Comments on Administrative Emergency Decisions Pending Emergency Regulation

Comments received during the week of January 10, 2021 to January 16, 2021

Comment #1

ABC,

We object to the proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

Procedurally, the ABC is tasked with regulating the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, attempting to force compliance with arbitrary unconstitutional, so-called government health and safety orders is unconstitutional, unsupported by science, facts, evidence, or law.

Numerous mayors, city councils and law-enforcement agencies throughout the State have recognized that these orders are not laws, regulations or even rules and have not gone through the checks and balances of any legislative or regulatory process and they have properly refused to enforce them against their citizens and their already struggling restaurants/small businesses.

As the California Health and Human Services Secretary, Dr. Mark Ghaly, has admitted, “the current safety orders issued against restaurants, are not a comment on the relative safety of outdoor dining…the decision to include among other sectors outdoor dining and limiting that to restaurants to deliver and provide takeout options, instead really has to do with the goal of trying to keep people home…”

San Diego Department of Health and Safety Officer Dr. Wilma Whooten has testified “penalizing sectors like restaurants and gyms for the case increase is wrong…closure of indoor restaurants during winter time will move people into homes and encourage high-risk gatherings…”. So both have admitted that there is no science, foundation or law, behind these unconstitutional orders, as misdirected at restaurants, salons and gyms.

The foundational basis for the proposed rule is that “ABC Licensees… are allegedly “disregarding the orders from local officials and are thereby harming the public health, safety, and welfare.” However this statement is specious and speculative. As a matter of fact, evidence and contact tracing there no actual foundation that restaurants staying open/serving of alcohol is contributing to the spread of the virus. There is significant and overwhelming evidence restaurants are exercising appropriate safety protocols and there is no identifiable outbreak in the state they can be traced back to a restaurant or a restaurant visit.

Allowing ABC officers emergency revocation powers can only be abused. More importantly, emergency revocation powers are contrary to the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows due process prior to the government taking away constitutional rights/property.

There are significant medical scientific and political questions that surround this virus infections and deaths almost all of which are due to additional serious comorbidities.

We object to the arbitrary, unfounded and unconstitutional proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.


Comment #2

ABC,

We object to the proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

Procedurally, the ABC is tasked with regulating the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, attempting to force compliance with arbitrary unconstitutional, so-called government health and safety orders is unconstitutional, unsupported by science, facts, evidence, or law.

Numerous mayors, city councils and law-enforcement agencies throughout the State have recognized that these orders are not laws, regulations or even rules and have not gone through the checks and balances of any legislative or regulatory process and they have properly refused to enforce them against their citizens and their already struggling restaurants/small businesses.

As the California Health and Human Services Secretary, Dr. Mark Ghaly, has admitted, “the current safety orders issued against restaurants, are not a comment on the relative safety of outdoor dining…the decision to include among other sectors outdoor dining and limiting that to restaurants to deliver and provide takeout options, instead really has to do with the goal of trying to keep people home…”

San Diego Department of Health and Safety Officer Dr. Wilma Whooten has testified “penalizing sectors like restaurants and gyms for the case increase is wrong…closure of indoor restaurants during winter time will move people into homes and encourage high-risk gatherings…”. So both have admitted that there is no science, foundation or law, behind these unconstitutional orders, as misdirected at restaurants, salons and gyms.

The foundational basis for the proposed rule is that “ABC Licensees… are allegedly “disregarding the orders from local officials and are thereby harming the public health, safety, and welfare.” However this statement is specious and speculative. As a matter of fact, evidence and contact tracing there no actual foundation that restaurants staying open/serving of alcohol is contributing to the spread of the virus. There is significant and overwhelming evidence restaurants are exercising appropriate safety protocols and there is no identifiable outbreak in the state they can be traced back to a restaurant or a restaurant visit.

Allowing ABC officers emergency revocation powers can only be abused. More importantly, emergency revocation powers are contrary to the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows due process prior to the government taking away constitutional rights/property.

There are significant medical scientific and political questions that surround this virus infections and deaths almost all of which are due to additional serious comorbidities.

We object to the arbitrary, unfounded and unconstitutional proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.


Comment #3

ABC,

We object to the proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

Procedurally, the ABC is tasked with regulating the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, attempting to force compliance with arbitrary unconstitutional, so-called government health and safety orders is unconstitutional, unsupported by science, facts, evidence, or law.

Numerous mayors, city councils and law-enforcement agencies throughout the State have recognized that these orders are not laws, regulations or even rules and have not gone through the checks and balances of any legislative or regulatory process and they have properly refused to enforce them against their citizens and their already struggling restaurants/small businesses.

As the California Health and Human Services Secretary, Dr. Mark Ghaly, has admitted, “the current safety orders issued against restaurants, are not a comment on the relative safety of outdoor dining…the decision to include among other sectors outdoor dining and limiting that to restaurants to deliver and provide takeout options, instead really has to do with the goal of trying to keep people home…”

San Diego Department of Health and Safety Officer Dr. Wilma Whooten has testified “penalizing sectors like restaurants and gyms for the case increase is wrong…closure of indoor restaurants during winter time will move people into homes and encourage high-risk gatherings…”. So both have admitted that there is no science, foundation or law, behind these unconstitutional orders, as misdirected at restaurants, salons and gyms.

The foundational basis for the proposed rule is that “ABC Licensees… are allegedly “disregarding the orders from local officials and are thereby harming the public health, safety, and welfare.” However this statement is specious and speculative. As a matter of fact, evidence and contact tracing there no actual foundation that restaurants staying open/serving of alcohol is contributing to the spread of the virus. There is significant and overwhelming evidence restaurants are exercising appropriate safety protocols and there is no identifiable outbreak in the state they can be traced back to a restaurant or a restaurant visit.

Allowing ABC officers emergency revocation powers can only be abused. More importantly, emergency revocation powers are contrary to the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows due process prior to the government taking away constitutional rights/property.

