italianboy
Regular Member
imported post
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Liquor establishment restriction.
- Thread starter Carondalet
- Start date
Louisiana Carry
Regular Member
imported post
Yes, if the statute you were pulling that from was the one that had to do with carrying a weapon.
However, it is not the statute that prohibits weapons, it only deals with giving statutory grounds for unconstitutional searches.
You are merging two different statutes together in your understanding of the situation.
Also, it is hard to read your posts when they are contained within quotes, just an FYI.
Yes, if the statute you were pulling that from was the one that had to do with carrying a weapon.
However, it is not the statute that prohibits weapons, it only deals with giving statutory grounds for unconstitutional searches.
You are merging two different statutes together in your understanding of the situation.
Also, it is hard to read your posts when they are contained within quotes, just an FYI.
italianboy
Regular Member
imported post
italianboy
Regular Member
imported post
La Carry, thanks again for your infinite wisdom! I do see your point clearly, butI have to sometimes quesiton it's just my nature. I'd like to do more research on this and ask around to some of my criminal attorney friends to see what their outtake is on thislaw. I'd be willing to bet there is a loop hole in this based on what I have been told. Then again it as I have read, some people think "they are the law".
We had a situation here at a resturant (one of the ones mentioned in this post), that a couple was walking back to their vehicle after eating at this "major chain resturant" and was robed at knife point.
If that would've been me, I would've raised all kinds of "you know what", because of this debatable law about CC in a resturant which serves alcohol. I know several people who were robbed coming out of a resturant here in town. Well I think it's agreeable that some of the CC laws are stupid, and need not apply to those who legally can carry a firearm but then again if that were not the case we wouldn't likely be here blogging about it now would we?
I guess it just pisses me off how it is dictated when and where we can carry our firearms! Unfortunatley criminals have no rules, which leaves us at a disadvantage in situations like this.
Oh and by the way I am not quoting this board is kind of doing it on its own. This post for example shows that I typed a quote but when I go back in and edit it, there is no quote there. Strange.
La Carry, thanks again for your infinite wisdom! I do see your point clearly, butI have to sometimes quesiton it's just my nature. I'd like to do more research on this and ask around to some of my criminal attorney friends to see what their outtake is on thislaw. I'd be willing to bet there is a loop hole in this based on what I have been told. Then again it as I have read, some people think "they are the law".
We had a situation here at a resturant (one of the ones mentioned in this post), that a couple was walking back to their vehicle after eating at this "major chain resturant" and was robed at knife point.
If that would've been me, I would've raised all kinds of "you know what", because of this debatable law about CC in a resturant which serves alcohol. I know several people who were robbed coming out of a resturant here in town. Well I think it's agreeable that some of the CC laws are stupid, and need not apply to those who legally can carry a firearm but then again if that were not the case we wouldn't likely be here blogging about it now would we?
I guess it just pisses me off how it is dictated when and where we can carry our firearms! Unfortunatley criminals have no rules, which leaves us at a disadvantage in situations like this.
Oh and by the way I am not quoting this board is kind of doing it on its own. This post for example shows that I typed a quote but when I go back in and edit it, there is no quote there. Strange.
Louisiana Carry
Regular Member
imported post
italianboy wrote:
Again, the two statutes are not dependent on each other. Again, the criteria for an "alcoholic beverage outlet" in 95.5 is not the same as it is for 95.4. Each statute contains it's own separate and different definition. If 95.5 did not have it's own definition, then you wold absolutely be right, because it would have to draw it's meaning from other statutes in that part of the Title, but it DOES have it's own definition, so you do not look elsewhere to make it mean something besides what it says.
If you want to conceal carry in a non-Class A establishment, and you are looking for justification in LA law, you can find it, but you are looking in the wrong place.
RS 40:1379.3 (the State CHP statute) implies that you can carry in a non-Class A beverage outlet, by including only Class A establishments in it's list of prohibited places.
