OC and drinking in a Class B

[BROKENSPROKET]

I know this has been hashed out already. But.....the forum is kinda quite......

Some people believe thier is a narrow loophole where someone can open carry and drink in a place that has been issued a class B liqour license.

That very narrow looophole, which no sensible owner or manager would grant you, does not exist, under any circumstances, IF you have been issued a CCL.

Some, that have said that they would just unconceal, if they wanted a drink, are in serious error.

 

[Mlutz]

And the proof is located... Where exactly...?

 

[msusnVet]

Not gonna happen in any tavern or eat joint I am sitting in.

 

[protias]

I know this has been hashed out already. But.....the forum is kinda quite......

Some people believe thier is a narrow loophole where someone can open carry and drink in a place that has been issued a class B liqour license.

That very narrow looophole, which no sensible owner or manager would grant you, does not exist, under any circumstances, IF you have been issued a CCL.

Some, that have said that they would just unconceal, if they wanted a drink, are in serious error.

Lizzy's Green Cafe has given us permission. 941.237 did not go away because of Act 35. You can still consume if you have permission. However, if you are carrying, openly or concealed, and do not get permission to be in a class B liquor area, you cannot consume.

 

[HandyHamlet]

Greg,

I cordially invite you to join us at Lizzy's one night.

T

Not gonna happen in any tavern or eat joint I am sitting in.

Do they let unsupervised 12 yr olds in taverns up here?

 

[skidmark]

Not gonna happen in any tavern or eat joint I am sitting in.

While doing so may not be the brightest move one makes in life, those sound like a serious threat of violence to these ears. Would you care to take the opportunity to amplify and explain yourself before your words come back to bite you?

stay safe.

 

[sawah]

In Virginny, you can -only- OC and drink. Dunno if they changed it recently. Goofy laws. I think all law makers must get drunk before voting.

They can't be that delusional.
/Lewis Black.

 

[rcawdor57]

Hmm...Logic Error?

I know this has been hashed out already. But.....the forum is kinda quite......

Some people believe thier is a narrow loophole where someone can open carry and drink in a place that has been issued a class B liqour license.

That very narrow looophole, which no sensible owner or manager would grant you, does not exist, under any circumstances, IF you have been issued a CCL.

Some, that have said that they would just unconceal, if they wanted a drink, are in serious error.

With that thought process "...IF you have been issued a CCL." Then I can also logically say "If you have been issued a CCL you MUST conceal carry at all times."

It simply isn't true. It isn't a "loophole". It simply isn't against the law to open carry and consume alcoholic beverages.

If a person cannot be trusted to have a beer and carry then why trust them to drink and drive?

 

[msusnVet]

While doing so may not be the brightest move one makes in life, those sound like a serious threat of violence to these ears. Would you care to take the opportunity to amplify and explain yourself before your words come back to bite you?

stay safe.

Mr. skidmark, cut out the drama. I will not ever carry any of my weapons in a Wisconsin establishment with a class B license. No threat at all. I would not do anything, there are trained officials to take care of situations involving drinking alcohol and carrying a firearm.

 

[Herr Heckler Koch]

Not gonna happen in any tavern or eat joint I am sitting in.

While doing so may not be the brightest move one makes in life, those sound like a serious threat of violence to these ears. Would you care to take the opportunity to amplify and explain yourself before your words come back to bite you? stay safe.

The only violence that I hear implied here is that received on the 'ride' by the scofflaw from the law enforcer that MsUSNVet called, reporting a violation of 941.237(3)(cx).

§ 941.237 Carrying handgun where alcohol beverages may be sold and consumed.
(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.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to any of the following:
[ ... ]
(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.
[ ... ]
(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 sub-paragraph (g) exception does not allow consumption, but only possession or use of a handgun.

Please cut a bit of slack for MsUSNVet as s/he has not been welcome here, but for no good reason. Not every one drools honeyed poison into their comrades ears or eyes.

 

[msusnVet]

Lizzy's Green Cafe has given us permission. 941.237 did not go away because of Act 35. You can still consume if you have permission. However, if you are carrying, openly or concealed, and do not get permission to be in a class B liquor area, you cannot consume.

