OC and drinking in a Class B

Herr Heckler Koch · Jan 22, 2012

In Wisconsin, there are only premises not licensed for consumption of alcohol and premises licensed for alcohol consumption. Fine dining, fast food, bar, grill, tavern is immaterial.

Same in South Carolina. When we were trying to get 'restaurant carry' passed there, we called it "fine dining establishments" to put the best face on the issue. That way the disparagement is on the critic of The Middle Bar.

BROKENSPROKET · Jan 22, 2012

paul@paul-fisher.com said:
Ok, we seem to be talking in circles. I say that I qualify under 941.237(g). Since you seem to force me to (cx), why don't you also force the owner under that as well?

I am not forcing you and I am not forcing him.

BROKENSPROKET said:
I never made any claim that the property owner fo a Class "B" could not drink while armed on the premises. I did not make a claim that he could either. I did not bring the 'proprietor' into this discussion. I suppose.... Well, let me say this first. Its not about what expemtion that a person chooses. A person cannot 'choose' which exemption they qualify under. If you qualify under and expemption, you qualify under and expemtion. If you qualify under more than one, then you qualify under more than one. If you qualify for more than one, you cannot choose which one you 'enjoy' and which one not to 'enjoy'. You enjoy them both, and it's not your choice. Having said that, I don't think he could, if he was a licensee. There should be an exemption for the propietor during closing hours and 940.21 should be all that he would have to worry about, but that's not my concern.

paul@paul-fisher.com · Jan 22, 2012

BROKENSPROKET said:
I am not forcing you and I am not forcing him.

OK.... in post 78 you said the owner qualified under 941.237(d) and that was OK to drink because he wasn't under (cx). I guess I'm really confused.

Let's break this down:

Can an owner that has a license under 175.60 drink while open carrying? If not, why not? I'm not asking if it is smart, just if it's legal.

E6chevron · Jan 24, 2012

Paul, and some others here, are correct about this situation:

A CCL licensee in a Class B tavern/restaurant whose owner/manager has authorized a "specific event of limited duration" to allow carrying of handguns in the facility.

Let's refresh ourselves on how most statutes are structured:

*They may have some definitions or definition references at the beginning,
*Then they they have some activities or actions that are prohibited felonies or misdemeanors or forfeitures.
*Next, are some simple or complex descriptions of "does not apply to" / "Exceptions" to the above prohibitions. (aka Under what circumstances can the activity or action be done legally)

Act35 added another exception to WI statute 941.237 "Carrying handgun where alcohol may be sold and consumed" https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/941/III/237
which gave some additional privilege to holders of CCL licenses.

941.237(3)(cx) A licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (d), or an out-of-state licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (g), if the licensee or out-of-state licensee is not consuming alcohol on the premises.

The above is merely ANOTHER possible exception to the statute prohibition of No carrying handguns in Class B premises. It does NOT reduce or limit a licensee's right to use the previously existing exception below:

941.237(3)(g) The possession or use of a handgun on the premises if authorized for a specific event of limited duration by the owner or manager of the premises who is issued the Class "B" or "Class B" license or permit under ch. 125 for the premises.

The law doesn't require you to use any particular one of these exceptions, but if you are carrying a handgun in Class B premises, and do not want to be guilty of a 941.237(2) charge, you had better make sure that at least one of these exceptions applies to you.

If I was sipping a wine with my meal, while Concealed Carrying a handgun, at a specific authorized event, and a LEO suggested arresting me under 941.237(2), I would point out it does not apply to me because of 941.237 subsection 3, paragraph g. The other exceptions are unimportant at that time to me, or him, or the DA. The DA does not have the choice of which exception, he says you DON'T qualify for, you have the right to show which statutory exception you DO qualify for.

If he then said I was violating the concealed carry 941.23(2) "Carrying Concealed Weapon" I would say the exception to that law that was applicable to me is 941.23 subsection 2, paragraph d.

941.23(2)(d) A licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (d), or an out-of-state licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (g), if the dangerous weapon is a weapon, as defined under s. 175.60 (1) (j).
...

There is nothing in these statutes, that requires a person to use "similar" exception paragraphs, to qualify for "does not apply to" exception to these statutes. Just because I have a CCL, I do not have to use that to get the exception from 941.237, so long as I also qualify for a different exception in 941.237

BROKENSPROKET · Jan 24, 2012

E6chevron said:
Paul, and some others here, are correct about this situation:

A CCL licensee in a Class B tavern/restaurant whose owner/manager has authorized a "specific event of limited duration" to allow carrying of handguns in the facility.

