Glock Talk banner

LEOSA and Public Accommodation

830 Views 23 Replies 12 Participants Last post by  ZeroWolf
Maryland was forced to alter the carry permit laws due to the recent NY decision about needing a 'good and sufficient' reason to carry. Permit issue has gone through the roof, which is a good thing. So few permits were issued in the past, you never saw signs (excepting Sprouts Market) prohibiting firearms on any premises. The overwhelmingly Democrat legislature is looking at creating a law that would prohibit firearms within 100 feet of a 'public accommodation'. I looked that up and the best definition in lay terms is "Places of public accommodation include a wide range of entities, such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors' offices, pharmacies, retail stores, museums, libraries, amusement parks, private schools, and day care centers."

It's clear that since they cannot legally bar citizens from legal carry, they will make it impossible to do so within the limits of a wide reaching new law. Barring any guidance from the FOP, no one seems to know if this will affect LEOSA carry, which generally supersedes local law. Needless to say, it will not affect me as concealed means concealed. Going to Baltimore unarmed is akin to throwing a bleeding piglet into the shark tank. Any thoughts from those who may have encountered such idiocy in their AO?
  • Like
Reactions: CAcop
1 - 20 of 24 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
38,674 Posts
I live in Nevada now so as long as I don't open carry I should be good.

If I go into California I'm still good because the beautiful people in Hollywood want their protection. Either on them or on their bodyguards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TBO

· Registered
Joined
·
14,452 Posts
Maryland was forced to alter the carry permit laws due to the recent NY decision about needing a 'good and sufficient' reason to carry. Permit issue has gone through the roof, which is a good thing. So few permits were issued in the past, you never saw signs (excepting Sprouts Market) prohibiting firearms on any premises. The overwhelmingly Democrat legislature is looking at creating a law that would prohibit firearms within 100 feet of a 'public accommodation'. I looked that up and the best definition in lay terms is "Places of public accommodation include a wide range of entities, such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors' offices, pharmacies, retail stores, museums, libraries, amusement parks, private schools, and day care centers."

It's clear that since they cannot legally bar citizens from legal carry, they will make it impossible to do so within the limits of a wide reaching new law. Barring any guidance from the FOP, no one seems to know if this will affect LEOSA carry, which generally supersedes local law. Needless to say, it will not affect me as concealed means concealed. Going to Baltimore unarmed is akin to throwing a bleeding piglet into the shark tank. Any thoughts from those who may have encountered such idiocy in their AO?
The LEOSA limitations from the statue :

“b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the
laws of any State that--
``(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or
restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property;
or
``(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any
State or local government property, installation, building,
base, or park.“
LEOSA allows them to prohibit certain government owned property but not the public street so the 100 ft from does not effect LEOSA carry because it’s not government property, an installation or a park .
However LEOSA does allow the state to make laws that allow the individuals of private property to bar LEOSA on their private property.

NY and NJ are attempting to say a gun owner must give affirmative permission for a CCW to carry instead of the property owner telling you , you can’t carry there.
However NY and NJ have written some concessions in the law for LEOSA. I don’t know if Maryland will.
So far , the judges have granted a TRO/ preliminary injunction on that idea that it’s the default that you need affirmative permission. It goes against how the law traditionally works. You aren’t trespassing unless you were informed you aren’t allowed, or passed some type of barrier. These laws turn that precedent on its head and judges went with it. There’s a stay on their order by the appeals court in NY but there is a LEOSA exemption in the law for public transportation etc.
Again, I don’t know if Maryland will write that in their law.
But the private property owner would have to prohibit you for LEOSA not to cover you in a privately owned public accommodation.
 

· Pretty Ladies!
Joined
·
4,995 Posts
Any prohibition that they're not willing to back up with a metal detector isn't a real prohibition, IMO.
 

· Massive Member
Joined
·
27,270 Posts
LEOSA by definition will supersede/trump any provisions of state law banning carry on private premises. Property owner must ban carry to block LEOSA carriers. The state doesn't have to put an exception to their carry laws for LEOSA, LEOSA puts that in there all by itself.

Randy
 

· Registered
Joined
·
14,452 Posts
LEOSA by definition will supersede/trump any provisions of state law banning carry on private premises. Property owner must ban carry to block LEOSA carriers. The state doesn't have to put an exception to their carry laws for LEOSA, LEOSA puts that in there all by itself.

Randy
NY and NJ banned CCW from carrying on many government facilities like transportation hubs— they made a LEOSA exemption along with their local LE.
NY and NJ are attempting to make it illegal to have a firearm on private property unless you have affirmative permission from the owner as opposed to the presumption that it’s okay to carry unless the owner says otherwise , NJ made exemption for some of the sensitive places for LEOSA . But without that would LEOSA hold up if the LEOSA didn’t get affirmative permission first — from LEOSA—-

“ b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the
laws of any State that--
``(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or
restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; ”

I agree and interpret that wording “ permit private persons”—as an active choice of the property owner but I do not want to be a test case. So far alm of judges who have heard the NY or NJ new gun laws have shot them down as unconstitutional or for against common law interpretation of the law.
Having said my concerns, I have advised retired NYS peace officers to get LEOSA so they can carry in NY restricted places( a second sensitive places list). They forgot to add retired peace officers to exceptions list like they did retired police officers.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
14,452 Posts
They didn't forget, they just looked out for themselves.......................
In NY, the law was so rushed and poorly written that the LEOSA exemption only covers the retired LEOSA officers and not the active officers carrying on LEOSA. It was the same with the retired peace officer exemption to “ restricted places in the NY law
 

· NRA Life Member
Joined
·
75,701 Posts
Maryland was forced to alter the carry permit laws due to the recent NY decision about needing a 'good and sufficient' reason to carry. Permit issue has gone through the roof, which is a good thing. So few permits were issued in the past, you never saw signs (excepting Sprouts Market) prohibiting firearms on any premises. The overwhelmingly Democrat legislature is looking at creating a law that would prohibit firearms within 100 feet of a 'public accommodation'. I looked that up and the best definition in lay terms is "Places of public accommodation include a wide range of entities, such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors' offices, pharmacies, retail stores, museums, libraries, amusement parks, private schools, and day care centers."

