Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Open Carry In Restaurants?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    330

    Post imported post

    R.S. 40:1379.3 (N) states that no concealed handgun may be carried into and no concealed handgun permit issued pursuant to this Section shall authorize or entitle a permittee to carry a concealed handgun in any of the following:

    Any portion of the permitted area of an establishment that has been granted a Class A-General retail permit, as defined in Part II of Chapter 1 or Part II of Chapter 2 of Title 26 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, to sell alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises.

    This statute only applies to concealed handguns. Is there another statute that restricts the open carry of a firearm in the same place? I haven't been able to find one.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508

    Post imported post

    RS 14:95.5
    §95.5. Possession of firearm on premises of alcoholic beverage outlet
    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.
    C. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to the owner or lessee of an alcoholic beverage outlet, or to an employee of such owner or lessee, or to a law enforcement officer or other person vested with law enforcement authority acting in the performance of his official duties.
    D. Whoever violates the provisions of this Section shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.
    Acts 1985, No. 765, §1.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,723

    Post imported post

    KBCraig wrote:
    RS 14:95.5

    §95.5. Possession of firearm on premises of alcoholic beverage outlet

    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.

    C. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to the owner or lessee of an alcoholic beverage outlet, or to an employee of such owner or lessee, or to a law enforcement officer or other person vested with law enforcement authority acting in the performance of his official duties.

    D. Whoever violates the provisions of this Section shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.
    Acts 1985, No. 765, §1.
    What a clear violation of her RTKBA !

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Crowley, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    63

    Post imported post

    §95.4. Consent to search; alcoholic beverage outlet

    A. Any person entering an alcoholic beverage outlet as defined herein, by the fact of such entering, shall be deemed to have consented to a reasonable search of his person for any firearm by a law enforcement officer or other person vested with police power, without the necessity of a warrant.

    B. For purposes of this Section, "alcoholic beverage outlet" 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 the primary purpose or are an incidental purpose of the business of the establishment.

    C. An "alcoholic beverage outlet" licensed to sell firearms or containing an indoor shooting gallery shall be exempt from the provisions of this Section in those areas designated for the sale of firearms or the shooting gallery.

    D. An "alcoholic beverage outlet" shall not include a restaurant if a majority of its gross receipts are from sales of food and non-alcoholic beverages.

    E. The owner of the alcoholic beverage outlet shall post a sign, at or near the entrance, that states that by the fact of entering these premises a person shall be deemed to have consented to a reasonable search of his person for any firearm by a law enforcement officer or other person vested with police power, without the necessity of a warrant.

    Added by Acts 1983, No. 524, §1.



    But if you look at "D" it says alcoholic outlet shall not include a restaurant if a majority of its gross receipts are from sales of food and non-alcoholic beverages.

    So does that take restaurant's out as being a alcholic outlet, I'm just curious about this one. Anyone have any input to this?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Crowley, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    63

    Post imported post

    So when I'm at hooters eating and oc'ing as long as their no sign I'm allowed to eat? just want to make sure I get this right. I never had any problems at hooters .

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,723

    Post imported post

    cajunpapapump wrote:
    So when I'm at hooters eating and oc'ing as long as their no sign I'm allowed to eat? just want to make sure I get this right. I never had any problems at hooters .
    Hooters with "NO" sign, Majority Food service = Maybe

    Sounds like a good lawyer question.

  7. #7
    Regular Member turbodog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Independence, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    cajunpapapump wrote:
    §95.4. Consent to search; alcoholic beverage outlet
    A. Any person entering an alcoholic beverage outlet as defined herein, by the fact of such entering, shall be deemed to have consented to a reasonable search of his person for any firearm by a law enforcement officer or other person vested with police power, without the necessity of a warrant.
    B. For purposes of this Section, "alcoholic beverage outlet" 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 the primary purpose or are an incidental purpose of the business of the establishment.
    D. An "alcoholic beverage outlet" shall not include a restaurant if a majority of its gross receipts are from sales of food and non-alcoholic beverages.

