The politicians won’t care. That’s what matters.Va. And NC both had laws years ago prohibiting carry into a restaurant , etc. where Alcohol was sold. They both dropped this silly idea. I’m guessing the amount of business loss will not sway business owners at all?
So a bar owner can’t carry in his own establishment when handling large amounts of cash?This ^^ Here is the language from SB1 "A LOCATION LICENSED TO SELL OR DISPENSE ALCOHOL OR CANNABIS FOR ON–SITE CONSUMPTION;"
A. Both are paid by taxpayers.What really gets me is the carvouts for the special people this doesn't effect. How does a correctional officer get exempted from these laws like they are leo's.
Too bad the “equal protection” clause has been eviscerated. Every citizen should have the same right to self defense as the next. I don’t believe retired police, CO’s, etc should have more ability (or any less!) to protect themselves than the rest of us.A. Both are paid by taxpayers.
They are also deemed G&S as former inmates may attack them at home.
"But so can the former inmates victim"
Refer to exhibit A.
Those permit holders have no more right to carry than those of us newly permitted. While the proposed bill is ridiculous and unconstitutional, it should apply to us all equally or, preferably, not at all.They don't like the idea of Black Marylanders being searched by police.
Presumably the rest of us can suck it. Happy to take our permits and rights.
Still, there's substantial pushback; ACLU, Public Defenders, even MSP(!)
MSP's objections - where have we seen these brought up?:
"Senate Bill 1 expands the list of restricted areas to almost everywhere but the firearm
owner’s residence. However, the legislation does not exempt public safety personnel such as
police officers both on and off duty, police officers from other states within Maryland on official
business, active military personnel, security guards, private detectives, federal contractors,
correctional officers, special agents of the railroad, armored car personnel, or special police
officers.
The legislation doesn’t consider those permit holders who received a wear and carry
permit for a “good and substantial reason” prior to the issuance of the Bruen decision. As an
example, judges, state’s attorneys, victims of crime or domestic violence, and legislators to
name a few, have applied for and received handgun permits due to direct threats against their
lives. There are thousands or permit holders who received a permit for business purposes who
transport money, bonds, or precious jewels."
Statists are for The State and it's cronies only.Too bad the “equal protection” clause has been eviscerated. Every citizen should have the same right to self defense as the next. I don’t believe retired police, CO’s, etc should have more ability (or any less!) to protect themselves than the rest of us.
There is an exception for owners and for security guards and persons authorized by the owner to provide security if they do so without compensationSo a bar owner can’t carry in his own establishment when handling large amounts of cash?
So, hypothetically, a restaurant owner could “authorize” all of their customers to protect their families/table-mates, for no remuneration, when in their restaurant.There is an exception for owners and for security guards and persons authorized by the owner to provide security if they do so without compensation
And ROTC …really?What really gets me is the carvouts for the special people this doesn't effect. How does a correctional officer get exempted from these laws like they are leo's.
This is also a trap. There are some beer/wine/liquor stores that have on-premise licenses that are just retail sales only. Probably old grandfathered licenses but they exist. Right here in moco. How would one know the details of a retail store's license?This ^^ Here is the language from SB1 "A LOCATION LICENSED TO SELL OR DISPENSE ALCOHOL OR CANNABIS FOR ON–SITE CONSUMPTION;"
Yes because its highly like we will eventually prevail in courtAssuming it passes and is signed by the Gov, is it worth getting one, knowing the new restrictions that will be instituted in Oct.?
Exactly. One of the intended purposes of this bill, just like the HQL, is to discourage people from trying at all.Yes because its highly like we will eventually prevail in court
Don't let them dissuade you. Get your permit.
That's probably pushing the limit a bit too farSo, hypothetically, a restaurant owner could “authorize” all of their customers to protect their families/table-mates, for no remuneration, when in their restaurant.
???
Would you take on that potential liability as a business owner? I wouldn'tSo, hypothetically, a restaurant owner could “authorize” all of their customers to protect their families/table-mates, for no remuneration, when in their restaurant.
???
Unlike the MD GA's limit-pushing, which never exceeds the reasonable.That's probably pushing the limit a bit too far