SB1 - Injunctive relief is provided for private property, locations that sell alcohol, and public demonstrations.

[pcfixer]

It means WaldstreiKKKer can eat a bag of dicks.

I surely would like to "see" that happen.

 

[OldBrokenGrunt]

Nice to see a little common sense come through. We still have a long ways to go. I still hope the SC says **** it and declares constitutional carry across all states and gets rid of the unconstitutional stupidity that these gun hating twats have put into laws.

And that little MoCo turd can choke down 5 bags of dicks.

 

[DaveP]

They will continue to pass "creative" legislation to circumvent the supreme Court until one of two things happen

The court slaps them down or

The political leanings of the court shifts. This is what they're counting on.

I predict the next time the political influence of the court shifts you're going to see the second amendment struck down as military and law enforcement only.

Then what?

Even IF the Court slaps them.down, the Court will go hard left at some not too distant point, and then...

 

[Phoenix_1295]

Folks can find the answers to the majority of their questions by reading the two files, below. The first one is a compilation of applicable Maryland firearms laws as they will be on October 1, and the second is the recent injunction order. By reading the laws, first, then reading the injunction, it’s very clear as to what applies and what does not apply.

2A Maryland _ 2023 updated handgun laws:
Title 4 Subtitle 1 §4-111 (pages 34-38)
Title 4 Subtitle 6 §6-411 (pages 80-81)
https://www.2amaryland.org/legislative/2023/MARYLAND_GUN_LAWS_2023.pdf

Injunction filed 9/29/23
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.536809/gov.uscourts.mdd.536809.32.0.pdf

[edited for typo]

 

[pcfixer]

Still can Carry Concealed in Church?

 

[swinokur]

Yes. SB1 did not prohibit church carry. Only the Mo Co bill did

 

[teratos]

Yes. SB1 did not prohibit church carry. Only the Mo Co bill did

Praise the Lord

 

[swinokur]

And pass the ammunition

 

[AKbythebay]

The 2A prevents Govt. Infringement. Private business can do as they please

So it sounds like it would take a new version of the civil rights act to guarantee the right to carry in private places of public accommodation.

 

[swinokur]

Private property rights are in the constitution too

 

[AKbythebay]

Private property rights are in the constitution too

Yet the CRA forces these private property owners to admit people of a particular race, religion, and ethnicity that the owner did not want in his/her business. How are 2A rights any different?

 

[Occam]

Yet the CRA forces these private property owners to admit people of a particular race, religion, and ethnicity that the owner did not want in his/her business. How are 2A rights any different?

On private property? That's a little tricky. Sort of like the 1A doesn't guarantee you can spend your day in someone's private business screaming political screeds at the top of your lungs or even just politely but creepily proselytizing someone's customers. There's a difference between "no black people allowed" and "no hoodies that hide your face while you're in my place of business." I'd like to preserve the right to tell people to get out of my private property if I don't like their conduct or bearing, and so I can't very well complain when another person wants the same. Hence the "don't carry here" signs followed up by invoking trespass if someone won't leave, that's not incoherent, philosophically. Forcing me to put up a "you can carry here" sign certainly is.

 

[swinokur]

Yet the CRA forces these private property owners to admit people of a particular race, religion, and ethnicity that the owner did not want in his/her business. How are 2A rights any different?

Gun owners are not a protected group as per the civil rights law

 

[AKbythebay]

Gun owners are not a protected group as per the civil rights law

Which is what I was trying to say in my initial comment. I said it would take a new version to protect 2A rights. "The Second Amendment Act of 2024" that would require places of public accommodation to allow CCW on their premises, for example.

 

[1time]

But to echo Welder's point, they will not give up.


An incremental infringement is a big deal, but that is just my opinion.

I could argue , the biggest deal. A huge infringement pisses a bunch of people off. The incremental one guy by with only a few of us pissed.

 

[Crazytrain]

Which is what I was trying to say in my initial comment. I said it would take a new version to protect 2A rights. "The Second Amendment Act of 2024" that would require places of public accommodation to allow CCW on their premises, for example.

I'd be so against something like this. Private property rights are super important. I'd go so far as to roll back the civil rights act stuff as it applies to
Private property. You have the right to be a dick.

However, specifically making private businesses liable for your safety should they disarm you and something happens... rights balancing can be tricky, but I feel like there might be something here. Although, perhaps it is better to just destigmatize gun ownership. Somehow. Perhaps by being less polite and grayman and hiding like we're doing something wrong.

 

[teratos]

I'd be so against something like this. Private property rights are super important. I'd go so far as to roll back the civil rights act stuff as it applies to
Private property. You have the right to be a dick.

However, specifically making private businesses liable for your safety should they disarm you and something happens... rights balancing can be tricky, but I feel like there might be something here. Although, perhaps it is better to just destigmatize gun ownership. Somehow. Perhaps by being less polite and grayman and hiding like we're doing something wrong.

Good post.

 

[Occam]

Which is what I was trying to say in my initial comment. I said it would take a new version to protect 2A rights. "The Second Amendment Act of 2024" that would require places of public accommodation to allow CCW on their premises, for example.

Remember: the Bill of Rights is designed to prevent THE GOVERNMENT from infringing on your rights. Not to prevent a private property holder from deciding how to use their own property. If you start requiring (for example) retailers to tolerate one particular form of conduct, you're opening the floodgates to them being required to (for example) allow sit-in protests that run off all of their paying customers, all in the name of the 1A. The 1A and the 2A are limitations on the government, not on you if you own property.

 

[mpollan1]

I could argue , the biggest deal. A huge infringement pisses a bunch of people off. The incremental one guy by with only a few of us pissed.

Yeah, it's the way we got to where we are now. It did not happen overnight...

 

[AKbythebay]

Remember: the Bill of Rights is designed to prevent THE GOVERNMENT from infringing on your rights. Not to prevent a private property holder from deciding how to use their own property. If you start requiring (for example) retailers to tolerate one particular form of conduct, you're opening the floodgates to them being required to (for example) allow sit-in protests that run off all of their paying customers, all in the name of the 1A. The 1A and the 2A are limitations on the government, not on you if you own property.

Excellent points and I tend to agree.