    Ok, so we take part "B" of RS 14:95.4 as providing the State's definition of a "alcoholic beverage outlet", as part "A" says it is "defined herein", meaning said definition is provided within section 14:95.4

    RS 14:95.5
    §95.5. Possession of firearm on premises of alcoholic beverage outlet
    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.
    One statute, 14:95.5, is for "possession of a firearm" and one, 14:94.4, is for "consent to search" but both use the same exactly worded State given definition of an "alcoholic beverage outlet".
    Since "alcoholic beverage outlet" has been clearly defined the same in both statutes, and as Statute 14:95.4 says any restaurant that make most of it's money off of food sales rather than alcohol sales is clearly NOT included in the State given definition of said "alcoholic beverage outlet", I would say that any place labeled a "Restaurant, diner, cafe, etc (in other words, anyplace a reasonable person may believe is a purveyor of foodstuffs prepared for consumption) is a place one can carry a firearm, even if the establishment happens to serve alcohol there.

    Should the place be labeled a Bar, Lounge, Pub, etc (in other words anyplace a reasonable person may believe is a purveyor of alcoholic beverages) one should not carry a firearm within, even if the establishment happens to serve food there.


    Just my opinion tho....

    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    Him: "I carry my gun concealed"
    Me: "You're not very good at it"
    Him: "What do you mean?"
    Me: "I know you have a gun"
    End of conversation.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,723

    Post imported post

    turbodog wrote:
    cajunpapapump wrote:
    §95.4. Consent to search; alcoholic beverage outlet

    A. Any person entering an alcoholic beverage outlet as defined herein, by the fact of such entering, shall be deemed to have consented to a reasonable search of his person for any firearm by a law enforcement officer or other person vested with police power, without the necessity of a warrant.

    B. For purposes of this Section, "alcoholic beverage outlet" 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 the primary purpose or are an incidental purpose of the business of the establishment.
    D. An "alcoholic beverage outlet" shall not include a restaurant if a majority of its gross receipts are from sales of food and non-alcoholic beverages.

    Ok, so we take part "B" of RS 14:95.4 as providing the State's definition of a "alcoholic beverage outlet", as part "A" says it is "defined herein", meaning said definition is provided within section 14:95.4



    RS 14:95.5

    §95.5. Possession of firearm on premises of alcoholic beverage outlet

    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.

    One statute, 14:95.5, is for "possession of a firearm" and one, 14:94.4, is for "consent to search" but both use the same exactly worded State given definition of an "alcoholic beverage outlet".
    Since "alcoholic beverage outlet" has been clearly defined the same in both statutes, and as Statute 14:95.4 says any restaurant that make most of it's money off of food sales rather than alcohol sales is clearly NOT included in the State given definition of said "alcoholic beverage outlet", I would say that any place labeled a "Restaurant, diner, cafe, etc (in other words, anyplace a reasonable person may believe is a purveyor of foodstuffs prepared for consumption) is a place one can carry a firearm, even if the establishment happens to serve alcohol there.

    Should the place be labeled a Bar, Lounge, Pub, etc (in other words anyplace a reasonable person may believe is a purveyor of alcoholic beverages) one should not carry a firearm within, even if the establishment happens to serve food there.


    Just my opinion tho....

    That's my understanding too. However, I'd still be weary of carrying in Hooters.

    Hooters is all about Beer, wings and short things. Beer being the most expensive.







  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Keithville, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    alcoholic beverage establishments are, in fact, not defined the same in those statutes. The majority of tickets pertains to them "lawfully" conducting an unconstitutional search. Lawfully, but unconstitutionally, restricting your RKBA has no such majority of receipts definition in the other statute.

    In other words, the way the law reads- you cannot carry where alcohol is sold, but they can only search you (albeit unconstitutionally) in actual bars and the like.

    The search part is obviously irrelevant for OC.