Since I like to frequent the above cafe and tavern I guess a "test case" could possibly be given birth in Kansasville.

 

[OC for ME]

At first, I thought the topic revolved around a Class B RV....:uhoh:

 

[MKEgal]

Paul, it's a troll. Put it on ignore, or ban it.

As for the "alcohol & carrying", there have been many discussions on this topic.
Here's one: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?90313-Alochol-and-carrying
[Yes, I misspelled it.]

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/RSB/STATS.HTML

941.20 Endangering safety by use of dangerous weapon
(1) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor
(b) Operates or goes armed with a firearm while he or she is under the influence of an intoxicant

939.22(42)
"Under the influence of an intoxicant" means that the actor's ability to operate a vehicle or handle a firearm or airgun is materially impaired because of his or her consumption of an alcohol beverage...

If you find the definition of "materially impaired", it says 0.08% is prima facia [sp?] evidence.
It does _not_ say that a lesser amount is _not_ impaired.
So I suspect it would be harder to prove.
Also bear in mind that things other than ETOH are intoxicants, including legal drugs.

And if you dig into the Class B rules + firearms, it says nobody may carry a handgun into a class B premises w/o permission from the owner or manager.
Long guns always have been & still are perfectly legal, license or no, premission or no.

The new cc law says nobody carrying on a class B premises on a license may consume alcohol,
AND
carrying without express permission requires a license.

So... when we go to Lizzie's, everyone carrys openly & leaves any licenses they may have in their vehicles because Adam & Lizzie most emphatically give permission.

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

I know this has been hashed out already. But.....the forum is kinda quite......

Some people believe thier is a narrow loophole where someone can open carry and drink in a place that has been issued a class B liqour license.

That very narrow looophole, which no sensible owner or manager would grant you, does not exist, under any circumstances, IF you have been issued a CCL.

Some, that have said that they would just unconceal, if they wanted a drink, are in serious error.

I thought we had talked about this before.

941.237 (2) Whoever intentionally goes armed with a handgun on anypremises for which a Class “B” or “Class B” license or permit has
been issued under ch. 125 is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to any of the following:
(a) A peace officer.
(b) A correctional officer while going armed in the line of duty.
(c) A member of the U.S. armed forces or national guard while
going armed in the line of duty.
(cm) A private security person meeting all of the following criteria:
1. The private security person is covered by a license or permit
issued under s. 440.26.
2. The private security person is going armed in the line of
duty.
3. The private security person is acting with the consent of the
person specified in par. (d).
(cr) A qualified out−of−state law enforcement officer, as
defined in s. 941.23 (1) (g), to whom s. 941.23 (2) (b) 1. to 3.
applies.
(ct) A former officer, as defined in s. 941.23 (1) (c), to whom
s. 941.23 (2) (c) 1. to 7. applies.
(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.
(d) The licensee, owner, or manager of the premises, or any
employee or agent authorized to possess a handgun by the
licensee, owner, or manager of the premises.
(e) The possession of a handgun that is unloaded and encased
in a vehicle in any parking lot area.
(f) The possession or use of a handgun at a public or private
gun or sportsmen’s range or club.
(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.
(h) The possession of any handgun that is used for decoration
if the handgun is encased, inoperable or secured in a locked condition.
(i) The possession of a handgun in any portion of a hotel other
than the portion of the hotel that is a tavern.
(j) The possession of a handgun in any portion of a combination
tavern and store devoted to other business if the store is owned
or operated by a firearms dealer, the other business includes the
sale of handguns and the handgun is possessed in a place other
than a tavern.

This was NOT changed by Act 35. So... I can drink while armed as long as I have permission of the 'owner or manager of the premises' as long as I don't also fall under 941.237(3)(cx).

Please tell me why I am wrong?

 

[Herr Heckler Koch]

I thought we had talked about this before.
This was NOT changed by Act 35. So... I can drink while armed as long as I have permission of the 'owner or manager of the premises' as long as I don't also fall under 941.237(3)(cx).

Please tell me why I am wrong?

Take me off ignore or read what I cut and pasted. The agent can only give permission to possess.

The intent is is made clear - to me - in § 941.20, "Thou shall not ..."

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

Take me off ignore or read what I cut and pasted. The agent can only give permission to possess.

