Open Carry In Restaurants?

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.

imported post

It's also my understanding title 40 only talks about special officer commissions and concealed permits, not OC'ing.
Since OC'ing is a RIGHT, not a "privileged activity", it makes no sense for the legislature to be able to pass "laws" which conflict with that right.
It's always amusing to pose this question to state legislators and watch the varied answers you get.

imported post

[align=left]RS 14:95.5[/align][align=justify]§95.5. Possession of firearm on premises of alcoholic beverage outlet [/align] [align=justify]A. No person shall intentionally possess a firearm while on the premises of an alcoholic beverage outlet. [/align] [align=justify]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. [/align] [align=justify]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. [/align] [align=justify]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. [/align] Acts 1985, No. 765, §1.

imported post

KBCraig wrote:

[align=left]RS 14:95.5[/align]
[align=justify]§95.5. Possession of firearm on premises of alcoholic beverage outlet [/align]
[align=justify]A. No person shall intentionally possess a firearm while on the premises of an alcoholic beverage outlet. [/align]
[align=justify]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. [/align]
[align=justify]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. [/align]
[align=justify]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. [/align]Acts 1985, No. 765, §1.

Click to expand...

What a clear violation of her RTKBA !

imported post

[align=justify]§95.4. Consent to search; alcoholic beverage outlet [/align]
[align=justify]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. [/align]
[align=justify]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. [/align]
[align=justify]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. [/align]
[align=justify]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. [/align]
[align=justify]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. [/align]
[align=justify]Added by Acts 1983, No. 524, §1. [/align]
[align=justify][/align]
[align=justify][/align]
[align=justify]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.[/align]
[align=justify]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?:banghead:[/align]

imported post

The place of business is required to make the determination for you as to whether or not it's an alcoholic beverage outlet or a restaurant.
ANY waiving of a right must be done so knowingly, hence the requirement of the sign at the entrance.
Me? I see such a sign ANYwhere, I turn around and don't enter.
If I'm subject to a search without a warrant or probable cause, I will find somewhere else to spend my money AND let the offending establishment know it.
Are they going to file bankruptcy based on me alone? No.
It's my responsibility to do what is right, the rest is not my concern. Yet.

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 .

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 .

Click to expand...

Hooters with "NO" sign, Majority Food service = Maybe

Sounds like a good lawyer question.

imported post

cajunpapapump wrote:

[align=justify]§95.4. Consent to search; alcoholic beverage outlet [/align] [align=justify]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.
[/align] [align=justify]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.
[/align]

Click to expand...

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. [align=justify]
[/align] 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
[align=left]
[/align][align=left]RS 14:95.5
[/align][align=justify]§95.5. Possession of firearm on premises of alcoholic beverage outlet [/align] [align=justify]A. No person shall intentionally possess a firearm while on the premises of an alcoholic beverage outlet. [/align] [align=justify]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.
[/align][align=justify]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".[/align] 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....

imported post

turbodog wrote:

cajunpapapump wrote:

[align=justify]§95.4. Consent to search; alcoholic beverage outlet [/align]
[align=justify]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.
[/align]
[align=justify]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.
[/align]

Click to expand...

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.
[align=justify]
[/align]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

[align=left]
[/align]
[align=left]RS 14:95.5
[/align]
[align=justify]§95.5. Possession of firearm on premises of alcoholic beverage outlet [/align]
[align=justify]A. No person shall intentionally possess a firearm while on the premises of an alcoholic beverage outlet. [/align]
[align=justify]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.
[/align]
[align=justify]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".[/align]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....

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

[align=justify]§95.4. Consent to search; alcoholic beverage outlet [/align]

[align=justify]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.[/align]

[align=justify]§95.5. Possession of firearm on premises of alcoholic beverage outlet [/align]

[align=justify]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.[/align]

[align=justify]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.[/align]

[align=justify]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."[/align]

[align=justify]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.
[/align]


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.

imported post

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

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

Made a spinoff thread:

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum26/25931.html