    So- if you are OCing where alcohol is sold, they can bust you. After a costly battle, you should win, as it is unconstitutional on its face, but the law at the moment says they can bust you.

    The thing to do would be to be proactive about this and seek a summary judgment about these atrocious laws and get them off the books.

  10. #10
    Regular Member turbodog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Independence, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    Louisiana Carry wrote:
    alcoholic beverage establishments are, in fact, not defined the same in those statutes. The majority of tickets pertains to them "lawfully" conducting an unconstitutional search. Lawfully, but unconstitutionally, restricting your RKBA has no such majority of receipts definition in the other statute.

    In other words, the way the law reads- you cannot carry where alcohol is sold, but they can only search you (albeit unconstitutionally) in actual bars and the like.

    The search part is obviously irrelevant for OC.

    So- if you are OCing where alcohol is sold, they can bust you. After a costly battle, you should win, as it is unconstitutional on its face, but the law at the moment says they can bust you.

    The thing to do would be to be proactive about this and seek a summary judgment about these atrocious laws and get them off the books.

    §95.4. Consent to search; alcoholic beverage outlet


    B. For purposes of this Section, "alcoholic beverage outlet" 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 the primary purpose or are an incidental purpose of the business of the establishment.


    §95.5. Possession of firearm on premises of 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.


    Take out the individual section words; "for purposes of this section" and "as used herein" (which mean the same thing), the actual definitions of "alcoholic beverage outlet" look word-for-word to me.


    The following bit of legal jargon comes from an Official Opinion written by the Attorney General of Indiana on July 6th 2007 and may have no bearing here in louisiana, but I figure there must be some similar legalese here somewhere.

    In it, he states:
    "in construing the meaning of certain words contained in a statute, the legislative definitions of the same words in another act (although not conclusive) is entitled to consideration in construing the same words when used in another statute upon the same or related subject."


    I suppose one would have to agree whether or not 95.4 and 95.5 are on the "same or related subject" I'd say the related subject is "alcoholic beverage outlet" since both use the term in the labeling of their statutes as well as in the body of each.



    At the very least, the language of part D in 95.4 should be added to 95.5 to clarify an issue that's been driving carriers nuts. Anybody want to write to their legislator to see if he'll sponsor such a bill?

    Again, MHO only.


    To clarify a point.Part D of 95.4 adds an exception to the statute it's contained within, by stating that a restaurant that makes most of it's money off of food sales rather than alcohol is not considered an "alcoholic beverage outlet". It is not being usedto define what an"alcoholic beverage outlet" is.

    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    Him: "I carry my gun concealed"
    Me: "You're not very good at it"
    Him: "What do you mean?"
    Me: "I know you have a gun"
    End of conversation.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Keithville, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    If we are going to put this law on the table, it needs to be with the intent of abolishing it.

  12. #12
    Regular Member turbodog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Independence, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    I agree. But modifying the language in an existingstatute 95.5 (all of adding one line) would probably be easier to accomplish. And would certainly ease a lot of minds in doubt about the issue.








    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    Him: "I carry my gun concealed"
    Me: "You're not very good at it"
    Him: "What do you mean?"
    Me: "I know you have a gun"
    End of conversation.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Keithville, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    OTOH, making it incrementally more palatable can make it harder to abolish, as the argument becomes more and more that it is "not unreasonable."

  14. #14
    Regular Member turbodog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Independence, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    Actually, which one are we talking about? Or both?

    Consent to search? I absolutely agree with you. That law is an abomination.

    The one about no firearms in a bar? Sorry, I agree with that one. No need at all to mix alcohol and guns in the same place. However, I (and others) would like to see restaurants clarified (via the same language as in 95.4), rather than this limbo of interpretation we are stuck in now. It would be an easy fix.
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    Him: "I carry my gun concealed"
    Me: "You're not very good at it"
    Him: "What do you mean?"
    Me: "I know you have a gun"
    End of conversation.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Keithville, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    I was meaning both. If a bar owner wants to prohibit arms, that is his choice. If I own a bar and want to allow them, that is my choice. Either way, it is a property rights issue.