I saw what you posted, I guess I don't understand your point. (cx) is for carrying in a bar, open or concealed without explicit permission. To do that, you have to agree to not drink. (g) is for open carrying with explicit permission of the owner or manager and you don't give up your right to drink. As MKEgal said, there are other statutes that cover materially impaired while carrying and we need to be mindful of that but I still contend I can carry under (g) and drink.

 

[Herr Heckler Koch]

I still contend I can carry under (g) and drink.

Don't be shy then, take MsUSNVet up on the offer.

§ 941.237 Carrying handgun where alcohol beverages may be sold and consumed.
(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.

If you carry a gun in a Class B joint you are guilty.

§ 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.

If you gotta permit and are not drinking then you can have a gun.

§ 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 owners agent may authorize possession.

If I'm wrong then YOU be the test case.

Get off msusnVet's back or I'll start mashing the harassment button. I never Imagined we'd have to tolerate a cat fight here.

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

Don't be shy then, take MsUSNVet up on the offer.

§ 941.237 Carrying handgun where alcohol beverages may be sold and consumed.
(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.

If you carry a gun in a Class B joint you are guilty.

§ 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.

If you gotta permit and are not drinking then you can have a gun.

§ 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 owners agent may authorize possession.

If I'm wrong then YOU be the test case.

Get off msusnVet's back or I'll start mashing the harassment button. I never Imagined we'd have to tolerate a cat fight here.

1. I buried the hatchet with msusnVet a long time ago.
2. I have OC'ed and had a beer at the same time.
3. Huh? I believe you are reading too much into it. Each part is separate. Obviously it is illegal to have a gun in a bar unless you meet ONE of the exemptions under (3). So..... (a) or (b) or (c) or (cx) or (....) or (g). (cx) has an implied AND that means you have to do (or not do in this case) both parts of (cx), have a license AND not drink. for (g), there is only one thing. Since by default I can drink, (2) says no handgun except for (3)(g).

 

[msusnVet]

Paul, it's a troll. Put it on ignore, or ban it.

As for the "alcohol & carrying", there have been many discussions on this topic.
Here's one: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?90313-Alochol-and-carrying
[Yes, I misspelled it.]

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/RSB/STATS.HTML

941.20 Endangering safety by use of dangerous weapon
(1) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor
(b) Operates or goes armed with a firearm while he or she is under the influence of an intoxicant

939.22(42)
"Under the influence of an intoxicant" means that the actor's ability to operate a vehicle or handle a firearm or airgun is materially impaired because of his or her consumption of an alcohol beverage...

If you find the definition of "materially impaired", it says 0.08% is prima facia [sp?] evidence.
It does _not_ say that a lesser amount is _not_ impaired.
So I suspect it would be harder to prove.
Also bear in mind that things other than ETOH are intoxicants, including legal drugs.

And if you dig into the Class B rules + firearms, it says nobody may carry a handgun into a class B premises w/o permission from the owner or manager.
Long guns always have been & still are perfectly legal, license or no, premission or no.

The new cc law says nobody carrying on a class B premises on a license may consume alcohol,
AND
carrying without express permission requires a license.

So... when we go to Lizzie's, everyone carrys openly & leaves any licenses they may have in their vehicles because Adam & Lizzie most emphatically give permission.

Lizzie and Adam are giving permission from hearsay. They have never read the statutes concerning this situation. Just because you group tells them it is alright does not make it legal.

Your name calling habit does not bother me in the least. Nor have I done anything to be banned.

 

[HandyHamlet]

If I'm wrong then YOU be the test case.

Get off msusnVet's back or I'll start mashing the harassment button. I never Imagined we'd have to tolerate a cat fight here.

Well I guess several of us have been test cases on multiple times already.

And please do use that harassment button. m&mvet the troll is just that. A troll. It has been banned multiple times under multiple accounts. The first being Logables. The troll has utilized at least a half dozen fake accounts by my recollection... The only difference being while under previous accounts he threatened to stalk us, this time he offers proof he actually IS stalking us. Which is quite disturbing. That's why MKEgal keeps suggesting to put LOGABLES on ignore. HHK, we have been dealing with this stalker and troll for quite some time.