Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Ban on guns in places that sell alcohol ... struck down.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150

    Ban on guns in places that sell alcohol ... struck down.

    Monday’s Taylor v. City of Baton Rouge (M.D. La. Aug. 25, 2014) grants plaintiffs a declaratory judgment that “§ 13:95.3 unlawfully infringes upon the right of Plaintiff and other citizens to keep and bear firearms, in violation of the Second Amendment.”

    http://ia902301.us.archive.org/11/it...45341.69.0.pdf

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...dment-grounds/
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Scoooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre!

    Inch by inch, step by step ....

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  3. #3
    Regular Member sraacke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saint Gabriel, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,222
    How they will apply this to Open Carry in places where alcohol is sold remains to be seen.
    President/ Founding Member
    Louisiana Open Carry Awareness League
    www.laopencarry.org

  4. #4
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    17 Baton Rouge I Parish of East Baton Rouge Code of Ordinances § 13:95.3 states,

    (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to have in his possession a firearm, or other instrumentality customarily used or intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon, in any premises where alcoholic beverages are sold and/or consumed on the premises except the owner or lessee of the premises, or their employees, sheriffs, ....

    (b) Any sheriff, deputy sheriff, state police, city police, constables, town marshals, or persons vested with police power, may search any person found in any place where alcoholic beverages are sold and/or consumed on the premises, and shall confiscate any firearm or other instrumentality customarily used or intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon which such peace officer may find; this search shall be limited to only weapons, unless there is probable cause for a wider search. Any person who enters a place where alcoholic beverages are sold and/or consumed on the premises does, by the mere fact of entering, consent to a search of his person for any firearm or other instrumentality customarily used or intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon while on said premises, by any sheriff , deputy sheriff, state police, constable, town marshal or persons vested with police power, without a warrant.

    (c) The phrase, "...premises where alcoholic beverages are sold and/or consumed on the premises" shall include all of the licensed premises, including the parking lot.

    ...
    It does not appear to me that OC or CC is addressed, merely possession. There was a lot more wrong with this ordinance than criminalizing possession in your car while in a parking lot. Anyone is subject to search, without warrant, just cuz you stop at a gas station? And you consented to the search just cuz you stop at a gas station? And cops enforced this? That entire PD is a thug outfit, criminals of the highest order, for arresting even one citizen under this ordinance. They knew the law, the wording of the law, and willingly...no, gleefully, subjected a citizen to their jack-boot thuggery. I'll betcha a dollar to a box of doughnuts that no off duty cop would get searched.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    On a default judgment ... hahahaha ... lazy guberment workers.

    And the case reminds me of the need to file for my motion for default against my state where I got a motion for default granted for my civil case charging the state with tampering with evidence.

    And this court got it right ... a default just results in accepting facts & allegations plead as being indisputable. And from those facts the court made a reasonable decision.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •