SB 1132 - Restaurant Carry

Notso · Jan 29, 2008

imported post

I'm curious as to the thoughts behind this bill. Is it merely to 'get our feet in the door'? I guess it could also be used to exert economic pressure on those businesses that don't allow 'our kind' in by not posting a sign. Any thoughts?

Maybe I should briefly explain SB1132 so that it isn't necessary to go and look at it. As I read it, a CCW holder(not sure about open carry)would be allowed to carry into a restaurant that serves alcohol for on-premise consumption(currently prohibited)provided the business posts a sign indicating that it is allowed and that the carrier does not drink.

kylehook · Sep 30, 2010

definition of bill "late"?

is a ccw holder legally allowed to open carry a firearm in a alcohol serving establishment that does not a have a no carry sign posted? the way i read it is it must be concelled? as in to break concellment is to break the law?

azcdlfred · Sep 30, 2010

kylehook said:
is a ccw holder legally allowed to open carry a firearm in a alcohol serving establishment that does not a have a no carry sign posted? the way i read it is it must be concelled? as in to break concellment is to break the law?

No! You may NEVER carry openly in an establishment that serves alcohol (there is an exception for emergencies). Yes, if it is spotted you are technically breaking the law.

Here's the relevant portion of the law:

4-229. Licenses; handguns; posting of notice
A. A person with a permit issued pursuant to section 13-3112 may carry a concealed handgun on the premises of a licensee who is an on-sale retailer unless the licensee posts a sign that clearly prohibits the possession of weapons on the licensed premises.

Arizona law (ARS 13-3102), does not define "concealed" and we don't have statutes like Texas where if you "print" you are breaking the law. However, if someone spots your pistol, you aren't carrying discreetly enough and you are in violation of the law.

I wouldn't lose sleep over this. Unless it's really obvious, the proletariat can't even spot "open carry." The conscious mind cannot see what it's not programmed to look for.

Fred

kylehook · Sep 30, 2010

thanks for the info. i figured it was this way.

rickc1962 · Nov 16, 2010

I don`t know if it is just Lake Havasu or what, but I oc in pizza hut and the black bear dinner, both serve alcohol no one has ever said anything, one day the police did show up at the black bear and asked me to come outside with them and I did, they asked to see my ID and they ran it, they said someone called so they needed to respond, they never took my firearm gave me back my ID and said have a nice day, sense then the black bear has posted a no firearms sign, the Manager told me it was not his doing and told me I could leave my firearm in my truck, I promply said thanks but no thanks, the black bear is out of calif. I called corp. they said the Manager already called to complain but it was thair choice,they said sorry to loose me.

GWbiker · Nov 16, 2010

According to Arizona law you were supposed to CONCEAL CARRY in a restaurant that serves alcohol. Please don't fault the business for posting "no guns", it was YOU who screwed up.

BTW, the Police were very kind to you - they could have cited you.

rickc1962 · Nov 18, 2010

GWbiker said:
According to Arizona law you were supposed to CONCEAL CARRY in a restaurant that serves alcohol. Please don't fault the business for posting "no guns", it was YOU who screwed up.

BTW, the Police were very kind to you - they could have cited you.

i did not falt the restaurant, the maneger was veary happy with my business and many times Police came in to eat and would say hi, Corp. in Calif. said it was there doing because people in the Phoenix area were afraid of people ocing. I spoke to our State Rep. a few weeks back about our laws and open carry, I asked her if the State recognizes our God given rights protected by the U.S. and State Constitution then why aren`t business`held to the same standerd, she agread and said she was open to the idea but had to be careful about steping on business owners rights. If you have to ask permission it`s not a right!

mFonz77 · Nov 18, 2010

Is that on the radar for AZCDL to try and get codified (that someone may open carry into a serving establishment)? There are some restaurants here in Cochise county (which shall remain nameless to protect the awesome people who work there) who don't give a damn if you OC in them...

azcdlfred · Nov 18, 2010

mFonz77 said:
Is that on the radar for AZCDL to try and get codified (that someone may open carry into a serving establishment)?

Most definitley! It's one of our goals. However, reading the tea laves, it may not happen in the 2011 session. We'll get there though.

Fred

GWbiker · Nov 18, 2010

rickc1962 said:
i did not falt the restaurant, the maneger was veary happy with my business and many times Police came in to eat and would say hi, Corp. in Calif. said it was there doing because people in the Phoenix area were afraid of people ocing. I spoke to our State Rep. a few weeks back about our laws and open carry, I asked her if the State recognizes our God given rights protected by the U.S. and State Constitution then why aren`t business`held to the same standerd, she agread and said she was open to the idea but had to be careful about steping on business owners rights. If you have to ask permission it`s not a right!

Spell Check is your friend...

Sonora Rebel · Nov 18, 2010

rickc1962 said:
i did not falt the restaurant, the maneger was veary happy with my business and many times Police came in to eat and would say hi, Corp. in Calif. said it was there doing because people in the Phoenix area were afraid of people ocing. I spoke to our State Rep. a few weeks back about our laws and open carry, I asked her if the State recognizes our God given rights protected by the U.S. and State Constitution then why aren`t business`held to the same standerd, she agread and said she was open to the idea but had to be careful about steping on business owners rights. If you have to ask permission it`s not a right!