There are significant medical scientific and political questions that surround this virus infections and deaths almost all of which are due to additional serious comorbidities.

We object to the arbitrary, unfounded and unconstitutional proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.


Comment #4

Attention ABC,

We object to the proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

The ABC is tasked with regulating the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, attempting to force compliance with arbitrary unconstitutional, so-called government health and safety orders is unconstitutional, unsupported by science, facts, evidence, or law.

Numerous mayors, city councils and law-enforcement agencies throughout the State have recognized that these orders are not laws, regulations or even rules and have not gone through the checks and balances of any legislative or regulatory process and they have properly refused to enforce them against their citizens and their already struggling restaurants/small businesses.

As the California Health and Human Services Secretary, Dr. Mark Ghaly, has admitted, “the current safety orders issued against restaurants, are not a comment on the relative safety of outdoor dining…the decision to include among other sectors outdoor dining and limiting that to restaurants to deliver and provide takeout options, instead really has to do with the goal of trying to keep people home…”

San Diego Department of Health and Safety Officer Dr. Wilma Whooten has testified “penalizing sectors like restaurants and gyms for the case increase is wrong…closure of indoor restaurants during winter time will move people into homes and encourage high-risk gatherings…”. So both have admitted that there is no science, foundation or law, behind these unconstitutional orders, as misdirected at restaurants, salons and gyms.

The foundational basis for the proposed rule is that “ABC Licensees… are allegedly “disregarding the orders from local officials and are thereby harming the public health, safety, and welfare.” However this statement is specious and speculative. As a matter of fact, evidence and contact tracing there no actual foundation that restaurants staying open/serving of alcohol is contributing to the spread of the virus. There is significant and overwhelming evidence restaurants are exercising appropriate safety protocols and there is no identifiable outbreak in the state they can be traced back to a restaurant or a restaurant visit.

Allowing ABC officers emergency revocation powers can only be abused. More importantly, emergency revocation powers are contrary to the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows due process prior to the government taking away constitutional rights/property.

There are significant medical scientific and political questions that surround this virus infections and deaths almost all of which are due to additional serious comorbidities.

We object to the arbitrary, unfounded and unconstitutional proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.


Comment #5

ABC,

We object to the proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

Procedurally, the ABC is tasked with regulating the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, attempting to force compliance with arbitrary unconstitutional, so-called government health and safety orders is unconstitutional, unsupported by science, facts, evidence, or law.

Numerous mayors, city councils and law-enforcement agencies throughout the State have recognized that these orders are not laws, regulations or even rules and have not gone through the checks and balances of any legislative or regulatory process and they have properly refused to enforce them against their citizens and their already struggling restaurants/small businesses.

As the California Health and Human Services Secretary, Dr. Mark Ghaly, has admitted, “the current safety orders issued against restaurants, are not a comment on the relative safety of outdoor dining…the decision to include among other sectors outdoor dining and limiting that to restaurants to deliver and provide takeout options, instead really has to do with the goal of trying to keep people home…”

San Diego Department of Health and Safety Officer Dr. Wilma Whooten has testified “penalizing sectors like restaurants and gyms for the case increase is wrong…closure of indoor restaurants during winter time will move people into homes and encourage high-risk gatherings…”. So both have admitted that there is no science, foundation or law, behind these unconstitutional orders, as misdirected at restaurants, salons and gyms.

The foundational basis for the proposed rule is that “ABC Licensees… are allegedly “disregarding the orders from local officials and are thereby harming the public health, safety, and welfare.” However this statement is specious and speculative. As a matter of fact, evidence and contact tracing there no actual foundation that restaurants staying open/serving of alcohol is contributing to the spread of the virus. There is significant and overwhelming evidence restaurants are exercising appropriate safety protocols and there is no identifiable outbreak in the state they can be traced back to a restaurant or a restaurant visit.

Allowing ABC officers emergency revocation powers can only be abused. More importantly, emergency revocation powers are contrary to the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows due process prior to the government taking away constitutional rights/property.

There are significant medical scientific and political questions that surround this virus infections and deaths almost all of which are due to additional serious comorbidities.

We object to the arbitrary, unfounded and unconstitutional proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.


Comment #6

ABC,

We object to the proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

Procedurally, the ABC is tasked with regulating the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, attempting to force compliance with arbitrary unconstitutional, so-called government health and safety orders is unconstitutional, unsupported by science, facts, evidence, or law.

Numerous mayors, city councils and law-enforcement agencies throughout the State have recognized that these orders are not laws, regulations or even rules and have not gone through the checks and balances of any legislative or regulatory process and they have properly refused to enforce them against their citizens and their already struggling restaurants/small businesses.

As the California Health and Human Services Secretary, Dr. Mark Ghaly, has admitted, “the current safety orders issued against restaurants, are not a comment on the relative safety of outdoor dining…the decision to include among other sectors outdoor dining and limiting that to restaurants to deliver and provide takeout options, instead really has to do with the goal of trying to keep people home…”

San Diego Department of Health and Safety Officer Dr. Wilma Whooten has testified “penalizing sectors like restaurants and gyms for the case increase is wrong…closure of indoor restaurants during winter time will move people into homes and encourage high-risk gatherings…”. So both have admitted that there is no science, foundation or law, behind these unconstitutional orders, as misdirected at restaurants, salons and gyms.

The foundational basis for the proposed rule is that “ABC Licensees… are allegedly “disregarding the orders from local officials and are thereby harming the public health, safety, and welfare.” However this statement is specious and speculative. As a matter of fact, evidence and contact tracing there no actual foundation that restaurants staying open/serving of alcohol is contributing to the spread of the virus. There is significant and overwhelming evidence restaurants are exercising appropriate safety protocols and there is no identifiable outbreak in the state they can be traced back to a restaurant or a restaurant visit.

