Interpretation of 14:95, alcoholic beverage outlets

[FishingBack]

RS 14:95.5

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.

Interpretation: Applebees is a no go for firearms since they sell alcohol. The concealed carry statutes list areas where you are not allowed to carry and lists class A license locations.

One law doesn't restrict it in this location, one law makes it illegal. Is there any case law pertaining to this? The interaction of multiple laws is over my non-lawyer head.

I know general consensus on this board is that we CAN cc into Applebees but not sit in the bar area.

RS 14:94.4

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.

So by going into a bar you consent to warrantless searches for firearms. This seems like a tool the LEO could use to catch a bunch of drug users.

But, since Applebees does not derive most of their sales from alcohol, you do not give consent for warrantless searches by entering.

Anybody know why "alcoholic beverage outlet" is defined two different ways when using the same exact phrase?

 

[Nolacopusmc]

Here we go again.


...because it is Louisiana and there are inconsistencies throughout the law. Part of this is being worked through LSP in upcoming legislation to make it more clearly defined.

 

[Hitman]

Brotherman,

Hasn't the absolutely useless member they call Nolacopusmc explained this hundreds of times?

Edit -wow see! He's already here

 

[Nolacopusmc]

Brotherman,

Hasn't the absolutely useless member they call Nolacopusmc explained this hundreds of times?

Edit -wow see! He's already here

Also every other member on the board...but i am without a doubt the most useless...I might have to do another poll... LOL

 

[FishingBack]

I was posting for the purpose of the difference in definitions of an "alcoholic beverage outlet." Then I had a thought about the overlapping carry laws.

I know the carry issue has been discussed, but what about the definition of an alcoholic beverage outlet?

Is there really a proposed law to fix this "same wording but means two different things according to two different laws" issue?

 

[spanky]

It's all about the type of liquor license they have afaik.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

I was posting for the purpose of the difference in definitions of an "alcoholic beverage outlet." Then I had a thought about the overlapping carry laws.

I know the carry issue has been discussed, but what about the definition of an alcoholic beverage outlet?

Is there really a proposed law to fix this "same wording but means two different things according to two different laws" issue?

Actually, it is two totally different things.

95.5- says no weapons in any place that serves alcohol for consumption on premises= bars and restaurants.

The concealed carry law, which by design specifically exempts concealed carry permit holders from 95.5, even though not specifically stated within as it should, further clarifies that the exemption is meant to apply to restaurants and not bars.

that is why the clause about a "Class A general retail permit". The intent is to exempt permit holders from restaurants, but not bars.

Those without pemits, IE OC practitioners are barred from anyplace that serves alcohol per 95.5. However, I have seen some in said places and the general...don't be an ass rule generally applies to them not being hassled.

 

[FishingBack]

Actually, it is two totally different things.

95.5- says no weapons in any place that serves alcohol for consumption on premises= bars and restaurants.

The concealed carry law, which by design specifically exempts concealed carry permit holders from 95.5, even though not specifically stated within as it should, further clarifies that the exemption is meant to apply to restaurants and not bars.

that is why the clause about a "Class A general retail permit". The intent is to exempt permit holders from restaurants, but not bars.

Those without pemits, IE OC practitioners are barred from anyplace that serves alcohol per 95.5. However, I have seen some in said places and the general...don't be an ass rule generally applies to them not being hassled.

I am 100% in agreement as to what the CC law says and the difference in liquor license types.

However, you say that the CC Law (40:1379.3) exempts a person from 14:95.

http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=97451

Nowhere does it say that the permit holders are exempt to 14:95 or 14:95.5.

In 14:95.5 it does not specify whether legally or illegally carried.

No person shall intentionally possess a firearm while on the premises of an alcoholic beverage outlet.

 

[Hitman]

Also every other member on the board...but i am without a doubt the most useless...I might have to do another poll... LOL

It's all about the type of liquor license they have afaik.

You hurt your what?

 

[FishingBack]

14.95.5 again. A very poorly written law. LEO cannot have a firearm unless there in an official capacity. That means, according to this law, that you can't carry in Applebees while off-duty.

This law, as written, is terrible. "But it's the written law!"

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.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

I am 100% in agreement as to what the CC law says and the difference in liquor license types.

However, you say that the CC Law (40:1379.3) exempts a person from 14:95.

http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=97451

Nowhere does it say that the permit holders are exempt to 14:95 or 14:95.5.

In 14:95.5 it does not specify whether legally or illegally carried.

i know it does not say that, but legal jurisprudence would agree that the entire concept of a concealed carry permit is to exempt one from that which is otherwise criminal.

Again, there are no solid answers here. These types of issues are decided in court. However, it is reasonable for one to take the wording in the CHP law to apply to CHP holders...even though it gives additional lattitude to carry....exactly the intended purpose of the permit in the first place.'

Think about it, or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

 

[Nolacopusmc]

14.95.5 again. A very poorly written law. LEO cannot have a firearm unless there in an official capacity. That means, according to this law, that you can't carry in Applebees while off-duty.

This law, as written, is terrible. "But it's the written law!"

Wrong again bucko.

HR 218 gives LEO the same rights as a CHP holder in any state that they are in.

Whether you agree or not, CHp is allowed in Applebees, therefore, LEO off-duty is allowed also.

 

[FishingBack]

i know it does not say that, but legal jurisprudence would agree that the entire concept of a concealed carry permit is to exempt one from that which is otherwise criminal.

Again, there are no solid answers here. These types of issues are decided in court. However, it is reasonable for one to take the wording in the CHP law to apply to CHP holders...even though it gives additional lattitude to carry....exactly the intended purpose of the permit in the first place.'

Think about it, or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

I frequently argue for the sake of arguing. I also worry about getting busted for firearms infractions while going about my life.

I understand the INTENT and agree.

Kind of like the "blue" headlights law.

 

[FishingBack]

Wrong again bucko.

HR 218 gives LEO the same rights as a CHP holder in any state that they are in.

Whether you agree or not, CHp is allowed in Applebees, therefore, LEO off-duty is allowed also.

I'm not wrong - the law is poorly written.

 

[FishingBack]

Would it be a good idea to try to get an AG opinion to clear this mess up?

 

[Nolacopusmc]

I'm not wrong - the law is poorly written.

You are wrong...and the law is poorly written.

 

[Det.Blair]

Wrong again bucko.

HR 218 gives LEO the same rights as a CHP holder in any state that they are in.

Whether you agree or not, CHp is allowed in Applebees, therefore, LEO off-duty is allowed also.

Nolacop is right. Pretty much LEO is on duty 24-7 in my book. But common sense prevails if I am going to indulge in some spirits I will not carry. But otherwise Its like an American express card, i do not leave home without(g27) it. HR218 is a blessing for LEO.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

Would it be a good idea to try to get an AG opinion to clear this mess up?

lol


I know it's been a while, but RELEASE THE KRACKEK!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Where is DAWG23 when we need him.

An AG opinon will clear all this up right?

 

[Nolacopusmc]

Nolacop is right. Pretty much LEO is on duty 24-7 in my book. But common sense prevails if I am going to indulge in some spirits I will not carry. But otherwise Its like an American express card, i do not leave home without(g27) it. HR218 is a blessing for LEO.

Furthermore, most LE agencies require via policy that LEO be armed within their jurisdiction, thus placing them "in an official capacity" 24-7.

 

[FishingBack]

Furthermore, most LE agencies require via policy that LEO be armed within their jurisdiction, thus placing them "in an official capacity" 24-7.

If they are always official, then that takes care of it.