted.I guess I'm wondering why we need an additional "safe storage" law. After all, Maryland code already has the following:

MD Code, Criminal Law, § 3-204
(a) A person may not recklessly:
(1) engage in conduct that creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another;

This law can (and has) been used to prosecute people who store firearms in a way that resulted in harm to a child. Do we have to make something "super-double-extra" illegal?

No argument from me. Sorry, I wasn't trying to say we need more law. Just that I think all states need something on the book to hold adults accountable when their actions or inactions lead to a minor being injured or committing a crime when the adult knew or should have known that their actions could have lead to the minor being injured or committing a crime.

 

[Lafayette]

No argument from me. Sorry, I wasn't trying to say we need more law. Just that I think all states need something on the book to hold adults accountable when their actions or inactions lead to a minor being injured or committing a crime when the adult knew or should have known that their actions could have lead to the minor being injured or committing a crime.

Apologies if I misinterpreted!

 

[lazarus]

Apologies if I misinterpreted!

No apologies necessary

 

[Derek]

I hope that audio is saved somewhere

 

[JPG]

Democrats: 2A is for self defense
Also Dems: You must keeps guns locked up

 

[tlwatkinson]

Bruen identified five areas that are sensitive. Schools, gov. Buildings, courthouses, polling places and legislative assemblies and said that other areas may be a gfz if the government can find an enduring, well-established representative historical analogue from the founding era. This bill bans all of the five and goes on well beyond that. They have not identified any historical analogue for the others, so each of those will fail, IMHO. However, among those other non-governmental areas, the bill does allow the owner to be armed as well as owner designated volunteers and thus private schools and places of worship associated with private schools, for example, can be protected by those people. Bruen and the concurrence said that permits and training requirements are ok if done with objective criteria. So at least some of that in the bill is probably constitutional. Note that the curren bill does not address carry in public conveyances (unlike the original bill), but carry of concealed weapons is banned by a separate Dept. Of Trans. Law, which covers public conveyances owned by Transit authority, and we will challenge that reg. Parks and State forests outside of buildings are not banned by the bill, but are banned by regulation, which we will challenge. You can continue to carry in a rest area with a permit as current regs ban only display and/ or discharge and the bill currently does not change that. The new disqualifiers are likely unconstitutional, but that subject is in heavy litigation now, so we will likely get a SCT decision on that in the near term, e.g., 3 years cuz the gov. Is losing a bunch of those cases. Some of these issues msi is currently litigating in the Mont. co case so we may get good precedent soon on that and we will use that precedent to attack this bill. The bill drops the doubling of fees cuz of our heavy opposition. In my legal judgment I don’t think I can successfully challenge the CC requirement. I don’t like it, but that’s not the legal test for a suit. Allowing private property owners to post gfz signs is common in other states and is probably constitutional as private owners have right to control access to private property under trespass law. The current bill abandoned the earlier version that presumptively banned carry on all private property. The current bill likewise abandoned the earlier attempt to regulate federal property, so you can continue to carry with a permit in federal parks and wild life refuges. It’s still a turd, it is just less of a turd than the original version.

Thank you for everything you do.