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

[mac1_131]

Is this still true?

We have to wait to see the enrolled copy, which is not out yet.

No one knows for sure until that happens. Maybe by the end of the day...

 

[rambling_one]

What really needs to happen with bills/laws like this is the legislators that write and sponsor them should be the ones defending them in court. As well as anyone who votes for them should have the possibility of ending up on the witness stand to defend their vote for it as well as cross examination by plaintiffs lawyers. The sponsors should also be the ones writing the briefs and all court responses. Most of these morons are lawyers after al.

As it is now they can draft, lie, rewrite, lie, twist arms, lie and then vote for it. Take a victory lap and maybe even a celebratory Wes conference and that’s it , it becomes someone else’s problem to defend, at taxpayer expense of course.

Really scary, isn't it?

 

[rambling_one]

This is where we are in the world. Courts will overturn the law(s) and the legislature will pass the same law again with a "little tweak" and the process starts all over again.

I guess the "good news' is that some of these laws are already being challenged in other courts, so the wait won't as long as it could be in making its way to the SCOTUS.

It would be nice when the SCOTUS see this stuff happening and says WTF are you legislators doing? We said..........

Several of the justices are Maryland residents. They certainly know about these shenanigans.

 

[Tower43]

Well multiple reasons... However, it is not a good idea from a criminal enforcement perspective. It could be argued that it reaches reasonable articulable suspicion from a law enforcement perspective. It is not illegal for you to walk down the street with an AR-15 unloaded but, it is RAS for a stop. You could argue that the RAS is non existent because you are not breaking the law. However, RAS is not probable cause, so you don't have to break the law to be questioned as to why you are walking around with a loaded firearm. RAS is easily established by the existence of extensive mass shootings. Moreover, it just isn't a great idea. Jumping off the roof of your own house isn't illegal but its not a good idea.

While I understand that people are upset, just as I am, carrying an open firearm down the street in Maryland is a recipe for a problem. Especially since we don't want to create an image that we are in fact "gun nuts" walking around with firearms because the next bill that comes out will limit us even further and they will cite examples of us walking around openly carrying guns in an attempt to make people upset. They will point the finger and say I told you so.

I completely understand the idea of screw this nonsense but, again, to do something to prove a point that will fall on deaf ears is pointless. You will make the news in a bad way. It will not improve anything, actually the reverse is entirely possible. Wait for the court action to progress through the system.

everything you said is a bunch of BGOS hogwash... and I hope you don't teach that nonsense drivel to students.

 

[Tower43]

I've open carried plenty without a single interaction with anyone. I think people believe we are watched much much more closely than we are.

I've open carried now in AA, PG, St Marys, Calvert and Charles... some places I've even gone were cops frequent (The Wawa right by DII in PG on 301) never even a second glace... the ONLY interaction I had from LE, was asking what type of 1911 I had and how I liked it....

 

[Tower43]

You do understand that plenty of people open carry in MD and have never had an issue, correct? If police want to ask someone for their permit and it is shown to them then it’s end of story.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly... IF they stop they DO have the right to ask, and you MUST produce.. That ends the encounter. Anything further will result in violation of laws and the cops being sued.... (unlawful detainer, etc) Just wearing a gun in the open is NOT a reasonable suspicion to detain after you've proven your legality.

The scary thing is this dude is an instructor.... and is teaching students to be scared little mice.

 

[lazarus]

While this is 100% true, I don’t see either side ever having a filibuster proof majority in the Senate so sooner or later we need to try either by going with small stuff first or bury in a larger bill and make them defend their filibuster of that bill.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can’t even remember the last time either side did. Pretty sure it hasn’t been in the last 40+ years.

 

[Racinready300ex-2]

I've open carried now in AA, PG, St Marys, Calvert and Charles... some places I've even gone were cops frequent (The Wawa right by DII in PG on 301) never even a second glace... the ONLY interaction I had from LE, was asking what type of 1911 I had and how I liked it....