Allowing ABC officers emergency revocation powers can only be abused. More importantly, emergency revocation powers are contrary to the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows due process prior to the government taking away constitutional rights/property.

There are significant medical scientific and political questions that surround this virus infections and deaths almost all of which are due to additional serious comorbidities.

We object to the arbitrary, unfounded and unconstitutional proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.


Comment #7

Attention: Law and Policy Unit

January 10, 2021

To Whom It May Concern:

I object to the proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

Procedurally, the ABC is tasked with regulating the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. Attempting to force compliance with arbitrary unconstitutional, so-called government health and safety orders is unconstitutional, unsupported by science, facts, evidence, or law.

Numerous mayors, city councils, and law enforcement agencies throughout California have recognized that these orders are not laws, regulations or even rules that have gone through the checks and balances of any legislative or regulatory process, and they have properly refused to enforce them against their citizens and their already struggling restaurants/small businesses.

As the California Health and Human Services Secretary, Dr. Mark Ghaly, has admitted, “the current safety orders issued against restaurants, are not a comment on the relative safety of outdoor dining…the decision to include among other sectors outdoor dining and limiting that to restaurants to deliver and provide takeout options, instead really has to do with the goal of trying to keep people home…”.

San Diego Department of Health and Safety Officer Dr. Wilma Whooten has testified that “penalizing sectors like restaurants and gyms for the case increase is wrong…closure of indoor restaurants during winter time will move people into homes and encourage high-risk gatherings…”. So both have admitted that there is no science, foundation, or law behind these unconstitutional orders, as misdirected at restaurants, salons and gyms.

The foundational basis for the proposed rule is that “ABC Licensees… are [allegedly] disregarding the orders from local officials and are thereby harming the public health, safety, and welfare.” However, this statement is specious and speculative. As a matter of fact, evidence, and contact tracing, there is no actual foundation that restaurants staying open/serving of alcohol is contributing to the spread of the virus. There is significant and overwhelming evidence that restaurants are exercising appropriate safety protocols and there is no identifiable outbreak in the state that can be traced back to a restaurant or a restaurant visit.

Allowing ABC officers emergency revocation powers can only be abused. More importantly, emergency revocation powers are contrary to the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution, which affords due process prior to the government taking away constitutional rights/protections/property.

There are significant medical, scientific, and political questions that surround COVID-19 infections and deaths, almost all of which are due to additional serious comorbidities.

We object to the arbitrary, unfounded and unconstitutional proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.


Comment #8

ABC,

We object to the proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

Procedurally, the ABC is tasked with regulating the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, attempting to force compliance with arbitrary unconstitutional, so-called government health and safety orders is unconstitutional, unsupported by science, facts, evidence, or law.

Numerous mayors, city councils and law-enforcement agencies throughout the State have recognized that these orders are not laws, regulations or even rules and have not gone through the checks and balances of any legislative or regulatory process and they have properly refused to enforce them against their citizens and their already struggling restaurants/small businesses.

As the California Health and Human Services Secretary, Dr. Mark Ghaly, has admitted, “the current safety orders issued against restaurants, are not a comment on the relative safety of outdoor dining…the decision to include among other sectors outdoor dining and limiting that to restaurants to deliver and provide takeout options, instead really has to do with the goal of trying to keep people home…”

San Diego Department of Health and Safety Officer Dr. Wilma Whooten has testified “penalizing sectors like restaurants and gyms for the case increase is wrong…closure of indoor restaurants during winter time will move people into homes and encourage high-risk gatherings…”. So both have admitted that there is no science, foundation or law, behind these unconstitutional orders, as misdirected at restaurants, salons and gyms.

The foundational basis for the proposed rule is that “ABC Licensees… are allegedly “disregarding the orders from local officials and are thereby harming the public health, safety, and welfare.” However this statement is specious and speculative. As a matter of fact, evidence and contact tracing there no actual foundation that restaurants staying open/serving of alcohol is contributing to the spread of the virus. There is significant and overwhelming evidence restaurants are exercising appropriate safety protocols and there is no identifiable outbreak in the state they can be traced back to a restaurant or a restaurant visit.

Allowing ABC officers emergency revocation powers can only be abused. More importantly, emergency revocation powers are contrary to the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows due process prior to the government taking away constitutional rights/property.

There are significant medical scientific and political questions that surround this virus infections and deaths almost all of which are due to additional serious comorbidities.

We object to the arbitrary, unfounded and unconstitutional proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.


Comment #9

ABC,

We object to the proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

Procedurally, the ABC is tasked with regulating the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, attempting to force compliance with arbitrary unconstitutional, so-called government health and safety orders is unconstitutional, unsupported by science, facts, evidence, or law.

Numerous mayors, city councils and law-enforcement agencies throughout the State have recognized that these orders are not laws, regulations or even rules and have not gone through the checks and balances of any legislative or regulatory process and they have properly refused to enforce them against their citizens and their already struggling restaurants/small businesses.

As the California Health and Human Services Secretary, Dr. Mark Ghaly, has admitted, “the current safety orders issued against restaurants, are not a comment on the relative safety of outdoor dining…the decision to include among other sectors outdoor dining and limiting that to restaurants to deliver and provide takeout options, instead really has to do with the goal of trying to keep people home…”

San Diego Department of Health and Safety Officer Dr. Wilma Whooten has testified “penalizing sectors like restaurants and gyms for the case increase is wrong…closure of indoor restaurants during winter time will move people into homes and encourage high-risk gatherings…”. So both have admitted that there is no science, foundation or law, behind these unconstitutional orders, as misdirected at restaurants, salons and gyms.

The foundational basis for the proposed rule is that “ABC Licensees… are allegedly “disregarding the orders from local officials and are thereby harming the public health, safety, and welfare.” However this statement is specious and speculative. As a matter of fact, evidence and contact tracing there no actual foundation that restaurants staying open/serving of alcohol is contributing to the spread of the virus. There is significant and overwhelming evidence restaurants are exercising appropriate safety protocols and there is no identifiable outbreak in the state they can be traced back to a restaurant or a restaurant visit.