Let's refresh ourselves on how most statutes are structured:

*They may have some definitions or definition references at the beginning,
*Then they they have some activities or actions that are prohibited felonies or misdemeanors or forfeitures.
*Next, are some simple or complex descriptions of "does not apply to" / "Exceptions" to the above prohibitions. (aka Under what circumstances can the activity or action be done legally)

Act35 added another exception to WI statute 941.237 "Carrying handgun where alcohol may be sold and consumed" https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/941/III/237
which gave some additional privilege to holders of CCL licenses.

The above is merely ANOTHER possible exception to the statute prohibition of No carrying handguns in Class B premises. It does NOT reduce or limit a licensee's right to use the previously existing exception below:

The law doesn't require you to use any particular one of these exceptions, but if you are carrying a handgun in Class B premises, and do not want to be guilty of a 941.237(2) charge, you had better make sure that at least one of these exceptions applies to you.

If I was sipping a wine with my meal, while Concealed Carrying a handgun, at a specific authorized event, and a LEO suggested arresting me under 941.237(2), I would point out it does not apply to me because of 941.237 subsection 3, paragraph g. The other exceptions are unimportant at that time to me, or him, or the DA. The DA does not have the choice of which exception, he says you DON'T qualify for, you have the right to show which statutory exception you DO qualify for.

If he then said I was violating the concealed carry 941.23(2) "Carrying Concealed Weapon" I would say the exception to that law that was applicable to me is 941.23 subsection 2, paragraph d.

There is nothing in these statutes, that requires a person to use "similar" exception paragraphs, to qualify for "does not apply to" exception to these statutes. Just because I have a CCL, I do not have to use that to get the exception from 941.237, so long as I also qualify for a different exception in 941.237

You go test that theory and we'll see who's right and who's wrong.

An officer is not going to listen to you try and explain how 941.237(3)(cx) doesn't apply to you. He is going to arrest you and let the DA sort it out. You chances are even worse pleading your case with the DA. Good luck with it.

paul@paul-fisher.com · Jan 24, 2012

BROKENSPROKET said:
You go test that theory and we'll see who's right and who's wrong. An officer is not going to listen to you try and explain how 941.237(3)(cx) doesn't apply to you. He is going to arrest you and let the DA sort it out. You chances are even worse pleading your case with the DA. Good luck with it.

OK, whatever. Once again, and this is my last response on this stupid thread, the LEO will have no RAS to:

1. Ask for my ID.
2. Check to see if I have a CCL. No CCL, no (cx) violation.

Can I get arrested? Of course! I can get arrested for all sorts of things that are legal. Eventually the cops supervisor or the DA or the Judge or the appeals court or the Supreme Court will kick it.

No matter what, it is NOT ILLEGAL!

How about we all just sit quietly in the corner of our basements so we don't accidentally get someone angry with us for standing up for our rights and doing something legal.

E6chevron · Jan 25, 2012

BROKENSPROKET said:
You go test that theory and we'll see who's right and who's wrong.

An officer is not going to listen to you try and explain how 941.237(3)(cx) doesn't apply to you. He is going to arrest you and let the DA sort it out. You chances are even worse pleading your case with the DA. Good luck with it.

My post was not a theory. It was correct in the description of how this statute is structured, accurate in the citations of several portions of the statute, and complete in the walkthru of a particular example.

My mistake was in not realizing that the main purpose of your post was to stir things up, because the forum was "quite" (sic)

Herr Heckler Koch · Jan 25, 2012

E6chevron said:
... complete in the walkthru of a particular example. My mistake was in not realizing that the main purpose of your post was to stir things up, because the forum was "quite" (sic)

I think he means hypothetical example rather than particular example. He is correct about his mistake.

msusnVet · Jan 25, 2012

Follow the yellow brick road to Kansasville. The wizard will be waiting for you.

Lurchiron · Jan 26, 2012

HandyHamlet said:
So, having a license means I can never drink again. Good to know.

:banana:

Dibbs on your arsenal...

awnuts · Jan 28, 2012

Pretty simple answer, I think is I dont drink and drive and I dont drink and carry. Moreso a thought of being a responsible person. To me getting a CCL or OC we need to be held to a higher standard.Ok you say what about I just want a glass of wine during dinner.Lets say a cop pulls you over for a routine stop. He smells alcohol on your breath and next thing your doing a sobriety and then he sees your carrying? I bet you got some time with him and explaining till you get a breath test to prove your not drunk. I'd rather just go home without the hassle.

