SB118 (2023) - Criminal Law – Prohibitions on Wearing, Carrying, or Transporting Firearms

[coinboy]

Following

 

[Blackbeard]

GTOGUNNER - interesting point on those that got permit previously under G&S reasoning. Wonder if there is, or would be, an exclusion?

 

[Allen65]

GTOGUNNER - interesting point on those that got permit previously under G&S reasoning. Wonder if there is, or would be, an exclusion?

That would require much more thinking on the part outside lobbyists who draft these bills for MD legislators do. These bills are intended as direct, overt defiance of SCOTUS, not as any sort of thoughtfully crafted policy.

An exclusion would directly contravene the core of Bruen, which was that may-issue carry schemes in any form are unconstitutional. There's no legal ambiguity about that.

The fact we're seeing a flood of anti-2A legislation of all flavors at the state level tells me Bruen scares the snot out of the Antis and they're trying to find out what regulatory authority over keeping and bearing arms still remains.

 

[GTOGUNNER]

People that needed permits quickly for self defense were able to get a permit within 24 hours.
If this law were to take affect and an individual that had documented threats is killed.
There is going to be a major problem. Maryland will be become defacto constitutional carry.

 

[teratos]

This is why nobody should bother to oppose it.

 

[Doctor_M]

These a$$holes have become completely and totally irrelevant to me. And every session they prove themselves even more disconnected from the constitution... and therefore, even more irrelevant.

 

[lazarus]

GTOGUNNER - interesting point on those that got permit previously under G&S reasoning. Wonder if there is, or would be, an exclusion?

What? No. Why the heck would there be? They don't want anyone carrying guns except the people protecting them like security guards and police. They don't care about anyone else's reasons for having a gun or carrying a gun. Most of them would probably even rather hunters didn't exist. They'll control animal populations with birth control darts and negotiations. They mostly don't see a reason ANYONE other than their protectors could or should ever have access to a firearm.

They could sort of ignore the fact that some people could carry a gun when they continued allowing gatekeeping to the right through strict may issue requirements that limited mostly to just people with significant means like business owners. Who, a fair number of them were "them" who wanted their protectors to be the only ones with access to guns anyway. So that was okay. But once us plebs were allowed to just carry around guns ANYWHERE!?!

No way. Why would they go back and allow people with older permits to be allowed that? Heck, if nothing else there isn't even a tiny shred of a chance that could hold up in court delineating what different carry permits are allowed to do simply based on when they were issued originally.

 

[Phoenix_1295]

I have sent an email to my state delegates/reps requesting that they oppose SB001 and SB118.

 

[Biggfoot44]

An exclusion would directly contravene the core of Bruen, which was that may-issue carry schemes in any form are unconstitutional.

A two tier Permit system , would have * Directly Contrivened the Core of Bruen * in a Different manner , than their current attempt to contrivene .

 

[PeteW]

They can legislate federal property? One of these laws being challenged is going to hit the Supreme Court and they're going to have to say "ok we tried to be reasonable but you just couldn't help yourself. Constitutional carry."

 

[Bob A]

This is why nobody should bother to oppose it.

This, absolutely. ^^^

Never interfere with an enemy when he's in the process of destroying himself.

Let these legislators craft the most oppressive anti-SCOTUS laws they can put on paper. Testify in their favor. Do not provide reasons or rationale regarding problems with their proposed legislation.

Why should we do anything to make their job easier, or their oppression more nearly in line with the law as propounded in Bruen, Heller et al? They have their super-majority, and will do as they please. Let them.

We'll see how that plays out in the end.

 

[coinboy]

This, absolutely. ^^^

Never interfere with an enemy when he's in the process of destroying himself.

Let these legislators craft the most oppressive anti-SCOTUS laws they can put on paper. Testify in their favor. Do not provide reasons or rationale regarding problems with their proposed legislation.

Why should we do anything to make their job easier, or their oppression more nearly in line with the law as propounded in Bruen, Heller et al? They have their super-majority, and will do as they please. Let them.

We'll see how that plays out in the end.

I would never testify for them or their agenda. I will always support the pro gun movement.