Allowing ABC officers emergency revocation powers can only be abused. More importantly, emergency revocation powers are contrary to the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows due process prior to the government taking away constitutional rights/property.

There are significant medical scientific and political questions that surround this virus infections and deaths almost all of which are due to additional serious comorbidities.
We object to the arbitrary, unfounded and unconstitutional proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.


Comment #10

To Whom It May Concern:

The proposed emergency rule is in violation of your 14th amendment constitutional rights of due process and right to a hearing on the merits of any charging allegation against your ABC license. Also, business are barely surviving during this pandemic. The study indicates a small percentage of the community outbreaks is from the restaurant and bar businesses.

My husband’s friend lost a bar and had to close it permanently. They were forced to sale their house. Is this what the state wants? Close all small businesses? We hope this proposed emergency rule does not pass.

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.


Comment #11

To whom it may concern :

Thank you for reopening the comment period regarding the proposed ABC emergency regulation. Potentially allows revoking ABC licenses without due process, with out notice opportunity to be heard/hearing.

The proposed changes to code regulations title 4, sections 147

are Arbitrary Unconstitutional and the so called government health and safety orders

IS unconstitutional , unsupported by science, facts and evidence , or law.

Emergency revocation powers are contrary to the 14 amendment to the

United States Constitution !

witch allows due process prior to the government taking away constitutional rights / property.

I object to the arbitrary , unfounded and unconstitutional proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4 , section 147.

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.


Comment #12

To whom it concerns,

I object to the proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

As a healthcare worker, I do not see how expanding these powers will have any net positive effect on the current Covid crisis. I do however believe allowing ABC officers emergency revocation powers is contrary to the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution, which allows due process prior to the government taking away constitutional rights/property.

I believe this expansion of emergency powers under the proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147 to be arbitrary, unfounded, and unconstitutional.

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.


Comment #13

ABC,

I object to the proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

Procedurally, the ABC is tasked with regulating the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, attempting to force compliance with arbitrary unconstitutional, so-called government health and safety orders is unconstitutional, unsupported by science, facts, evidence, or law.

Numerous mayors, city councils and law-enforcement agencies throughout the State have recognized that these orders are not laws, regulations or even rules and have not gone through the checks and balances of any legislative or regulatory process and they have properly refused to enforce them against their citizens and their already struggling restaurants/small businesses.

As the California Health and Human Services Secretary, Dr. Mark Ghaly, has admitted, “the current safety orders issued against restaurants, are not a comment on the relative safety of outdoor dining…the decision to include among other sectors outdoor dining and limiting that to restaurants to deliver and provide takeout options, instead really has to do with the goal of trying to keep people home…”

San Diego Department of Health and Safety Officer Dr. Wilma Whooten has testified “penalizing sectors like restaurants and gyms for the case increase is wrong…closure of indoor restaurants during winter time will move people into homes and encourage high-risk gatherings…”. So both have admitted that there is no science, foundation or law, behind these unconstitutional orders, as misdirected at restaurants, salons and gyms.

The foundational basis for the proposed rule is that “ABC Licensees… are allegedly “disregarding the orders from local officials and are thereby harming the public health, safety, and welfare.” However this statement is specious and speculative. As a matter of fact, evidence and contact tracing there no actual foundation that restaurants staying open/serving of alcohol is contributing to the spread of the virus. There is significant and overwhelming evidence restaurants are exercising appropriate safety protocols and there is no identifiable outbreak in the state they can be traced back to a restaurant or a restaurant visit.

Allowing ABC officers emergency revocation powers can only be abused. More importantly, emergency revocation powers are contrary to the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows due process prior to the government taking away constitutional rights/property.

There are significant medical scientific and political questions that surround this virus infections and deaths almost all of which are due to additional serious comorbidities.

We object to the arbitrary, unfounded and unconstitutional proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.


Comment #14

ABC,

We object to the proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

Procedurally, the ABC is tasked with regulating the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, attempting to force compliance with arbitrary unconstitutional, so-called government health and safety orders is unconstitutional, unsupported by science, facts, evidence, or law.

Numerous mayors, city councils and law-enforcement agencies throughout the State have recognized that these orders are not laws, regulations or even rules and have not gone through the checks and balances of any legislative or regulatory process and they have properly refused to enforce them against their citizens and their already struggling restaurants/small businesses.

As the California Health and Human Services Secretary, Dr. Mark Ghaly, has admitted, “the current safety orders issued against restaurants, are not a comment on the relative safety of outdoor dining…the decision to include among other sectors outdoor dining and limiting that to restaurants to deliver and provide takeout options, instead really has to do with the goal of trying to keep people home…”

San Diego Department of Health and Safety Officer Dr. Wilma Whooten has testified “penalizing sectors like restaurants and gyms for the case increase is wrong…closure of indoor restaurants during winter time will move people into homes and encourage high-risk gatherings…”. So both have admitted that there is no science, foundation or law, behind these unconstitutional orders, as misdirected at restaurants, salons and gyms.

The foundational basis for the proposed rule is that “ABC Licensees… are allegedly “disregarding the orders from local officials and are thereby harming the public health, safety, and welfare.” However this statement is specious and speculative. As a matter of fact, evidence and contact tracing there no actual foundation that restaurants staying open/serving of alcohol is contributing to the spread of the virus. There is significant and overwhelming evidence restaurants are exercising appropriate safety protocols and there is no identifiable outbreak in the state they can be traced back to a restaurant or a restaurant visit.

Allowing ABC officers emergency revocation powers can only be abused. More importantly, emergency revocation powers are contrary to the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows due process prior to the government taking away constitutional rights/property.

