Not true. Both of you. The law says that the license must be to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on such property.
Furthermore, federal law requires a license to ship or receive explosives in interstate commerce.
True, but the state law not only says that you must have the license, but that it must be for the purpose of engaging in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on your exempt property.
The law doesn't say that you must simply have a license, but it specifies the purpose for which you must have it. Sure, Disney's lawyers lobbied for the change, but the Senators who voted for it have said that they never intended for it to be used to exempt a theme park. Whether the court will see it that way remains to be determined. To say it is a slam dunk is to fail to understand how laws are challenged. It is not up to Mr Sotomeyer to prove the law applies to Disney, it is up to Disney to prove that they are exempt.
Rep Mayfield, who wrote the bill, said: "The legislation was not intended to exempt Disney or other theme parks, Disney is just exploiting a loophole. The purpose of that exemption is for military contractors that are handling explosives or radioactive material or that sort of situation.”
Not allowing the search is also immaterial, the law states that you may not take any action against an employee for refusing a search of your vehicle.
Exhibiting fireworks for a fee does not mean you are selling them any more than selling tickets to a football game means you are selling football players.
don't you people even read the law before you develop an opinion?