§134-A  Carrying or possessing a firearm in certain
locations and premises prohibited
...
        (b)  This section shall not apply to a person in an
        exempt category identified in section 134-11(a)
        [i.e., current LEOs].  It shall be an affirmative
        defense to any prosecution under this
        section that a person is:
...
                (7)  Carrying or possessing a firearm
                pursuant to a license issued under
                section 134-9 [prior/current "articulated
                fear of injury" CCW] or in accordance with
                Title 18 United States Code section 926B
                or 926C [LEOSA] in the immediate area 
                surrounding the person's vehicle 
                within a parking area for the limited
                 purpose of storing or retrieving
                 the firearm;

§134-E  Carrying or possessing a firearm on
private property open to the public without authorization;
...
     (d)  For purposes of this section, carrying a firearm
     includes carrying a firearm pursuant to a license
     issued under section 134-9 [prior/current "articulated
     fear of injury" CCW] and carrying a firearm in
     accordance with Title 18 United States Code
     section 926B or 926C [LEOSA].

If this passes shouldn't the State and the establishment you were in be liable for any crime that was committed against you? Since they denied you your right to protect yourself. Also wouldn't this open up all these establishments to being sued for denying people their 2nd Amendment right?

I'm pretty sure they're all immune from a lawsuit.  And if they aren't it's our tax dollars who would pay damages.

IIRC for CCW, there is a law that states the chief is immune from lawsuits for denying people.

That's the whole problem with the current political system.  They can do all kinds of illegal shit and have no responsibility for their actions, financial and otherwise.

I'm pretty sure they're all immune from a lawsuit.  And if they aren't it's our tax dollars who would pay damages.

IIRC for CCW, there is a law that states the chief is immune from lawsuits for denying people.

How a Constitutional Rights Violation Case Works
Elements for Establishing a Claim
United States law allows an individual who believes that
his or her constitutional rights have been violated to bring
a civil action against the government to recover the
damages sustained as a result of that violation.
Specifically, [Title] 42 USC §1983 “provides a cause of
action for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution and laws by
any person acting under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory.” 
Gomez v Toledo, 446 US 635, 638 (1980)(internal
quotations omitted).

In Gomez, the United States Supreme Court determined
that only two elements must be pled to properly
assert a cause of action under 42 USC §1983. First,
the Plaintiff must specifically identify the constitutional
right of which he or she was deprived. Id. at 640.
Second, the Plaintiff must assert that “the person
who deprived him of that federal right acted under
color of state or territorial law.” Id.

Done