[align=justify]Now, it also says:[/align]
[align=justify]And 95.5 is a State law, so you have an ambiguity. There is no case law on this yet, as far as I have been made aware, but this is currently being interpreted in our favor by those who administer the CHP process.[/align]
[align=justify]Look for your reasoning there, rather than transposing definitions, would be my advice. Not trying to tell you what to do, though.[/align]
italianboy wrote:
Again, the two statutes are not dependent on each other. Again, the criteria for an "alcoholic beverage outlet" in 95.5 is not the same as it is for 95.4. Each statute contains it's own separate and different definition. If 95.5 did not have it's own definition, then you wold absolutely be right, because it would have to draw it's meaning from other statutes in that part of the Title, but it DOES have it's own definition, so you do not look elsewhere to make it mean something besides what it says.
If you want to conceal carry in a non-Class A establishment, and you are looking for justification in LA law, you can find it, but you are looking in the wrong place.
RS 40:1379.3 (the State CHP statute) implies that you can carry in a non-Class A beverage outlet, by including only Class A establishments in it's list of prohibited places.
[/align]
[align=justify]Now, it also says:[/align]
[/align]
[align=justify]And 95.5 is a State law, so you have an ambiguity. There is no case law on this yet, as far as I have been made aware, but this is currently being interpreted in our favor by those who administer the CHP process.[/align]
[align=justify]Look for your reasoning there, rather than transposing definitions, would be my advice. Not trying to tell you what to do, though.[/align]
Louisiana Carry
Regular Member
imported post
italianboy wrote:
Agreed.
The only place where a gun free zone is appropriate is in a place where people are better off unsafe, which doesn't make any sense, no matter how you look at it.
italianboy wrote:
Agreed.
The only place where a gun free zone is appropriate is in a place where people are better off unsafe, which doesn't make any sense, no matter how you look at it.
italianboy
Regular Member
imported post
Absolutely La. you are very wise and knowledgeble on this subject as I suspected. andI do not take it as you "telling me what to do"; I take it as wisdom and good advice. So thank you and I appreciate your advice and attention to detail on my post.
I can agree with you that there is alot of ambiguity as with most CC laws and again I do understand your point and advice.And based on the laws to which you refered which I have readalso (many times over),one wouldhave to know if a resturant (in this case) has a Class A permit before you would know if you were breaking the law. As I said I did read thru all of these laws, and yes someare very unclear and vague. Which is why we are here to seek answers to these confusing and sometimes rediculous laws. Right?
I hope (and I am sure) that we will see more laws and debates on this issue.
Absolutely La. you are very wise and knowledgeble on this subject as I suspected. andI do not take it as you "telling me what to do"; I take it as wisdom and good advice. So thank you and I appreciate your advice and attention to detail on my post.
I can agree with you that there is alot of ambiguity as with most CC laws and again I do understand your point and advice.And based on the laws to which you refered which I have readalso (many times over),one wouldhave to know if a resturant (in this case) has a Class A permit before you would know if you were breaking the law. As I said I did read thru all of these laws, and yes someare very unclear and vague. Which is why we are here to seek answers to these confusing and sometimes rediculous laws. Right?
I hope (and I am sure) that we will see more laws and debates on this issue.
Louisiana Carry
Regular Member
imported post
Yep.
Glad to have ya.
Yep.
Glad to have ya.
Caddiemaster
New member
imported post
Hi, I just sent an email to the Concealed Permit division of Louisiana State Police and here is letter and reply.
Re: Concealed Carry question
Back to Messages
From:concealed.handguns@dps.state.la.us
View Contact
Add to Address Book| Block Sender
Full Header
Reply To:
To:jpohlson <jpohlson@juno.com>
Cc:
Bcc:
Sent:Tue, Sep 08, 2009 01:22 PM
DownloadAll|
Thank you for your question. You have come across an area of heated debate for some time. What has been the issue is the statute that you have cited. True, there are many different types of permits that establishments have. However, I will refer you to LRS 14:95.5, which states:
A. No person shall intentionally possess a firearm while on the premises of an alcoholic beverage outlet.
B. "Alcoholic beverage outlet" as used herein means any commercial establishment in which alcoholic beverages of either high or low alcoholic content are sold in individual servings for consumption on the premises, whether or not such sales are a primary or incidental purpose of the business of the establishment.