There are significant medical scientific and political questions that surround this virus infections and deaths almost all of which are due to additional serious comorbidities.

We object to the arbitrary, unfounded and unconstitutional proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.


Comment #15

ABC,

We object to the proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

Procedurally, the ABC is tasked with regulating the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, attempting to force compliance with arbitrary unconstitutional, so-called government health and safety orders is unconstitutional, unsupported by science, facts, evidence, or law.

Numerous mayors, city councils and law-enforcement agencies throughout the State have recognized that these orders are not laws, regulations or even rules and have not gone through the checks and balances of any legislative or regulatory process and they have properly refused to enforce them against their citizens and their already struggling restaurants/small businesses.

As the California Health and Human Services Secretary, Dr. Mark Ghaly, has admitted, “the current safety orders issued against restaurants, are not a comment on the relative safety of outdoor dining…the decision to include among other sectors outdoor dining and limiting that to restaurants to deliver and provide takeout options, instead really has to do with the goal of trying to keep people home…”

San Diego Department of Health and Safety Officer Dr. Wilma Whooten has testified “penalizing sectors like restaurants and gyms for the case increase is wrong…closure of indoor restaurants during winter time will move people into homes and encourage high-risk gatherings…”. So both have admitted that there is no science, foundation or law, behind these unconstitutional orders, as misdirected at restaurants, salons and gyms.

The foundational basis for the proposed rule is that “ABC Licensees… are allegedly “disregarding the orders from local officials and are thereby harming the public health, safety, and welfare.” However this statement is specious and speculative. As a matter of fact, evidence and contact tracing there no actual foundation that restaurants staying open/serving of alcohol is contributing to the spread of the virus. There is significant and overwhelming evidence restaurants are exercising appropriate safety protocols and there is no identifiable outbreak in the state they can be traced back to a restaurant or a restaurant visit.

Allowing ABC officers emergency revocation powers can only be abused. More importantly, emergency revocation powers are contrary to the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows due process prior to the government taking away constitutional rights/property.

There are significant medical scientific and political questions that surround this virus infections and deaths almost all of which are due to additional serious comorbidities.

We object to the arbitrary, unfounded and unconstitutional proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.


Comment #16

ABC,

We object to the proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

Procedurally, the ABC is tasked with regulating the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, attempting to force compliance with arbitrary unconstitutional, so-called government health and safety orders is unconstitutional, unsupported by science, facts, evidence, or law.

Numerous mayors, city councils and law-enforcement agencies throughout the State have recognized that these orders are not laws, regulations or even rules and have not gone through the checks and balances of any legislative or regulatory process and they have properly refused to enforce them against their citizens and their already struggling restaurants/small businesses.

As the California Health and Human Services Secretary, Dr. Mark Ghaly, has admitted, “the current safety orders issued against restaurants, are not a comment on the relative safety of outdoor dining…the decision to include among other sectors outdoor dining and limiting that to restaurants to deliver and provide takeout options, instead really has to do with the goal of trying to keep people home…”

San Diego Department of Health and Safety Officer Dr. Wilma Whooten has testified “penalizing sectors like restaurants and gyms for the case increase is wrong…closure of indoor restaurants during winter time will move people into homes and encourage high-risk gatherings…”. So both have admitted that there is no science, foundation or law, behind these unconstitutional orders, as misdirected at restaurants, salons and gyms.

The foundational basis for the proposed rule is that “ABC Licensees… are allegedly “disregarding the orders from local officials and are thereby harming the public health, safety, and welfare.” However this statement is specious and speculative. As a matter of fact, evidence and contact tracing there no actual foundation that restaurants staying open/serving of alcohol is contributing to the spread of the virus. There is significant and overwhelming evidence restaurants are exercising appropriate safety protocols and there is no identifiable outbreak in the state they can be traced back to a restaurant or a restaurant visit.

Allowing ABC officers emergency revocation powers can only be abused. More importantly, emergency revocation powers are contrary to the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows due process prior to the government taking away constitutional rights/property.

There are significant medical scientific and political questions that surround this virus infections and deaths almost all of which are due to additional serious comorbidities.

We object to the arbitrary, unfounded and unconstitutional proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.


Comment #17

ABC,

We object to the proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

Procedurally, the ABC is tasked with regulating the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, attempting to force compliance with arbitrary unconstitutional, so-called government health and safety orders is unconstitutional, unsupported by science, facts, evidence, or law.

Numerous mayors, city councils and law-enforcement agencies throughout the State have recognized that these orders are not laws, regulations or even rules and have not gone through the checks and balances of any legislative or regulatory process and they have properly refused to enforce them against their citizens and their already struggling restaurants/small businesses.

As the California Health and Human Services Secretary, Dr. Mark Ghaly, has admitted, “the current safety orders issued against restaurants, are not a comment on the relative safety of outdoor dining…the decision to include among other sectors outdoor dining and limiting that to restaurants to deliver and provide takeout options, instead really has to do with the goal of trying to keep people home…”

San Diego Department of Health and Safety Officer Dr. Wilma Whooten has testified “penalizing sectors like restaurants and gyms for the case increase is wrong…closure of indoor restaurants during winter time will move people into homes and encourage high-risk gatherings…”. So both have admitted that there is no science, foundation or law, behind these unconstitutional orders, as misdirected at restaurants, salons and gyms.

The foundational basis for the proposed rule is that “ABC Licensees… are allegedly “disregarding the orders from local officials and are thereby harming the public health, safety, and welfare.” However this statement is specious and speculative. As a matter of fact, evidence and contact tracing there no actual foundation that restaurants staying open/serving of alcohol is contributing to the spread of the virus. There is significant and overwhelming evidence restaurants are exercising appropriate safety protocols and there is no identifiable outbreak in the state they can be traced back to a restaurant or a restaurant visit.

Allowing ABC officers emergency revocation powers can only be abused. More importantly, emergency revocation powers are contrary to the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows due process prior to the government taking away constitutional rights/property.