Herr Heckler Koch · Jan 28, 2012

I agree about your "higher standard" but in all things, erudition, grammar, typography, too - and moderation. Unfortunately that is commonly held to be discriminatory as we tend to the meanest of the mean.

MKEgal · Jan 28, 2012

awnuts said:
I dont drink and drive and I dont drink and carry.
Moreso a thought of being a responsible person.
... held to a higher standard.
... I'd rather just go home without the hassle.

I see similarities between your argument against doing something which is perfectly legal, though unpopular - having a drink with dinner while also being armed -
with arguments made against going armed for one's own protection:
it's irresponsible, I'm better than that, the cops will hassle me.

Saying drinking alcohol and doing X is irresponsible is IMO similar to saying guns are bad.
Guns can be used in bad ways, and people can overindulge in alcohol.
But most people don't do either, and trying to paint everyone with the same brush - punishing the many for the actions of the few - is wrong in both cases.

I'm pretty sure I have the self-control to have a glass of wine (or beer) with dinner & wait until most or all of it has been processed out of my blood before driving home from the restaurant.
(OK, last time I had 2 beers, but it was really good beer & I wasn't armed & I waited double the time before driving.)
Not everyone does, & they either shouldn't drink alcohol or shouldn't drive afterwards.

And if they're that out of control, IMO they should carefully rethink their decision to carry a gun for protection because it's not safe for other people (just like DUI) and it could be legally very bad for them (just like DUI).

Herr Heckler Koch · Jan 28, 2012

quod vide "conventional wisdom."

awnuts · Jan 28, 2012

MKEgal said:
I see similarities between your argument against doing something which is perfectly legal, though unpopular - having a drink with dinner while also being armed -
with arguments made against going armed for one's own protection:
it's irresponsible, I'm better than that, the cops will hassle me.

Saying drinking alcohol and doing X is irresponsible is IMO similar to saying guns are bad.
Guns can be used in bad ways, and people can overindulge in alcohol.
But most people don't do either, and trying to paint everyone with the same brush - punishing the many for the actions of the few - is wrong in both cases.

I'm pretty sure I have the self-control to have a glass of wine (or beer) with dinner & wait until most or all of it has been processed out of my blood before driving home from the restaurant.
(OK, last time I had 2 beers, but it was really good beer & I wasn't armed & I waited double the time before driving.)
Not everyone does, & they either shouldn't drink alcohol or shouldn't drive afterwards.

And if they're that out of control, IMO they should carefully rethink their decision to carry a gun for protection because it's not safe for other people (just like DUI) and it could be legally very bad for them (just like DUI).

I wasnt trying to paint anything.I'm not saying everyone that has a drink with dinner is going to be drunk and cause a crime. But if enough people hit the books with violations it doesnt effect the rest of us? The states are known to recind laws and punish everyone for the actions of a few. You have experienced the fact of doing something legal and seen how a nightmare and hell can be created over nothing.

HandyHamlet · Jan 29, 2012

awnuts said:
But if...

But if.

But. if.

But if more and more meteor riding Space T Rexs drop from the skys to snatch women and children for their insidious slave mining operations on Peraderanus III...

None of this will matter.

Captain Nemo · Jan 30, 2012

This topic has been discussed ad naseum before on this forum and may I add, to no conclusion. Statute 941.237 only applies to those establishments that have a "Class B" or Class "B" permit or license. Does not apply to Class "A" licensed premisis which are "off sale" establishments. Does not apply to restaurants that have a "Class C" license to serve wine with meals. It is not against any statute to carry a fiream in any restuarant or barroom that serves wine with a meal if the restuarant has only a "Class A" or "Class C" license or both, that is providing the owner has not prohibited the carry.

941.237(2)
(2) Whoever intentionally goes armed with a handgun on any premises for which a Class "B" or "Class B" license or permit has been issued under ch. 125 is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

My opinion? Alcohol and gunpowder don't mix, period. Just listen to a police scanner on friday or saturday night. Even in the remote area I live in my scanners are going continuosly about bar fights and many involve weapons, usually bottles and knives but weapons never the less.

Yeah, I know, of the 70,000 people that have been issued CCL's all of them know their limits and would never exceed their capacity when carrying and certainly they would never get into an altercation. Bottom line: No matter how hard you try to justify it alcohol is a mood altering drug. It makes normal people do abnormal things and yes I am a teetotaler.

paul@paul-fisher.com · Jan 30, 2012

This will be my final comment in this thread.