jpohlson <jpohlson@juno.com>
09/06/2009 11:57 AM
[align=right]To[/align]
concealed_handguns@dps.state.la.us
[align=right]cc[/align]
[align=right]Subject[/align]
Concealed Carry question
Hello, my name is John Pohlson, I have applied for a Concealed Carry permit and was wondering the statutes concerning carrying a concealed weapon into a restaurant that sells alcohol. I have read the rules you have posted on your site and it says a concealed weapon is prohibited in an establishment that has been granted a Class-A General retail permit, which generally refers to bars where only adults may enter. But a restaurant has been granted a Class A General-Restaurant permit where minors may enter. I am referring to establishments such as a TGI Friday's, Applebees. or basically any restaurant that serves alcohol.
I have searched the internet and get conflicting answers.
I doubt I would carry my weapon into such an establishment, but just wanted to make sure I understand the law.
Thank you for your assistance.
John Pohlson,
Monroe, LA
John
Hi, I just sent an email to the Concealed Permit division of Louisiana State Police and here is letter and reply.
Re: Concealed Carry question
Back to Messages
From:concealed.handguns@dps.state.la.us
View Contact
Add to Address Book| Block Sender
Full Header
Reply To:
To:jpohlson <jpohlson@juno.com>
Cc:
Bcc:
Sent:Tue, Sep 08, 2009 01:22 PM
DownloadAll|
Thank you for your question. You have come across an area of heated debate for some time. What has been the issue is the statute that you have cited. True, there are many different types of permits that establishments have. However, I will refer you to LRS 14:95.5, which states:
A. No person shall intentionally possess a firearm while on the premises of an alcoholic beverage outlet.
B. "Alcoholic beverage outlet" as used herein means any commercial establishment in which alcoholic beverages of either high or low alcoholic content are sold in individual servings for consumption on the premises, whether or not such sales are a primary or incidental purpose of the business of the establishment.
jpohlson <jpohlson@juno.com>
09/06/2009 11:57 AM
[align=right]To[/align]
concealed_handguns@dps.state.la.us
[align=right]cc[/align]
[align=right]Subject[/align]
Concealed Carry question
Hello, my name is John Pohlson, I have applied for a Concealed Carry permit and was wondering the statutes concerning carrying a concealed weapon into a restaurant that sells alcohol. I have read the rules you have posted on your site and it says a concealed weapon is prohibited in an establishment that has been granted a Class-A General retail permit, which generally refers to bars where only adults may enter. But a restaurant has been granted a Class A General-Restaurant permit where minors may enter. I am referring to establishments such as a TGI Friday's, Applebees. or basically any restaurant that serves alcohol.
I have searched the internet and get conflicting answers.
I doubt I would carry my weapon into such an establishment, but just wanted to make sure I understand the law.
Thank you for your assistance.
John Pohlson,
Monroe, LA
John
mark edward marchiafava
Banned
imported post
Why is it this site continues to attract posts concerning concealed carry when the title of this site is OPENcarry.com?
Why is it this site continues to attract posts concerning concealed carry when the title of this site is OPENcarry.com?
Louisiana Carry
Regular Member
imported post
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
Because the owners (not you) have said that FIREARM related posts are considered on-topic.
Maybe you should consider starting your own forum where you can have it your own way and stop nit-picking other people. Just an idea.
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
Because the owners (not you) have said that FIREARM related posts are considered on-topic.
Maybe you should consider starting your own forum where you can have it your own way and stop nit-picking other people. Just an idea.
prodefense
Regular Member
imported post
I've seen open carry discussed on concealed carry sites as well. Personally, I don't see it as a big deal. Some people do both and are interested in learning more. Consider it overlap and relax about it.
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
I've seen open carry discussed on concealed carry sites as well. Personally, I don't see it as a big deal. Some people do both and are interested in learning more. Consider it overlap and relax about it.
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
Louisiana Carry
Regular Member
imported post
Caddiemaster wrote:
Interesting. Everyone else who I have dealt with that has had this conversation with them (instructiors, carriers, even LSP officers) has been told that with the state permit, only Class A establishments are off-limits. Which makes sense, since the legilsature (by implication) inferred that non-class A places were unrestricted. Also, the rule book, issued by the LSP, states Class A off limits but does not list non-Class A under the list of restricted places.