    I am against gun control in all its forms.

    No law will ever make you safe. Only you and God can ensure your safety. The best thing the government can do is get the hell out of the way.




  16. #16
    Regular Member turbodog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Independence, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    Louisiana Carry wrote:
    I was meaning both. If a bar owner wants to prohibit arms, that is his choice. If I own a bar and want to allow them, that is my choice. Either way, it is a property rights issue."

    If you want to paint 95.4 as a property rights issue I back you 100%. But I still say, alcohol and guns is not a good mix. Just watch some of the idiots on Youtube.

    I am against gun control in all its forms.

    Hmm...what about convicted felons having guns? I can certainly live with that particular piece of gun control.

    No law will ever make you safe. Only you and God can ensure your safety. The best thing the government can do is get the hell out of the way.

    +1 again.


    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    Him: "I carry my gun concealed"
    Me: "You're not very good at it"
    Him: "What do you mean?"
    Me: "I know you have a gun"
    End of conversation.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Keithville, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    If someone has served their time, they should be free. If they should not be free, keep them from society. It is certainly not like they can't find a gun if they want one. Setting a precedent for denying any human rights is paving a road that leads to your doorstep and mine.

    The problem is not "allowing" felons to have guns- again, they can get them if they want them. At best, we are simply fostering a false sense of security. They problem is a revolving door justice system. You cannot solve one problem by creating another.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Keithville, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post


  19. #19
    Regular Member turbodog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Independence, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    Sure, the bad guys can always get illegal guns, that's a given. But I think there should always be residual penalties for severe crimes. Misdemeanors no, everything now considered a felony, no, crimes of violence, yes!

    I feel that People who have made a decision to commit violent crimes should face penalties that last for their lifetime, even if they serve out a sentence in prison. And that includes loss of firearms privileges. If they chose to get an illegal gun after getting out of prison, again, they made a choice with full knowledge of the penalties.

    If ya can't do the time, don't do the crime.
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    Him: "I carry my gun concealed"
    Me: "You're not very good at it"
    Him: "What do you mean?"
    Me: "I know you have a gun"
    End of conversation.

  20. #20
    Regular Member turbodog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Independence, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    And we've gotten off topic on this thread, sorry all.

    But then, no one else is chiming in on subject soooo......


    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    Him: "I carry my gun concealed"
    Me: "You're not very good at it"
    Him: "What do you mean?"
    Me: "I know you have a gun"
    End of conversation.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,723

    Post imported post

    turbodog wrote:
    Sure, the bad guys can always get illegal guns, that's a given. But I think there should always be residual penalties for severe crimes. Misdemeanors no, everything now considered a felony, no, crimes of violence, yes!

    I feel that People who have made a decision to commit violent crimes should face penalties that last for their lifetime, even if they serve out a sentence in prison. And that includes loss of firearms privileges. If they chose to get an illegal gun after getting out of prison, again, they made a choice with full knowledge of the penalties.

    If ya can't do the time, don't do the crime.
    So there is no forgiveness with you.

    That's similar to saying if my son does something wrong, I should whip him for the rest of his life for the infraction.

    Do you even have an idea of how many felons could possible be in jail, and not REALLY be guilty ?

    I'm the LA Carry, if they have served their time, then they are finished being punished. Most felons didn't have anything to do with firearms anyway.

    It's just another false sense of security ....



  22. #22
    Regular Member turbodog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Independence, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    Dustin wrote:
    turbodog wrote:
    Sure, the bad guys can always get illegal guns, that's a given. But I think there should always be residual penalties for severe crimes. Misdemeanors no, everything now considered a felony, no, crimes of violence, yes!

