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

[SigNerd]

*Of note, Delegate Clippinger believes a building is anything manmade based on him stating that carry in a parking garage would be banned). SB1 exempts carry/transport in a vehicle in a sensitive place. So in theory, you could have the gun in a car, in a private parking garage. But you couldn't exit your vehicle carrying the gun. Or so it would seem.

I was really disappointed that there wasn't a followup question on this, because the hypothetical posed was a parking garage that was on the lower levels of a courthouse. With how it was worded and Clippinger's response it wasn't clear if it was prohibited because the hypothetical had the permit holder in the courthouse building or if he thought garages themselves are buildings. I got the impression it was more that he considered a garage underneath a building to be part of the building. No clue how the courts will interpret legislative intent based on that answer.

 

[coinboy]

So, I wonder if we could get some of the MD legislators that have a W&C to join the lawsuit with Mark?

 

[RFBfromDE]

What is this black magic? How have I never heard of that nor tried it?

That sounds amazing.

In the late 60s thru the 70s there was a Bresslers 33 flavors ice cream store on Concord Pike (202) in DE.

Black licorice ice cream is a thing that originated in Michigan (as far as I can research) and wound up in DE. (Like our colors and football helmets at U of DE)

When I was a kid, I’d get mint chip on top and Voo-doo on the bottom.

BLISS!

 

[BeoBill]

I shudder to think what a colossal mess the COMAR is going to become...

 

[thomfantomas]

Open carry meet-up!

 

[coinboy]

Anyone else notice all the contingencies they made in the bill?

It seems like they covered things more than once just to make it a mess to fight.

Take casinos for example:
1) A casino is expressly banned in the bill.
2) So are facilities with video lottery facility.
3) So are places that dispense alcohol for on-site consumption.
4) You also have to get permission from a private property owner to carry on said property.

Take stadiums:
1) A stadium is expressly banned in the bill.
2) So are places that dispense alcohol for on-site consumption.
3) You also have to get permission from a private property owner to carry on said property.

 

[pcfixer]

If ya can't see it- how is that indecent exposure? And if ya can't see it prove public urination?

 

[Abuck]

He brings up a good point. Since the Governator and MGA are essentially wasting tax money by doing this, can a Fraud, Waste and Abuse complaint be brought against the sponsors and Governor? It's an administrative action as I understand it, and carries a fine.

No.
I'd have to dig to find it but legislators and other Govt officials have limited exposure (protections) against such liabilities and from being taken to court if the suit is about legislation they passed.

But a suit going after the use of taxpayer funds for unconstitutional law might be a possibility according to this. Could be another way to attack it.

“Given that taxpayers bear the cost of defending unconstitutional laws, an alternative route would be to seek recourse based on inappropriate government spending. While these suits are virtually non-justiciable in federal courts, with some luck they may find traction in state courts.”

https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/online/53/files/53-online-Bakst.pdf

 

[pcfixer]

Anyone else notice all the contingencies they made in the bill?

It seems like they covered things more than once just to make it a mess to fight.

Take casinos for example:
1) A casino is expressly banned in the bill.
2) So are facilities with video lottery facility.
3) So are places that dispense alcohol for on-site consumption.
4) You also have to get permission from a private property owner to carry on said property.

Take stadiums:
1) A stadium is expressly banned in the bill.
2) So are places that dispense alcohol for on-site consumption.
3) You also have to get permission from a private property owner to carry on said property.

Yep. A TRO is a remedy. BUT- Can MSI partner with GAO or FPC? I don't know.....

"Plain Text"

The Supreme Court's decision invalidating New York's law giving discretion to officials to deny licenses to carry handguns for insufficient…

reason.com

quote: Rigby v. Jennings (2022). That court got it right in holding that the Second Amendment "protects the possession of untraceable firearms and unfinished firearms and receivers because its text covers the possession of firearms."

Quote:
Fortunately, the plain text analysis is not difficult because the Supreme Court has already defined the key terms of the guarantee that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Here are some of those definitions:

• "The people" facially means "all Americans." District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).
• "Arms" facially means "all instruments that constitute bearable arms."
• "Keep Arms" facially means "have weapons." Heller.
• "Shall not be infringed" facially means that the right conferred by the Second Amendment is an "unqualified command." Bruen.