Definitely interesting.
Caddiemaster wrote:
Interesting. Everyone else who I have dealt with that has had this conversation with them (instructiors, carriers, even LSP officers) has been told that with the state permit, only Class A establishments are off-limits. Which makes sense, since the legilsature (by implication) inferred that non-class A places were unrestricted. Also, the rule book, issued by the LSP, states Class A off limits but does not list non-Class A under the list of restricted places.
Definitely interesting.
turbodog
Regular Member
imported post
Caddiemaster wrote:
Is he telling you that you that the State Police opinion is : You cannot carry in any place that serves alcohol, period?
Caddiemaster wrote:
Ok, so I don't quite get this answer.
Is he telling you that you that the State Police opinion is : You cannot carry in any place that serves alcohol, period?
Caddiemaster
New member
imported post
That was the opinion I have of his answer oh Abita drinker.
Heaven forbid him just yes or no and then explain why he said yes or no.
John
That was the opinion I have of his answer oh Abita drinker.
Heaven forbid him just yes or no and then explain why he said yes or no.
John
turbodog
Regular Member
imported post
Caddiemaster wrote:
LOL
I guess I'd have to write back and just ask him that's what he meant.
Maybe point out he needs to clarify that opinion for all the cops and instructors out there that say it's ok to carry in such places. Set them straight once and for all.
Caddiemaster wrote:
LOL
I guess I'd have to write back and just ask him that's what he meant.
Maybe point out he needs to clarify that opinion for all the cops and instructors out there that say it's ok to carry in such places. Set them straight once and for all.
Louisiana Carry
Regular Member
imported post
turbodog wrote:
turbodog wrote:
The thing to remember is that the Sgt. of the LSP CHP unit does not make the law, nor is he an authority on interpreting it, he is simply paid to put it into practice and enforce it. He can think is means one thing or another, but a judge's opinion is the one that matters.Caddiemaster wrote:
LOL
I guess I'd have to write back and just ask him that's what he meant.
Maybe point out he needs to clarify that opinion for all the cops and instructors out there that say it's ok to carry in such places. Set them straight once and for all.
Paul E. Blouin
Regular Member
imported post
Louisiana Carry,
"The thing to remember is that the Sgt. of the LSP CHP unit does not make the law, nor is he an authority on interpreting it, he is simply paid to put it into practice and enforce it. He can think is means one thing or another, but a judge's opinion is the one that matters."
How can he "put it into practice and enforce it.", when "he isn't an authority on interpreting it"?
Doesn't make sense to me. Are we saying that a LEO,can't tell us what the law means, butcan tell us we are breaking the law?
I think I do know what you are saying. LEO's aren'tlawyers and judges, but they should know the law and how it should or should not be applied. Otherwise, it is the LEO that has broken the law, by misapplying it. Isn't that against the Law! But, then again, that's only for a lawyer or judge to decide.
I must have miss something along the way.
Louisiana Carry,
"The thing to remember is that the Sgt. of the LSP CHP unit does not make the law, nor is he an authority on interpreting it, he is simply paid to put it into practice and enforce it. He can think is means one thing or another, but a judge's opinion is the one that matters."
How can he "put it into practice and enforce it.", when "he isn't an authority on interpreting it"?
Doesn't make sense to me. Are we saying that a LEO,can't tell us what the law means, butcan tell us we are breaking the law?
I think I do know what you are saying. LEO's aren'tlawyers and judges, but they should know the law and how it should or should not be applied. Otherwise, it is the LEO that has broken the law, by misapplying it. Isn't that against the Law! But, then again, that's only for a lawyer or judge to decide.
I must have miss something along the way.
Louisiana Carry
Regular Member
imported post
Paul E. Blouin wrote:
The average beat cop is instructed to call their supervisor, who in turn has a supervisor, and so on, for questions out of the routine. Even lawyers and judges debate the law- men who have made it their careers. There is simply no way for a cop to be trained in all legal matters. That said, a man like the Sgt. of the LSP CHP unit is well versed in how the CHP law is interpreted. That does not mean, however, that the law is being interpreted correctly. The law is not exactly a science- it is a mixture of nuances and subtleties that not too infrequently defy the norm and expectations. What Iwas saying earlier is that it is in his best interests to give you the safest answer possible. It is in your best interests to educate yourself on the laws that affect you, and probably to consult someone (like a lawyer) who may be better versed than yourself (not just you, I mean people in general, of course). My point earlier is that just because the law is being interpreted to the best of the department's ability is not to say that a judge (or appeals court) will not see it differently.
