The LEOSA limitations from the statue :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?
NY and NJ banned CCW from carrying on many government facilities like transportation hubs— they made a LEOSA exemption along with their local LE.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
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 lawThey didn't forget, they just looked out for themselves.......................
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."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?
(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.
They were definitely in a rush... Hard to cross your T's and dot your I's when your hair is on fire, lol.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
Liability insurance isn’t so bad as when they drove that insurance out of the state like NJ and NY didIt 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.
Huh? Expand on this please.Liability insurance isn’t so bad as when they drove that insurance out of the state like NJ and NY did
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.Huh? Expand on this please.
Interesting article. I'll have to read it later.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
![]()
States Blocking 'Self-Defense Insurance' And What To Do About It
Perhaps you have been following the drama or if this all sounds new to you, I'm going to outline what is happening with states blocking self-defense insurance providers like the USCCA and CCW Safe and give you some ideas of what you can do about it should you live in one of those states. The...www.concealedcarry.com
However, a universal umbrella policy should cover non criminal liability.
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.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.
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?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 .
Make sure any homeowner and umbrella policy will cover you away from home.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.