Our AG Has Spoken

[Bayoupiper]

According to him guns in bars AND restaurants is a no-no....



http://www.scribd.com/doc/159969042/AG-Caldwell-Opinion-Law-enforcement-officers-and-gun-laws




.

 

[mcinfantry]

Good! About time someone asked

And I'll apply the SAME logic to switch blade knives.


ΜΟΡΟΝ ΛΑΒΙΑ

 

[JNieman]

Man, that's some ****ed up bull ****. "Oh no, someone ELSE is drinking in this place, you can't have a gun!"

So how does this apply if there's a street vendor selling beers? :|

 

[Leadfoot]

I personally didn't see any ambiguous language in this law that needed an AG opinion.

It's pretty clear. If you're a law officer who is in an establishment on official business, gun allowed. Otherwise, no. Pretty simple.

 

[Pas Tout La]

Anybody want to volunteer to get arrested for it and fight it in court? Where is that douche with the video camera? You want to fight for your gun rights, well here's your chance!

 

[geoney]

Am I correct in assuming that this in no way applies to CHP holders since there is specific statute which very clearly defines where CHP holders can and cannot carry based on the permit of the location?

This would only be guidance for LEO's right?

 

[ejt1469]

And I'll apply the SAME logic to switch blade knives.

"The law applies to concealed weapons, as well."



"Under state law, it is a crime to bring a gun into any establishment that sells alcohol unless it is the establishment owner or a law enforcement officer "acting in the performance of his official duties....An alcoholic beverage outlet is defined by state law as any establishment that sells alcohol in individual servings for the purpose of consumption on the premises." - is the author trying to mislead us....nah, probably just did not do a little research.[h=3]RS 14:95.4 - 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. [/h]

 

[JNieman]

Am I correct in assuming that this in no way applies to CHP holders since there is specific statute which very clearly defines where CHP holders can and cannot carry based on the permit of the location?

This would only be guidance for LEO's right?

Nope, Leadfoot says there is no ambiguity at all so you're obviously wrong. It's 100% clear so stop being confused.

 

[barbarossa]

Well, I'm confused as well...

So it is illegal for CHP holders to carry in a restaurant that also serves beer?

 

[ejt1469]

So it is illegal for CHP holders to carry in a restaurant that also serves beer?

RS 14:95.4 - 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.

 

[mcinfantry]

Why is everyone confused? He is clear in his ruling.


ΜΟΡΟΝ ΛΑΒΙΑ

 

[mcinfantry]

RS 14:95.4 - 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.

Ask to see the books before you sit down


ΜΟΡΟΝ ΛΑΒΙΑ

 

[JNieman]

RS 14:95.4 - 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.

The AG disagrees and it's on page one, statement B.

I don't see how this could possibly be confusing to anyone I mean this is obviously as clear as attending a parade while carrying concealed with a permit. Duh. :P

 

[barbarossa]

RS 14:95.4 - 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.

Thanks. I was looking a the text in the link, and the "restaurant" part was missing there.


Edit:

The AG disagrees and it's on page one, statement B.

I don't see how this could possibly be confusing to anyone I mean this is obviously as clear as attending a parade while carrying concealed with a permit. Duh. :P

Ok, turns out I'm still confused.

I'm not a legal mind. Could somebody who is please explain this?

 

[geoney]

But the opinion appears to be only for LEO officers.

Also, if the CHP law allows you to carry in any place without a Class A General Retail permit, and the LEOSA law essentially allows all LEO to have same rights as CHP, wouldn't his "opinion" be moot since the CHP law allows you to that that which is otherwise non-permitted (such as in 14:95, 14:95.4) due to the "Class A Genrral Retail permit?

Off duty LEO, under LEOSA, would essentially be allowed to carry in restaurants (as defined by not having a Class A General Retail Permit). The only place they would NOT be able to carry would be in those places WITH a CLASS A GR permit.... right?

 

[Leadfoot]

The AG disagrees and it's on page one, statement B.

Did you read the notes at the bottom of page 2?

 

[JNieman]

Did you read the notes at the bottom of page 2?

Yes, but it seems to speak only about proposals and hypotheticals, and not the current law; while ejt1469 was linking current law. Has something changed?

 

[mcinfantry]

Leo doesn't carry under chp.
Louisiana LEO carry under the commission.

At one time I maintained a commission and CHP, because the CHP allowed a wider carry. Now I don't have either. Not do I carry.


ΜΟΡΟΝ ΛΑΒΙΑ

 

[geoney]

Leo doesn't carry under chp.
Louisiana LEO carry under the commission.

At one time I maintained a commission and CHP, because the CHP allowed a wider carry. Now I don't have either. Not do I carry.


ΜΟΡΟΝ ΛΑΒΙΑ

Technically, doesn't the commission only legally allow CCW inside the jurisdiction of their commission or department? To carry outside of that, wouldn't they need an actual CHP or the protection of LEOSA?

 

[Leadfoot]

Yes, but it seems to speak only about proposals and hypotheticals, and not the current law; while ejt1469 was linking current law. Has something changed?

The only part of the law which needs clarification is something the legislature needs to do, which is once and for all clearly define the term "alcoholic beverage outlet".

It means one thing in one law and something different in another.