There is an ambiguity in the law. That is a fact. Supposedly (not always) ambiguities are supposed to work in favor of the accused. A cop should be telling you to play it safe, which the Sgt. in the above email did. That is not to say that if you do not play it safe that anything bad will happen, or that if something bad does happen, that you will not eventually come out on top. I was simply saying that, regardless of his opinion based on the facts available at the time, he is not the DA or the judge. His opinion carries weight, but he is not the man who decides what it means. He does his job as he was trained to do so by his superiors.
Paul E. Blouin wrote:
The average beat cop is instructed to call their supervisor, who in turn has a supervisor, and so on, for questions out of the routine. Even lawyers and judges debate the law- men who have made it their careers. There is simply no way for a cop to be trained in all legal matters. That said, a man like the Sgt. of the LSP CHP unit is well versed in how the CHP law is interpreted. That does not mean, however, that the law is being interpreted correctly. The law is not exactly a science- it is a mixture of nuances and subtleties that not too infrequently defy the norm and expectations. What Iwas saying earlier is that it is in his best interests to give you the safest answer possible. It is in your best interests to educate yourself on the laws that affect you, and probably to consult someone (like a lawyer) who may be better versed than yourself (not just you, I mean people in general, of course). My point earlier is that just because the law is being interpreted to the best of the department's ability is not to say that a judge (or appeals court) will not see it differently.
There is an ambiguity in the law. That is a fact. Supposedly (not always) ambiguities are supposed to work in favor of the accused. A cop should be telling you to play it safe, which the Sgt. in the above email did. That is not to say that if you do not play it safe that anything bad will happen, or that if something bad does happen, that you will not eventually come out on top. I was simply saying that, regardless of his opinion based on the facts available at the time, he is not the DA or the judge. His opinion carries weight, but he is not the man who decides what it means. He does his job as he was trained to do so by his superiors.
Paul E. Blouin
Regular Member
imported post
Absolutely, I agree as to what is taking place now, but that is not what we should have. I am very familiar with our court/judicial system and police work.
My point was, they should know the law and learn to apply it correctly as it relates to their intended line of profession. It has been just recently interms of decades that POST is a requirement for law enforcement or police work.
I am for limited government, nonetheless, we need our public servants, to be knowledgeable about their professions. And not be put in positions where they have to make up stuff as they go along. This may upset a lot of people, but trust me on this one, most LEO's, don't know the laws they are sworn to uphold. I don't so much as blame individual Officers or Deputies on this, as much as The People as a whole.
But, as we both know, this is not happening today, as much as it should.
Not to argue this point inappropriately with you, just wasn't sure what your stance was on this as it relates to open carry and gun laws especially. My point being that Police Officers need to be more informed as to the Law they are sworn to uphold.
As the story goes, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste".
Thanks for your reply and patience in clarifying your position ~ PEB.
Absolutely, I agree as to what is taking place now, but that is not what we should have. I am very familiar with our court/judicial system and police work.
My point was, they should know the law and learn to apply it correctly as it relates to their intended line of profession. It has been just recently interms of decades that POST is a requirement for law enforcement or police work.
I am for limited government, nonetheless, we need our public servants, to be knowledgeable about their professions. And not be put in positions where they have to make up stuff as they go along. This may upset a lot of people, but trust me on this one, most LEO's, don't know the laws they are sworn to uphold. I don't so much as blame individual Officers or Deputies on this, as much as The People as a whole.
But, as we both know, this is not happening today, as much as it should.
Not to argue this point inappropriately with you, just wasn't sure what your stance was on this as it relates to open carry and gun laws especially. My point being that Police Officers need to be more informed as to the Law they are sworn to uphold.
As the story goes, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste".
Thanks for your reply and patience in clarifying your position ~ PEB.