I am glad he was arrested. He is an idiot. Hurting the cause for attention is basically helping the other side of this battle.
That topic was covered in another thread. (Can't remember the title of the thread.)
However, if it was NOT a place whose primary business was alcohol, then they might not have a case unless he WAS consuming. If he WAS consuming, losing his rights would depend on whether that statute can be filed and disposed as a felony. If I remember right, it is primarily a misdemeanor, but I'd have to check again.
If it didn't change, it's pretty cut and dried... if their revenue is 51% from alcohol, that's their primary business. Of course you couldn't know that without looking at their books, and if it's that close it could be a bar one day and a restaurant the next. They probably just go by the obvious appearance.
My feeling is in this case, if there is so much as a technical violation, they'll throw the book at him.
My feeling is in this case, if there is so much as a technical violation, they'll throw the book at him.
I think what I read (on here, obviously not official, from a lawyer, from the gubmint, from our overlords, or whathaveyou) is the prevailing opinion is if you have a permit, you can carry where alcohol is consumed, but not in a bar, the place where that is the primary purpose of the business, but that this doesn't apply to people exercising their 'constitutional carry' right without a permit.
But obviously, I wouldn't want to base my freedom and right to own firearms on that opinion... thus my concern about ambiguity.
But obviously, I wouldn't want to base my freedom and right to own firearms on that opinion... thus my concern about ambiguity.
There really isn’t any ambiguity. 1272.1 is pretty clear.
Without a permit, the carrying of any weapon (rifle, shotgun, pistol) is prohibited in any place that serves alcohol for consumption. With a permit, carrying a pistol is allowed in places that aren’t strictly bars.
With or without a permit, carrying a rifle into a place like Twin Peaks is a violation of the law.
I could have sworn one of the articles I read said Twin Peaks. I'll see if I can find that again.
Eta: it looks like the arrest and carrying into Twin Peaks were not the same incident.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
it's almost as if the legislature has somehow created overlapping and unclear laws that sort of do the same thing, while not technically. Permit, no permit, public, private, 51% or not. Parks, trusts, events.
I agree, I think it is unnecessarily complicated. I don't think the intention was for there to be a difference, unless it was specifically meant to be a 'gotcha!' moment for some folks. I could be wrong, they could have definitely intended it to be a different level of rights for permitted and non-permitted folks.
....but it’s not complicated.
We make it complicated when we insert our feelings or thoughts on how it should be.
The law says don’t bring a gun into any place that serves booze....with a narrow carve out for permit holders.
We make it complicated when we insert our feelings or thoughts on how it should be.
The law says don’t bring a gun into any place that serves booze....with a narrow carve out for permit holders.
Similar threads