It's clear that since they cannot legally bar citizens from legal carry, they will make it impossible to do so within the limits of a wide reaching new law. Barring any guidance from the FOP, no one seems to know if this will affect LEOSA carry, which generally supersedes local law. Needless to say, it will not affect me as concealed means concealed. Going to Baltimore unarmed is akin to throwing a bleeding piglet into the shark tank. Any thoughts from those who may have encountered such idiocy in their AO?
That law would not affect LEOSA carry much at all. The government can't prohibit LEOSA carry unless the "place of public accommodation" is owned by the government. Government can only prohibit LEOSA carry "on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park."

If state law gives legal weight to "no guns" signs, then the private property owners could limit LEOSA carry on their property by putting up a sign - the government could not.

(b)This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—
(1)permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
(2)prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.
 

· Massive Member
Joined
·
27,270 Posts
In NY, the law was so rushed and poorly written that the LEOSA exemption only covers the retired LEOSA officers and not the active officers carrying on LEOSA. It was the same with the retired peace officer exemption to “ restricted places in the NY law
They were definitely in a rush... Hard to cross your T's and dot your I's when your hair is on fire, lol.

Randy
 

· Florist
Joined
·
23,375 Posts
It should come as no surprise that traditionally anti-gun jurisdictions and states come up with these knee jerk reaction laws. You know that even with the Supreme Cts's NYSRPC v. Bruen decision, those stated and jurisdictions are not going to roll over and play dead.

What I'm concerned with is the state (NJ??) that recently passed a law requiring those who have CCWs to obtain liability insurance. NY and some other states also have similar laws in the process.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
14,452 Posts
It should come as no surprise that traditionally anti-gun jurisdictions and states come up with these knee jerk reaction laws. You know that even with the Supreme Cts's NYSRPC v. Bruen decision, those stated and jurisdictions are not going to roll over and play dead.

What I'm concerned with is the state (NJ??) that recently passed a law requiring those who have CCWs to obtain liability insurance. NY and some other states also have similar laws in the process.
Liability insurance isn’t so bad as when they drove that insurance out of the state like NJ and NY did
 

· Florist
Joined
·
23,375 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
14,452 Posts
Huh? Expand on this please.
New York kicked out such gun liability insurance. I can get it through CCW safe because of my profession/ prior profession. The normal CCW— nope.
I think this article explains it better than I can except there are a few changes since it was written

However, a universal umbrella policy should cover non criminal liability.
 

· Florist
Joined
·
23,375 Posts
New York kicked out such gun liability insurance. I can get it through CCW safe because of my profession/ prior profession. The normal CCW— nope.
I think this article explains it better than I can except there are a few changes since it was written

However, a universal umbrella policy should cover non criminal liability.
Interesting article. I'll have to read it later.

Ok, we have umbrella insurance already, so that's good. Also, I understand NYC will no longer issue "retired LE" CCW anymore. It will just be the standard CCW.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
14,452 Posts
Interesting article. I'll have to read it later.

Ok, we have umbrella insurance already, so that's good. Also, I understand NYC will no longer issue "retired LE" CCW anymore. It will just be the standard CCW.
I heard that too. It doesn’t really matter for NYC permits but other NYS permits it would . Other NYS permits ( not stamped retired police officer /LE etc ) are not valid in NYC.

It was a nice secondary ID issued by my old department stamped “retired police officer “ which technically meets the LEOSA photograph ID requirement .
 

· Registered
Joined
·
233 Posts
I heard that too. It doesn’t really matter for NYC permits but other NYS permits it would . Other NYS permits ( not stamped retired police officer /LE etc ) are not valid in NYC.

It was a nice secondary ID issued by my old department stamped “retired police officer “ which technically meets the LEOSA photograph ID requirement .
It depends if they stop putting the retired endorsement on out-of-city retirees. Somehow I don't think that would fly, and isn't it statutorily listed in 400?

If you look at these laws, you can see that they were probably written in advance and pushed on legislators without time to read (and probably some "suggestions" involved). In the PDRNJ, it was almost strict party line voting because one Democrat Senator voted no because he said it was unconstitutional. In any case, the NJ bill barely squeaked through both houses.

The older guys i used to work with in the 70's told me that PC Murphy (SPIT!!!) had talked about not giving retirees pistol licenses and even mentioned doing away with off duty carry.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
233 Posts
Interesting article. I'll have to read it later.

Ok, we have umbrella insurance already, so that's good. Also, I understand NYC will no longer issue "retired LE" CCW anymore. It will just be the standard CCW.
Make sure any homeowner and umbrella policy will cover you away from home.

You can tell what hypocrites these folks are because they were against it before they were for it....................
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top