Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Judge halts Maryland’s ban on carrying guns in places selling alcohol and near demonstrations
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ThatRobGuy" data-source="post: 77394723" data-attributes="member: 123415"><p>The judge would be correct in terms of precedent.</p><p>(and just logically speaking)</p><p></p><p>The "places that sell alcohol" provision was always one that thought made very little sense.</p><p></p><p>I know the impetus behind it was "we don't want people getting drunk and carrying a firearm", which is perfectly valid. However they were often far too broad.</p><p></p><p>A) there's already laws that would prohibit consuming alcohol while carrying</p><p>B) just because a place sells/serves alcohol, doesn't mean a person is drinking any while they're in there</p><p></p><p>For instance, if I go a restaurant that sells alcohol, and I have a diet coke or lemonade while I'm dining there, that presents no more or less public risk than if I were carry at dinner in a restaurant like Bob Evans (which doesn't serve alcohol).</p><p></p><p></p><p>However, if judges are going to start taking up more cases like this and leveraging precedent to do so, I'd prefer the efforts were more directed in the theme of establishing reciprocity through the Full Faith & Credit clause due to the ability to carry being a licensed status, and states having an obligation to honor licenses from other states. That's the basis for driver's licenses, and (prior to the scotus ruling) the basis for why it was suggested that other states had to honor a marriage license from an issuing state (even if the marriage laws weren't identical).</p><p></p><p>Incidentally, I believe it was Massachusetts's marriage license recipients who first made the case of FF&C (I think Mass. was the first - or one of the first - states to legalize it back in the early 2000's) as a basis for suggesting that other states had to honor their marriage license.</p><p></p><p>Meanwhile if I, as an Ohio CHL holder, wanted to carry in Mass., I'd be in some major trouble.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ThatRobGuy, post: 77394723, member: 123415"] The judge would be correct in terms of precedent. (and just logically speaking) The "places that sell alcohol" provision was always one that thought made very little sense. I know the impetus behind it was "we don't want people getting drunk and carrying a firearm", which is perfectly valid. However they were often far too broad. A) there's already laws that would prohibit consuming alcohol while carrying B) just because a place sells/serves alcohol, doesn't mean a person is drinking any while they're in there For instance, if I go a restaurant that sells alcohol, and I have a diet coke or lemonade while I'm dining there, that presents no more or less public risk than if I were carry at dinner in a restaurant like Bob Evans (which doesn't serve alcohol). However, if judges are going to start taking up more cases like this and leveraging precedent to do so, I'd prefer the efforts were more directed in the theme of establishing reciprocity through the Full Faith & Credit clause due to the ability to carry being a licensed status, and states having an obligation to honor licenses from other states. That's the basis for driver's licenses, and (prior to the scotus ruling) the basis for why it was suggested that other states had to honor a marriage license from an issuing state (even if the marriage laws weren't identical). Incidentally, I believe it was Massachusetts's marriage license recipients who first made the case of FF&C (I think Mass. was the first - or one of the first - states to legalize it back in the early 2000's) as a basis for suggesting that other states had to honor their marriage license. Meanwhile if I, as an Ohio CHL holder, wanted to carry in Mass., I'd be in some major trouble. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Judge halts Maryland’s ban on carrying guns in places selling alcohol and near demonstrations
Top
Bottom