    I feel that People who have made a decision to commit violent crimes should face penalties that last for their lifetime, even if they serve out a sentence in prison. And that includes loss of firearms privileges. If they chose to get an illegal gun after getting out of prison, again, they made a choice with full knowledge of the penalties.

    If ya can't do the time, don't do the crime.
    So there is no forgiveness with you.

    That's similar to saying if my son does something wrong, I should whip him for the rest of his life for the infraction.

    Do you even have an idea of how many felons could possible be in jail, and not REALLY be guilty ?

    I'm the LA Carry, if they have served their time, then they are finished being punished. Most felons didn't have anything to do with firearms anyway.

    It's just another false sense of security ....


    To say there's no forgiveness in me is a hard thing man, and you base it soley on a single forum discussion? Harsh brother, harsh.
    Come on man, did you even read what I wrote? No, I don't favor extravagent punishment for minor infractions (misdemeanors) nor even for all the laws on the books currently labled as felonies. I said I think there should be repercusions that go beyond jail time for crimes of violence. I say that because the psycological impact of such crimes go way beyond a trial. Why should the victims of such violence be the only ones to spend a lifetime of sorror, fear or regret? If the son you mentioned should be killed in some random drive-by shooting by some repeat offender parasite on society, would you just blow it off and say Cest la Vie? I doubt it. I doubt any man would or could.

    Yes, some people end up in prison for violent crimes that are the result of "the moment" A woman trying to stop an abusive husband from hurting her, a guy, seeing someone trying to steal his car, grabs a gun and blasts away, hitting a bystander. Do these people sit in prison and indure sorror, fear and regretat theresult of their actions? Probably. But there are too many who just don't give a damnabout the lives of others, who walk up to a random stranger on a streetcornerand beathim bloody aspart of some gang initiationor start shooting into a crowd of people becausehe saw someone standing among them who once "dissed" him.

    And yes, there are innocent people in prison. They have their champions and I wish them all luck. If they succed in getting released, then any record of incarceration should be expunged and they should be allowed to live their lives free of any stigma.

    It's gone way off topic here, if y'all want to keep this discussion going let's do it on a seperate thread. If not, I'm done here.
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    Him: "I carry my gun concealed"
    Me: "You're not very good at it"
    Him: "What do you mean?"
    Me: "I know you have a gun"
    End of conversation.

  23. #23
    Regular Member turbodog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Independence, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    Now. To get back on topic. I wrote an email to my representative in Baton Rouge, John Edwards, about adding the language of part "D" of RS 14:95.4 to the language of RS 14:95.5. Which would clarify the issue of carrying firearms in restaurants if it can be accomplished.

    I'll let you know if he replies.
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    Him: "I carry my gun concealed"
    Me: "You're not very good at it"
    Him: "What do you mean?"
    Me: "I know you have a gun"
    End of conversation.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,723

    Post imported post

    turbodog wrote:
    To say there's no forgiveness in me is a hard thing man, and you base it soley on a single forum discussion? Harsh brother, harsh.
    Nah bro, It was meant to be inquestion form, meant to pull out the question, "So where do you draw the line?"

    I'd hardly case someone over text written on a forum, although one can indeed case himself with the proper wording.

    I think denying the man his right to defend himself with a firearm is HARSH. Depending on what Crime he comitted.

    Crimes/Felonies commited "with" firearms however, are a direct reflect on that persons attitude towards firearms, and a complete disrespect towards their 2A right. IMO They have completely abused their RTKBA.



  25. #25
    Regular Member sraacke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saint Gabriel, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,222

    Post imported post

    turbodog wrote:
    Now. To get back on topic. I wrote an email to my representative in Baton Rouge, John Edwards, about adding the language of part "D" of RS 14:95.4 to the language of RS 14:95.5. Which would clarify the issue of carrying firearms in restaurants if it can be accomplished.

    I'll let you know if he replies.
    Did you ever get a reply from rep Edwards?
    President/ Founding Member
    Louisiana Open Carry Awareness League
    www.laopencarry.org

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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