There are significant medical scientific and political questions that surround this virus infections and deaths almost all of which are due to additional serious comorbidities.

We object to the arbitrary, unfounded and unconstitutional proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.


Comment #18

Although the latest memo from the ABC is mostly bureaucratic, the proposed ABC emergency regulation potentially allows revoking ABC licenses without due process, without notice opportunity to be heard/hearing, has been amended, and the comment period has been reopened.

I urge you, and every alcohol serving restaurant, bar, winery and all of the patrons who you can email directly that you know, to submit your opposition, as the proposed emergency rule is in violation of your 14th amendment constitutional rights of due process and right to a hearing on the merits of any charging allegation against your ABC license. If this proposed emergency language becomes law, it would be contrary to all constitutional protections and would undermine our constitutional protected peaceful protest in remaining open.

You must oppose, do it now, we have prepared a cut and paste objection for your use.

ABC,

We object to the proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

Procedurally, the ABC is tasked with regulating the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, attempting to force compliance with arbitrary unconstitutional, so-called government health and safety orders is unconstitutional, unsupported by science, facts, evidence, or law.

Numerous mayors, city councils and law-enforcement agencies throughout the State have recognized that these orders are not laws, regulations or even rules and have not gone through the checks and balances of any legislative or regulatory process and they have properly refused to enforce them against their citizens and their already struggling restaurants/small businesses.

As the California Health and Human Services Secretary, Dr. Mark Ghaly, has admitted, “the current safety orders issued against restaurants, are not a comment on the relative safety of outdoor dining…the decision to include among other sectors outdoor dining and limiting that to restaurants to deliver and provide takeout options, instead really has to do with the goal of trying to keep people home…”

San Diego Department of Health and Safety Officer Dr. Wilma Whooten has testified “penalizing sectors like restaurants and gyms for the case increase is wrong…closure of indoor restaurants during winter time will move people into homes and encourage high-risk gatherings…”. So both have admitted that there is no science, foundation or law, behind these unconstitutional orders, as misdirected at restaurants, salons and gyms.

The foundational basis for the proposed rule is that “ABC Licensees… are allegedly “disregarding the orders from local officials and are thereby harming the public health, safety, and welfare.” However this statement is specious and speculative. As a matter of fact, evidence and contact tracing there no actual foundation that restaurants staying open/serving of alcohol is contributing to the spread of the virus. There is significant and overwhelming evidence restaurants are exercising appropriate safety protocols and there is no identifiable outbreak in the state they can be traced back to a restaurant or a restaurant visit.

Allowing ABC officers emergency revocation powers can only be abused. More importantly, emergency revocation powers are contrary to the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows due process prior to the government taking away constitutional rights/property.

There are significant medical scientific and political questions that surround this virus infections and deaths almost all of which are due to additional serious comorbidities.

We object to the arbitrary, unfounded and unconstitutional proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.


Comment #19

ABC,

We object to the proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

Procedurally, the ABC is tasked with regulating the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, attempting to force compliance with arbitrary unconstitutional, so-called government health and safety orders is unconstitutional, unsupported by science, facts, evidence, or law.

Numerous mayors, city councils and law-enforcement agencies throughout the State have recognized that these orders are not laws, regulations or even rules and have not gone through the checks and balances of any legislative or regulatory process and they have properly refused to enforce them against their citizens and their already struggling restaurants/small businesses.

As the California Health and Human Services Secretary, Dr. Mark Ghaly, has admitted, “the current safety orders issued against restaurants, are not a comment on the relative safety of outdoor dining…the decision to include among other sectors outdoor dining and limiting that to restaurants to deliver and provide takeout options, instead really has to do with the goal of trying to keep people home…”

San Diego Department of Health and Safety Officer Dr. Wilma Whooten has testified “penalizing sectors like restaurants and gyms for the case increase is wrong…closure of indoor restaurants during winter time will move people into homes and encourage high-risk gatherings…”. So both have admitted that there is no science, foundation or law, behind these unconstitutional orders, as misdirected at restaurants, salons and gyms.

The foundational basis for the proposed rule is that “ABC Licensees… are allegedly “disregarding the orders from local officials and are thereby harming the public health, safety, and welfare.” However this statement is specious and speculative. As a matter of fact, evidence and contact tracing there no actual foundation that restaurants staying open/serving of alcohol is contributing to the spread of the virus. There is significant and overwhelming evidence restaurants are exercising appropriate safety protocols and there is no identifiable outbreak in the state they can be traced back to a restaurant or a restaurant visit.

Allowing ABC officers emergency revocation powers can only be abused. More importantly, emergency revocation powers are contrary to the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows due process prior to the government taking away constitutional rights/property.

There are significant medical scientific and political questions that surround this virus infections and deaths almost all of which are due to additional serious comorbidities.

We object to the arbitrary, unfounded and unconstitutional proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.


Comment #20

We object to the proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

Procedurally, the ABC is tasked with regulating the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, attempting to force compliance with arbitrary unconstitutional, so-called government health and safety orders is unconstitutional, unsupported by science, facts, evidence, or law.

Numerous mayors, city councils and law-enforcement agencies throughout the State have recognized that these orders are not laws, regulations or even rules and have not gone through no the checks and balances of any legislative or regulatory process and they have properly refused to enforce them against their citizens and their already struggling restaurants/small businesses.

As the California Health and Human Services Secretary, Dr. Mark Ghaly, has admitted, “the current safety orders issued against restaurants, are not a comment on the relative safety of outdoor dining…the decision to include among other sectors outdoor dining and limiting that to restaurants to deliver and provide takeout options, instead really has to do with the goal of trying to keep people home…”

San Diego Department of Health and Safety Officer Dr. Wilma Whooten has testified “penalizing sectors like restaurants and gyms for the case increase is wrong…closure of indoor restaurants during winter time will move people into homes and encourage high-risk gatherings…”. So both have admitted that there is no science, foundation or law, behind these unconstitutional orders, as misdirected at restaurants, salons and gyms.