Here is my overriding points:

1. I want to die an old man of natural causes never having pulled my firearm and pointing it at another human being.
2. I do not give up my right to self defense because I choose to have an alcoholic beverage.
3. Even if I have ZERO alcohol in my system, if I am forced to shoot someone, I will most likely end up in court.
4. I'd rather be alive and in jail then dead because I can only carry a gun or a beer.

Everyone needs to make their own decision as to what they will do. All I am saying is that it is not explicitly illegal to drink and carry. My buddy Mcx would yell and throw things at me but it is 'The totality of the circumstances' that will determine when/where I carry.

msusnVet · Jan 30, 2012

Kansasville liquor license holders will be getting educated by Racine County in the near future. A new lawman is a gonna cleanup that thar sin city.

BROKENSPROKET · Jan 30, 2012

paul@paul-fisher.com said:
This will be my final comment in this thread.

hahhaha….if that is your intention, don’t say it, because saying it only motivates some to get you to post again. Now, I feel kinda of bad about responding, because I might say something that you feel you would have to respond to and it would be my fault.

paul@paul-fisher.com said:
1. I want to die an old man of natural causes never having pulled my firearm and pointing it at another human being.

I also hope that I never have to draw my defensive firearm in a real situation. But I don’t fear it. I will not hesitate, if the need arises.

paul@paul-fisher.com said:
2. I do not give up my right to self defense because I choose to have an alcoholic beverage.

The right to self-defense is an inalienable right under common/natural law. But under criminal code, having alcohol in your system can greatly jeopardize your legal defense, the defense that may be afforded you under criminal law.

paul@paul-fisher.com said:
3. Even if I have ZERO alcohol in my system, if I am forced to shoot someone, I will most likely end up in court.

Outside the provisions of the Castle Doctrine, I agree with you. But, if you do have alcohol in your system, the deck will be soooo exponentially stacked against you. A LOT more so than if you were sober.

paul@paul-fisher.com said:
4. I'd rather be alive and in jail then dead because I can only carry a gun or a beer.

“I would rather be tried by twelve than carried by six” is a common response from those that would still protect themselves and their family, even without the protection of Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws. Or from those that would still carry, even where and when it is illegal to carry, to have the ability protect themselves and their family.

I understand that you would rather be alive and in jail than dead. I get that. But if you ever had to draw your defensive firearm, why would you knowingly jeopardize your legal defense. Having alcohol in your system will guarantee that a DA will try even harder to crucify you. It would be a tragedy if the deciding element that got a conviction was being under the influence, whereas a jury would have found you innocent otherwise.

I just cannot understand why someone cannot so no to alcohol while they are armed, unless there are some dependency issues involved. To carry a firearm is a very solemn responsibility, not to be taken lightly. I really don’t think you have honestly thought out the possible consequences.

Having said all that, the legal limit in many states is .04

paul@paul-fisher.com said:
Everyone needs to make their own decision as to what they will do. All I am saying is that it is not explicitly illegal to drink and carry. My buddy Mcx would yell and throw things at me but it is 'The totality of the circumstances' that will determine when/where I carry.

It may not be explicitly illegal, but in my opinion, is show really bad judgment. Having alcohol in you system can be, by far, the most damaging element in the ‘totality of circumstances’. I feel a reasonable person would do what they can to eliminate that element.

Some final thoughts:

Firearms and Alcohol don’t mix.. But then again, if someone is willing to have one, who is to say that someday that not might become two or more. It is better to never drink while armed than even flirt with that slippery slope. The responsible thing to do is never drink while armed. Many up-standing, respectable and unsuspecting people have become alcoholics.

I am confident that many people can be responsible and have only one while armed. But what kind of message may it send to others that may not be able to be resposible. What kind of message does it send to others to see you open carrying and drinking beer in a bar? How do they know that is your first and only beer and not your third or more?

Being the semi-public figure that you have become, I feel there is a necessity that you step up the professionalism. For many, you are the face of WCI.

Even though it may not be explicitly illegal, the fact that you and a few other have said that they have open carried and consumed a beer in a class ‘b’ and not disclosed the possible and likely consequences at the same time is irresponsible. What if others got the impression that is was perfectly legal, instead of ‘not explicitly illegal’ and unknowingly put themsleves at risk and ended up getting arrested and possibly prosecuted?

You have stated that your final comment has been given. Let it be so. I don’t want to debate this any further either. I just want you and others to think about it.

OC and drinking in a Class B

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest

Regular Member

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member