 

[Biggfoot44]

I would never testify for them or their agenda. I will always support the pro gun movement.

Unless you have Squaregrouper's skills . But even at that , it's probably a maneuver that can only be pulled off once .

****************

Over the years , there have been ( aspects , lines of reasoning , etc ) that could have unintended blow back , where I bit my tongue and said nothing . But I can't see myself actually supporting or endorsing the other side .

 

[Allen65]

Unless you have Squaregrouper's skills . But even at that , it's probably a maneuver that can only be pulled off once .
orsing the other side .

Depends on how good someone is with words. The fun will be in giving biting criticism to the sponsors of the bill while superficially sounding supportive. Deliver the FU with a smile and a handshake so they don't realize what you just did until after you've delivered the message.

 

[dblas]

This is why nobody should bother to oppose it.

"My Name is XXXXX, and I am a Registered XXXXXX"
"I support this bill, and I request that you pass it out of committee as is. The reason for my request is so that I can immediately post your name in public news papers and social media if you support this bill. In addition to posting your name, I will also call you out, by name for supporting:

Making churches, synagogs, mosques, and other religious institutions, free targets for hate crimes, because you have now prevented them from protecting themselves.

Making battered women victims and targets again, from the abusers that beat them and perhaps almost killed them. With this bill, you have provided the opportunity for the abusers to now successful.

Making hard working business owners free ranging targets on their way to and from their business and livelyhood, for any thief, or person of opportunity, to steal their livelyhood without any chance of resistance.

For these and other reasons, I urge a favorable finding of this bill."

The above is the testimony I plan to provide on this, and any other Unconstitutional Bill this year,

 

[Bikebreath]

"My Name is XXXXX, and I am a Registered XXXXXX"
"I support this bill, and I request that you pass it out of committee as is. The reason for my request is so that I can immediately post your name in public news papers and social media if you support this bill. In addition to posting your name, I will also call you out, by name for supporting:

Making churches, synagogs, mosques, and other religious institutions, free targets for hate crimes, because you have now prevented them from protecting themselves.

Making battered women victims and targets again, from the abusers that beat them and perhaps almost killed them. With this bill, you have provided the opportunity for the abusers to now BE successful.

Making hard working business owners free ranging targets on their way to and from their business and livelyhood, for any thief, or person of opportunity, to steal their LIVELIHOOD without any chance of resistance.

For these and other reasons, I urge a favorable finding of this bill."

The above is the testimony I plan to provide on this, and any other Unconstitutional Bill this year,

FIFY - Editing by a usually fumbling speller.

 

[USAF05]

Yep, Always mucking shit up when you don't. LOL..
Welcome brother, from an old school REMF.

I cant even argue with that and thank you

 

[ChannelCat]

Also, BTW, by the reading of SB118, it bans firearm hunting on all local, state, and federal properties. ALL. Parks, state forests, etc. There are no exemptions to D in the bill.

So, let the deer in Patuxent Wildlife Refuge overpopulate even further and starve themselves out once the underbrush is all gone. Real smart...

 

[hodgepodge]

"My Name is XXXXX, and I am a Registered XXXXXX"
"I support this bill, and I request that you pass it out of committee as is. The reason for my request is so that I can immediately post your name in public news papers and social media if you support this bill. In addition to posting your name, I will also call you out, by name for supporting:

Making churches, synagogs, mosques, and other religious institutions, free targets for hate crimes, because you have now prevented them from protecting themselves.

Making battered women victims and targets again, from the abusers that beat them and perhaps almost killed them. With this bill, you have provided the opportunity for the abusers to now successful.

Making hard working business owners free ranging targets on their way to and from their business and livelyhood, for any thief, or person of opportunity, to steal their livelyhood without any chance of resistance.

For these and other reasons, I urge a favorable finding of this bill."

The above is the testimony I plan to provide on this, and any other Unconstitutional Bill this year,

Stealing this, tweaking it a little, adding a quote from the Bruen decision. I'm done!

 

[Rickman]

Maybe add something to the effect that you are greatly appreciative of their attempts to get around the unnecessary restrictions of the 2A and the wrongfully decided Bruen decision, pointing out the Justice Thomas is an enemy of the State.