The foundational basis for the proposed rule is that “ABC Licensees… are allegedly “disregarding the orders from local officials and are thereby harming the public health, safety, and welfare.” However this statement is specious and speculative. As a matter of fact, evidence and contact tracing there no actual foundation that restaurants staying open/serving of alcohol is contributing to the spread of the virus. There is significant and overwhelming evidence restaurants are exercising appropriate safety protocols and there is no identifiable outbreak in the state they can be traced back to a restaurant or a restaurant visit.

Allowing ABC officers emergency revocation powers can only be abused. More importantly, emergency revocation powers are contrary to the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows due process prior to the government taking away constitutional rights/property. Asking away constitutional rights/property.

There are significant medical scientific and political questions that surround this virus infections and deaths almost all of which are due to additional serious comorbidities.

We object to the arbitrary, unfounded and unconstitutional proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.


Comment #21

ABC,

We object to the proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

Procedurally, the ABC is tasked with regulating the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, attempting to force compliance with arbitrary unconstitutional, so-called government health and safety orders is unconstitutional, unsupported by science, facts, evidence, or law.

Numerous mayors, city councils and law-enforcement agencies throughout the State have recognized that these orders are not laws, regulations or even rules and have not gone through the checks and balances of any legislative or regulatory process and they have properly refused to enforce them against their citizens and their already struggling restaurants/small businesses.

As the California Health and Human Services Secretary, Dr. Mark Ghaly, has admitted, “the current safety orders issued against restaurants, are not a comment on the relative safety of outdoor dining…the decision to include among other sectors outdoor dining and limiting that to restaurants to deliver and provide takeout options, instead really has to do with the goal of trying to keep people home…”

San Diego Department of Health and Safety Officer Dr. Wilma Whooten has testified “penalizing sectors like restaurants and gyms for the case increase is wrong…closure of indoor restaurants during winter time will move people into homes and encourage high-risk gatherings…”. So both have admitted that there is no science, foundation or law, behind these unconstitutional orders, as misdirected at restaurants, salons and gyms.

The foundational basis for the proposed rule is that “ABC Licensees… are allegedly “disregarding the orders from local officials and are thereby harming the public health, safety, and welfare.” However this statement is specious and speculative. As a matter of fact, evidence and contact tracing there no actual foundation that restaurants staying open/serving of alcohol is contributing to the spread of the virus. There is significant and overwhelming evidence restaurants are exercising appropriate safety protocols and there is no identifiable outbreak in the state they can be traced back to a restaurant or a restaurant visit.

Allowing ABC officers emergency revocation powers can only be abused. More importantly, emergency revocation powers are contrary to the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows due process prior to the government taking away constitutional rights/property.

There are significant medical scientific and political questions that surround this virus infections and deaths almost all of which are due to additional serious comorbidities.

We object to the arbitrary, unfounded and unconstitutional proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.


Comment #22

ABC,

We object to the proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

Procedurally, the ABC is tasked with regulating the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, attempting to force compliance with arbitrary unconstitutional, so-called government health and safety orders is unconstitutional, unsupported by science, facts, evidence, or law.

Numerous mayors, city councils and law-enforcement agencies throughout the State have recognized that these orders are not laws, regulations or even rules and have not gone through the checks and balances of any legislative or regulatory process and they have properly refused to enforce them against their citizens and their already struggling restaurants/small businesses.

As the California Health and Human Services Secretary, Dr. Mark Ghaly, has admitted, “the current safety orders issued against restaurants, are not a comment on the relative safety of outdoor dining…the decision to include among other sectors outdoor dining and limiting that to restaurants to deliver and provide takeout options, instead really has to do with the goal of trying to keep people home…”

San Diego Department of Health and Safety Officer Dr. Wilma Whooten has testified “penalizing sectors like restaurants and gyms for the case increase is wrong…closure of indoor restaurants during winter time will move people into homes and encourage high-risk gatherings…”. So both have admitted that there is no science, foundation or law, behind these unconstitutional orders, as misdirected at restaurants, salons and gyms.

The foundational basis for the proposed rule is that “ABC Licensees…
are allegedly “disregarding the orders from local officials and are thereby harming the public health, safety, and welfare.” However this statement is specious and speculative. As a matter of fact, evidence and contact tracing there no actual foundation that restaurants staying open/serving of alcohol is contributing to the spread of the virus.
There is significant and overwhelming evidence restaurants are exercising appropriate safety protocols and there is no identifiable outbreak in the state they can be traced back to a restaurant or a restaurant visit.

Allowing ABC officers emergency revocation powers can only be abused.
More importantly, emergency revocation powers are contrary to the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows due process prior to the government taking away constitutional rights/property.

There are significant medical scientific and political questions that surround this virus infections and deaths almost all of which are due to additional serious comorbidities.

We object to the arbitrary, unfounded and unconstitutional proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.


Comment #23

We object to the proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

Procedurally, the ABC is tasked with regulating the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, attempting to force compliance with arbitrary unconstitutional, so-called government health and safety orders is unconstitutional, unsupported by science, facts, evidence, or law.

Numerous mayors, city councils and law-enforcement agencies throughout the State have recognized that these orders are not laws, regulations or even rules and have not gone through the checks and balances of any legislative or regulatory process and they have properly refused to enforce them against their citizens and their already struggling restaurants/small businesses.

As the California Health and Human Services Secretary, Dr. Mark Ghaly, has admitted, “the current safety orders issued against restaurants, are not a comment on the relative safety of outdoor dining…the decision to include among other sectors outdoor dining and limiting that to restaurants to deliver and provide takeout options, instead really has to do with the goal of trying to keep people home…”

San Diego Department of Health and Safety Officer Dr. Wilma Whooten has testified “penalizing sectors like restaurants and gyms for the case increase is wrong…closure of indoor restaurants during winter time will move people into homes and encourage high-risk gatherings…”. So both have admitted that there is no science, foundation or law, behind these unconstitutional orders, as misdirected at restaurants, salons and gyms.