The Supreme Court's decision invalidating New York's law giving discretion to officials to deny licenses to carry handguns for insufficient "need" held that "when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.

This SB1 is a facial challenge to Surpreme Court ruling in Bruen.

 

[lazarus]

If ya can't see it- how is that indecent exposure? And if ya can't see it prove public urination?

"Officer, I have no clue how that urine got in that legislator's mailbox."

I can't see that working out too well

 

[Allen65]

Anyone else notice all the contingencies they made in the bill?

It seems like they covered things more than once just to make it a mess to fight.

Take casinos for example:
1) A casino is expressly banned in the bill.
2) So are facilities with video lottery facility.
3) So are places that dispense alcohol for on-site consumption.
4) You also have to get permission from a private property owner to carry on said property.

Take stadiums:
1) A stadium is expressly banned in the bill.
2) So are places that dispense alcohol for on-site consumption.
3) You also have to get permission from a private property owner to carry on said property.

That may not be a bad thing. If the unconstitutional restrictions are so entangled with restrictions that are marginally legal that it isn't feasible to sever the constitutional from the unconstitutional in the statute, the whole sensitive places section may be enjoined by a court.

 

[Allen65]

"Officer, I have no clue how that urine got in that legislator's mailbox."

I can't see that working out too well

It doesn't prove the crime of indecent exposure beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[BeoBill]

It doesn't prove the crime of indecent exposure beyond reasonable doubt.

Democrats: "It's only a crime if you get caught."

 

[Phoenix_1295]

In doing a search/filter of all of the bills passed by the MGA, it was noted that no firearms crime or violent crime bills were passed this session. The only "Criminal Law" bill related to firearms that passed was SB001.

 

[Allen65]

In doing a search/filter of all of the bills passed by the MGA, it was noted that no firearms crime or violent crime bills were passed this session. The only "Criminal Law" bill related to firearms that passed was SB001.

That's because SB001 tries to criminalize firearms possession by those without criminal intent, it wasn't intended to affect firearms crime.

 

[Bob A]

In doing a search/filter of all of the bills passed by the MGA, it was noted that no firearms crime or violent crime bills were passed this session. The only "Criminal Law" bill related to firearms that passed was SB001.

Originally posted by Deep Lurker:
“No criminals will be harmed in the passage of these gun control bills.”

 

[Sundazes]

In doing a search/filter of all of the bills passed by the MGA, it was noted that no firearms crime or violent crime bills were passed this session. The only "Criminal Law" bill related to firearms that passed was SB001.

Not sure, but I think the Ivan Bates thing passed. The ridiculous law the increases the MAX penalty for illegal possession of a firearm or some crap like that. They needed to address a mandatory min for firearm use in crimes.

 

[Tower43]

Thanks for this.

If I privately or as a store owner/manager caught somebody putting stickers on my property I'm going to guess that like most folks here I might give them a warning once before pressing vandalism or malicious destruction charges, especially with a door video to back it up.

I highly doubt a sticker that is easily removed would constitute this charge anyway.

 

[Tower43]

Organisation is critical. If civil disobedience is to be effective, communication via phone trees to rally support, creating some sort of bond fund would be useful.

Of course, here in MD the MSP has been known for infiltrating various organisations - they even infiltrated an anti-Nuke organisation a decade or so ago. This both breeds distrust and makes serious resistance problematic. Couple that with the general tendency toward individualism that underlies your Conservative (I just want them to leave me the fvck alone) type of person, and you fail to generate the mob enthusiasm found in your Prog mentality.

Figure that any serious attempt to create a widespread organisational structure will be heavily supported by the FBI and its informants, so at least we'd get a bump in membership.

That and there are people already here who would run to the cops with info......

 

[Brute]

That and there are people already here who would run to the cops with info......

"Hey guys, I wasn't sure if an underground meeting of patriots was considered a sensitive place under the new law, so I called MSP for clarification......"