Your 2A stops where a property owners 5A begins.

rickc1962 · Nov 18, 2010

GWbiker said:
Spell Check is your friend...

If my spelling is my only prob. then life is good.

rickc1962 · Nov 18, 2010

Sonora Rebel said:
Your 2A stops where a property owners 5A begins.

"5th Amendment; No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unlass on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of Wor or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shell be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." No gun owner is tring to take private property from anybody or stop his due process of law!

mFonz77 · Nov 22, 2010

rickc1962 said:
"5th Amendment; No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unlass on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of Wor or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shell be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." No gun owner is tring to take private property from anybody or stop his due process of law!

What he (and the framers) are saying is that while self-defense is a God-given right, private property owners DO have the right to deny you that right while on their private property. The 2a simply codifies our right from the standpoint of people :: government, not people :: other people.

rickc1962 · Nov 22, 2010

mFonz77 said:
What he (and the framers) are saying is that while self-defense is a God-given right, private property owners DO have the right to deny you that right while on their private property. The 2a simply codifies our right from the standpoint of people :: government, not people :: other people.

I somewhat agree with what you are saying,I do not want to ever step on someones rights, BUT if you say that the government don`t already do that then tell me when the last tame you was aloud to lite up in a business! Don`t get my wrong, I don`t think big bro` is right but thay do interfere, if you were to say I had the right to enter a private home or it`s property I would agree, my concern is if all business` or even a majority of them start to post then ware do we as gun owners eat or shop.

mFonz77 · Nov 22, 2010

rickc1962 said:
I somewhat agree with what you are saying,I do not want to ever step on someones rights, BUT if you say that the government don`t already do that then tell me when the last tame you was aloud to lite up in a business! Don`t get my wrong, I don`t think big bro` is right but thay do interfere, if you were to say I had the right to enter a private home or it`s property I would agree, my concern is if all business` or even a majority of them start to post then ware do we as gun owners eat or shop.

That's the magic of capitalism my friend. If enough businesses decide (emphasis on BUSINESS here and not some stupid law) not to allow smoking then they either go out of business or smokers learn to cope. Same for gun owners. It will strike a balance, and some people will get pissed and some won't.

Personally I have lived in a city in the past that was pretty lib and thought it had some holy duty to society, and passed a city-wide indoor smoking ban for business and places "open to the public" -- INCLUDING BARS!! Can you believe that?! To me that is nothing short of interventionism and quashes free enterprise. The bar owners should be the ones deciding if they want smoking or not.

Anyway...

To answer your question "Where do we eat or shop?" Well, if (hypothetically) every business in the world posted then I guess we would have to figure something out. Either carrying anyway, or having someone else do our shopping, or shopping online, or leaving the gun in the car. Voluntarily denying yourself sustenance (counter to survival) because you can't carry a tool of survival is counterintuitive. I would rather have food over a gun any day.

rickc1962 · Nov 22, 2010

mFonz77 said:
That's the magic of capitalism my friend. If enough businesses decide (emphasis on BUSINESS here and not some stupid law) not to allow smoking then they either go out of business or smokers learn to cope. Same for gun owners. It will strike a balance, and some people will get pissed and some won't.

Personally I have lived in a city in the past that was pretty lib and thought it had some holy duty to society, and passed a city-wide indoor smoking ban for business and places "open to the public" -- INCLUDING BARS!! Can you believe that?! To me that is nothing short of interventionism and quashes free enterprise. The bar owners should be the ones deciding if they want smoking or not.

Anyway...

To answer your question "Where do we eat or shop?" Well, if (hypothetically) every business in the world posted then I guess we would have to figure something out. Either carrying anyway, or having someone else do our shopping, or shopping online, or leaving the gun in the car. Voluntarily denying yourself sustenance (counter to survival) because you can't carry a tool of survival is counterintuitive. I would rather have food over a gun any day.

I see your point, let it be said tho, that food will not do you mutch good if your shot leaving the restaurant or store.

Slayer of Paper · Nov 23, 2010

rickc1962 said:
I somewhat agree with what you are saying,I do not want to ever step on someones rights, BUT if you say that the government don`t already do that then tell me when the last tame you was aloud to lite up in a business! Don`t get my wrong, I don`t think big bro` is right but thay do interfere, if you were to say I had the right to enter a private home or it`s property I would agree, my concern is if all business` or even a majority of them start to post then ware do we as gun owners eat or shop.

If it was truly up to the businesses, without government interference, then it would not be possible for "all" businesses to forbid firearms. The free market ensures that whenever there is a void in the market, it will be filled by someone looking to make money. In other words, with no businesses that allow people to carry, a market is created for businesses that do. Since there is money to be made there, the need will get filled.

Capitalism is good for more than just making everyone richer.

SB 1132 - Restaurant Carry

Notso

Campaign Veteran

kylehook

New member

azcdlfred

Regular Member

kylehook

New member

rickc1962

Regular Member

GWbiker

Guest

rickc1962

Regular Member

mFonz77

Regular Member

azcdlfred

Regular Member

GWbiker

Guest

Attachments

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member

rickc1962

Regular Member

rickc1962

Regular Member

mFonz77

Regular Member

rickc1962

Regular Member

mFonz77

Regular Member

rickc1962

Regular Member

Slayer of Paper

Regular Member