For ReaganClinton's reference, here are the concerns I voiced in the other thread.
I'm going to drop in here to make a few comments, because this amendment is, after all, a product of the story that I ran last night. I think that a curfew like this in real life would have decidedly negative consequences, considering four things: 1) the 4-month duration; 2) the removal of the option for local governments to disregard the curfew; 3) the rather early 9:00 start of the curfew; 4) the lack of a traditional riot situation, which is usually what such curfews are designed to respond to.
According to this article, a weeklong curfew between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. in Baltimore during the riots caused business at some bars to drop by 95%. This would also affect employees of any businesses that are open 24 hours, as these businesses will be forced to close early.
Also, I don't understand this portion of the Act:
So, a person under the age of 18 may be in a public place without a parent or guardian if they are engaging in a lawful activity (or, under an alternative interpretation of the bold section, on the way home from a lawful activity)? The combination of the 'parent and guardian' exception and the 'lawful activity' exception doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
