imported post
Louisiana Carry wrote:
alcoholic beverage establishments are, in fact, not defined the same in those statutes. The majority of tickets pertains to them "lawfully" conducting an unconstitutional search. Lawfully, but unconstitutionally, restricting your RKBA has no such majority of receipts definition in the other statute.
In other words, the way the law reads- you cannot carry where alcohol is sold, but they can only search you (albeit unconstitutionally) in actual bars and the like.
The search part is obviously irrelevant for OC.
So- if you are OCing where alcohol is sold, they can bust you. After a costly battle, you should win, as it is unconstitutional on its face, but the law at the moment says they can bust you.
The thing to do would be to be proactive about this and seek a summary judgment about these atrocious laws and get them off the books.
[align=justify]§95.4. Consent to search; alcoholic beverage outlet [/align]
[align=justify]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.[/align]
[align=justify]§95.5. Possession of firearm on premises of alcoholic beverage outlet [/align]
[align=justify]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.[/align]
[align=justify]Take out the individual section words; "for purposes of this section" and "as used herein" (which mean the same thing), the actual definitions of "alcoholic beverage outlet" look word-for-word to me.[/align]
[align=justify]The following bit of legal jargon comes from an Official Opinion written by the Attorney General of Indiana on July 6th 2007 and may have no bearing here in louisiana, but I figure there must be some similar legalese here somewhere.
In it, he states:
"in construing the meaning of certain words contained in a statute, the legislative definitions of the same words in another act (although not conclusive) is entitled to consideration in construing the same words when used in another statute upon the same or related subject."[/align]
[align=justify]I suppose one would have to agree whether or not 95.4 and 95.5 are on the "same or related subject" I'd say the related subject is "alcoholic beverage outlet" since both use the term in the labeling of their statutes as well as in the body of each.
[/align]
At the very least, the language of part D in 95.4 should be added to 95.5 to clarify an issue that's been driving carriers nuts. Anybody want to write to their legislator to see if he'll sponsor such a bill?
Again, MHO only.
To clarify a point.Part D of 95.4 adds an exception to the statute it's contained within, by stating that a restaurant that makes most of it's money off of food sales rather than alcohol is not considered an "alcoholic beverage outlet". It is not being usedto define what an"alcoholic beverage outlet" is.