Things that come to mind reading this. When I was younger I was into cars, I can remember taking my GF (now wife) places in my car and she said something about people staring at my car. I said she was crazy. Where people really looking at my car and I'd just been ignoring it? Or was she really crazy?

I've also seen guys open carrying. I always look, check out what they have if I can. I pay attention to the holster, I'm certainly judging the shit out of them and their choice in gear. I wonder if any of them have ever said on a forum that they've never even gotten a 2nd glance.

 

[lazarus]

Thank you for your clarification. As sad as it is, it seems like if you’re going to a “sensitive” place and/or a location that is in the gray area you’ll have to disarm to walk in and re-arm when back in your vehicle.

Based on the law, just leave it in your vehicle everywhere except your property, your friend’s property (with permission), hunting, or target shooting. Basically everything else is or is presumed sensitive that’s in a building. Taking a walk in town and need to take a piss? The punishment is lower for public urination than if you go into an establishment to take a whizz and they didn’t give you express permission to have a gun in there.

 

[lazarus]

Um....ok. Would save me from spending 2 vacation days and a lot of money.

I mean, the permit saves you from if you get caught, being prohibited and maybe a longer sentence and fine.

4-203, wear and carry without a permit is up to 3 years (did they make it 5?) and a big fine. SB1 wear and carry in most of the state and get caught and it’s 1 year and $2000 fine.

So basically a W&C is now becoming a concealed carry permit and it buys you a lower sentence. That’s about it.

 

[lazarus]

Doesn't the new law deal with wear & carry permits? When you possess, wear, carry a firearm in your home you are not doing it pursuant to that statute.

Nope. Not with SB1 it doesn’t. SB1 adds a new layer. 4-203 exempts your own property from west, carry, and transport restrictions. But SB1 adds a requirement that for all private property permission is obtained from the owner or their agent.

I own my house and the buildings on my property. So I don’t need to obtain permission. But if rented, I’d need to. SB1 says so. It doesn’t say permission from the owner or lessor.

 

[lazarus]

We have to wait to see the enrolled copy, which is not out yet.

No one knows for sure until that happens. Maybe by the end of the day...

We will know for sure. But the senate adopted the amended house bill. Which requires explicit permission from the owner or the owner’s agent to possess a firearm in another’s private property. Which is defined as buildings and NOT the adjacent land.

 

[Georges2nd]

We will know for sure. But the senate adopted the amended house bill. Which requires explicit permission from the owner or the owner’s agent to possess a firearm in another’s private property. Which is defined as buildings and NOT the adjacent land.

Does it include garage like at Maryland live casino?

 

[lazarus]

Does it include garage like at Maryland live casino?

Delegate Clippinger indicates it does. Any structure with a roof it sounds like.

Which is patently ridiculous. So a gas station roof over the pumps is a building you are “in”? Horse pucky.

 

[Doctor_M]

Delegate Clippinger indicates it does. Any structure with a roof it sounds like.

Which is patently ridiculous. So a gas station roof over the pumps is a building you are “in”? Horse pucky.

Guess we will see how that holds up in court.

 

[esqappellate]

We have to wait to see the enrolled copy, which is not out yet.

No one knows for sure until that happens. Maybe by the end of the day...

Nope it is not still true. It was true under the Senate version. The House changed it to a presumptive ban on any carry into a privately owned building (not grounds), and the Senate accepted that change and that how it was enacted.

 

[theoldman]

 

[Abacab]

Nope it is not still true. It was true under the Senate version. The House changed it to a presumptive ban on any carry into a privately owned building (not grounds), and the Senate accepted that change and that how it was enacted.

They went the New York route.

 

[esqappellate]

Is this still true?

Nope. It was true under the Senate version. The House changed it to a presumptive ban on any carry into a privately owned building (not grounds), and the Senate accepted that change and that how it was enacted.

 

[rambling_one]

The left can’t do anything right.