Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Does anyone have a problem with this? Whats next if this is legal?

  1. #1
    Regular Member estcrh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    365

    Does anyone have a problem with this? Whats next if this is legal?

    The police can not or will not do their jobs and the response from politicians is to take away our rights (supposedly so that they can keep us safe!!!).

    http://www.fox8live.com/news/local/s...2tQ6U6Ojw.cspx





    NEW ORLEANS - A few weeks ago, Councilmember Kristen Palmer watched a fight spill out of a Bourbon Street bar into the road. One of the people involved pulled out a knife and stabbed the other.

    Palmer thinks a tougher law regarding weapons in bars could prevent some violent crimes in the French Quarter, like the Halloween night shooting that left Albert Glover dead and seven others hurt.

    State law currently allows officers to search people without a warrant if they're inside Alcohol Beverage Outlets, including bars.

    "We're wondering if we go out 50 feet from an entrance or an egress to basically see if you then would also have the ability to be searched," says Palmer.

    Palmer wants the city council and French Quarter businesses to consider strengthening the law, allowing police to search anyone deemed suspicious up to 50 feet outside places serving alcohol.

    New Orleans Police Chief Ronal Serpas thinks the tougher law could help.

    "We support what Councilmember Palmer is trying to do and will enforce any law that is passed," says Serpas. "The police department will enforce any law that is passed and will assist in any way we can to get the law passed."

    Passing the law could lead to legal challenges. The executive director of Louisiana's American Civil Liberties Union says the proposal sets up an absolute violation of the right to be free of unconstitutional search and seizure.

    Palmer is meeting with the A.C.L.U. on Wednesday

  2. #2
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Yep, I have a problem with it, both the original law and the proposed "extension of the Constitution-Free zone."

  3. #3
    Regular Member Badger Johnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,217
    We take and accept enormous risks to live in a society, including driving/drivers, second-hand smoke, cancer risks from toxins. What do we do? Driver faster, smoke more, drink more. Now, because of this propensity to imbibe in public, we're in fear of people with weapons in bars, ignoring the risk to our livers.

    Number of people stabbed in bars vs people killed on the highway? It's minuscule. Solution? Stay out of stupid places, like bars during rowdy nights.
    Last edited by Badger Johnson; 11-09-2011 at 10:09 AM.
    A gun in a holster is better than one drawn and dispensing bullets. Concealed forces the latter. - ixtow

    Hi, I'm hypercritical. But I mean no harm, I just like to try to look deeply at life

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    As has been mentioned, it is egregious enough that your 4th Amendment rights are abrogated when inside an Alcohol Beverage Outlet. To extend that to a circle 50 feet from the entrance is - what's more egregious than egregious?

    What about the person who does not drink, and has no intent to ever enter an Alcohol Beverage Outlet, but is merely passing by on the sidewalk? What about the people driving past in the street? They are all within the 50-foot zone and therefore subject to warrantless search, and none of them were engaged in any activity which this intrusuion into a Constitutionally protected right sought to address.

    And you ask "What's next?" if that becomes legal? What's next is every distopian movie that ever was or will be becomes a literal guide for how the country is brought down. What's next is the realization that the government is refusing to abide by the rules that We the People imposed on the government. You might have read something about what happened the last time that took place.

    This is not "reasonable regulation" and it is not merely a small step on that slippery slope. This proposal is out and out attempt by the government to avoid the Constitution.

    Would I be out of line in urging you to oppose the proposal?

    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

  5. #5
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    I think it is a very unreasonable proposition.

    Just because a person walks within 50 feet of beer joint is no reason for the law enforcement officers to do a pat down and search on their person.
    Proud Veteran ~ U.S. Army / Army Reserve

    Mississippi State Guard ~ Honorably Retired


  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Thumbs down

    I wasn't aware of the current, unconstitutional law when I lived in New Orleans, and it certainly seems ripe for a court challenge!

  7. #7
    Regular Member sraacke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saint Gabriel, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,222
    Quote Originally Posted by ManInBlack View Post
    I wasn't aware of the current, unconstitutional law when I lived in New Orleans, and it certainly seems ripe for a court challenge!
    Many people don't know that this law exists, including many police. In a thread on the BayouShooter board this topic came up and several officers commented that they don't know of anyone actually walking into a bar and concudting a search based on this law.
    For those interested, this is the current law....
    Source- http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78743
    RS 14:95.4-
    §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.
    It's intresting/confusing to see in section B of the above law the definition of a ABO then see a different definition in section D. "B" says " whether or not such sales are the primary purpose or are an incidental purpose of the business of the establishment" but then "D" says "if a majority of its gross receipts are from sales of food and non-alcoholic beverages."

    Even more is RS 14:95.5 (http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78744) "Possession of firearm on premises of alcoholic beverage outlet" which also defines an ABO as "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."... but does not have the exception for resturants which serve more food than spirits.

    Frankly, instead of passing even more restrictive laws I support efforts to get rid of 14:95:4 and 14:95:5 completely. Will it happen? Maybe in steps such as getting resturants off the books then working to bars next. I certainly don't want to see it go the opposite direction.
    Last edited by sraacke; 11-09-2011 at 12:52 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Even with the specious nature of the current law (I was aware of it, and have seen notices posted), it sees little use because consent can be revoked at any time, as a well settled matter of 4th Amendment case law.

    (If anyone really needs a cite, I'll be glad to dig some up later.)

    Entering a bar might be "consent" by statute, but it's no different than the implied consent to BAC testing when driving: you can revoke that consent by simply refusing.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    I think the question should be "is anyone ok with this?"
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  10. #10
    Regular Member estcrh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    365
    Please send a short email to the individual who is supporting this crazy plan (Kristin Gisleson Palmer) and let her know what you think about politicians who want to take away more rights from us. kgpalmer@nola.gov

    Here is a link to the rest of the New Orleans city council, remember that what happens in one city can spread to other cities and even though this currently targets concealed weapons who is to say what the next target will be.

    http://www.nolacitycouncil.com/meet/meet.asp

Posting Permissions

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