The foundational basis for the proposed rule is that “ABC Licensees… are allegedly “disregarding the orders from local officials and are thereby harming the public health, safety, and welfare.” However this statement is specious and speculative. As a matter of fact, evidence and contact tracing there no actual foundation that restaurants staying open/serving of alcohol is contributing to the spread of the virus. There is significant and overwhelming evidence restaurants are exercising appropriate safety protocols and there is no identifiable outbreak in the state they can be traced back to a restaurant or a restaurant visit.

Allowing ABC officers emergency revocation powers can only be abused. More importantly, emergency revocation powers are contrary to the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows due process prior to the government taking away constitutional rights/property.

There are significant medical scientific and political questions that surround this virus infections and deaths almost all of which are due to additional serious comorbidities.

We object to the arbitrary, unfounded and unconstitutional proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.


Comment #24

Although the latest memo from the ABC is mostly bureaucratic, the proposed ABC emergency regulation potentially allows revoking ABC licenses without due process, without notice opportunity to be heard/hearing, has been amended, and the comment period has been reopened.

I urge you, and every alcohol serving restaurant, bar, winery and all of the patrons who you can email directly that you know, to submit your opposition, as the proposed emergency rule is in violation of your 14th amendment constitutional rights of due process and right to a hearing on the merits of any charging allegation against your ABC license.

If this proposed emergency language becomes law, it would be contrary to all constitutional protections and would undermine our constitutional protected peaceful protest in remaining open.

You must oppose, do it now, we have prepared a cut and paste objection for your use.

ABC,

We object to the proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.
Procedurally, the ABC is tasked with regulating the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, attempting to force compliance with arbitrary unconstitutional, so-called government health and safety orders is unconstitutional, unsupported by science, facts, evidence, or law.

Numerous mayors, city councils and law-enforcement agencies throughout the State have recognized that these orders are not laws, regulations or even rules and have not gone through the checks and balances of any legislative or regulatory process and they have properly refused to enforce them against their citizens and their already struggling restaurants/small businesses.

As the California Health and Human Services Secretary, Dr. Mark Ghaly, has admitted, “the current safety orders issued against restaurants, are not a comment on the relative safety of outdoor dining…the decision to include among other sectors outdoor dining and limiting that to restaurants to deliver and provide takeout options, instead really has to do with the goal of trying to keep people home…”

San Diego Department of Health and Safety Officer Dr. Wilma Whooten has testified “penalizing sectors like restaurants and gyms for the case increase is wrong…closure of indoor restaurants during winter time will move people into homes and encourage high-risk gatherings…”. So both have admitted that there is no science, foundation or law, behind these unconstitutional orders, as misdirected at restaurants, salons and gyms.

The foundational basis for the proposed rule is that “ABC Licensees… are allegedly “disregarding the orders from local officials and are thereby harming the public health, safety, and welfare.” However this statement is specious and speculative. As a matter of fact, evidence and contact tracing there no actual foundation that restaurants staying open/serving of alcohol is contributing to the spread of the virus. There is significant and overwhelming evidence restaurants are exercising appropriate safety protocols and there is no identifiable outbreak in the state they can be traced back to a restaurant or a restaurant visit.

Allowing ABC officers emergency revocation powers can only be abused. More importantly, emergency revocation powers are contrary to the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows due process prior to the government taking away constitutional rights/property.

There are significant medical scientific and political questions that surround this virus infections and deaths almost all of which are due to additional serious comorbidities.

We object to the arbitrary, unfounded and unconstitutional proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.


Comment #25

ABC,

We object to the proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

Procedurally, the ABC is tasked with regulating the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, attempting to force compliance with arbitrary unconstitutional, so-called government health and safety orders is unconstitutional, unsupported by science, facts, evidence, or law.

Numerous mayors, city councils and law-enforcement agencies throughout the State have recognized that these orders are not laws, regulations or even rules and have not gone through the checks and balances of any legislative or regulatory process and they have properly refused to enforce them against their citizens and their already struggling restaurants/small businesses.
As the California Health and Human Services Secretary, Dr. Mark Ghaly, has admitted, “the current safety orders issued against restaurants, are not a comment on the relative safety of outdoor dining…the decision to include among other sectors outdoor dining and limiting that to restaurants to deliver and provide takeout options, instead really has to do with the goal of trying to keep people home…”

San Diego Department of Health and Safety Officer Dr. Wilma Whooten has testified “penalizing sectors like restaurants and gyms for the case increase is wrong…closure of indoor restaurants during winter time will move people into homes and encourage high-risk gatherings…”. So both have admitted that there is no science, foundation or law, behind these unconstitutional orders, as misdirected at restaurants, salons and gyms.

The foundational basis for the proposed rule is that “ABC Licensees… are allegedly “disregarding the orders from local officials and are thereby harming the public health, safety, and welfare.” However this statement is specious and speculative. As a matter of fact, evidence and contact tracing there no actual foundation that restaurants staying open/serving of alcohol is contributing to the spread of the virus. There is significant and overwhelming evidence restaurants are exercising appropriate safety protocols and there is no identifiable outbreak in the state they can be traced back to a restaurant or a restaurant visit.

Allowing ABC officers emergency revocation powers can only be abused. More importantly, emergency revocation powers are contrary to the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows due process prior to the government taking away constitutional rights/property.

There are significant medical scientific and political questions that surround this virus infections and deaths almost all of which are due to additional serious comorbidities.

We object to the arbitrary, unfounded and unconstitutional proposed text of California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 147.

ABC Response

Comments will be addressed at the end of the comment period.