As written, the clear language of Â§ 13:95.3 prohibits the possession of firearms in any parking lot of an establishment that sells alcohol. Thus, any law abiding citizen who exercises his or her right to keep or bear arms within the confines of his or her personal vehicle will violate Â§ 13:95.3 anytime he or she, for example, stops to refuel a vehicle at a service station that sells alcohol, or stops to purchase groceries at a grocery store that sells alcohol.
Indeed, Defendants concede in their memorandum that Â§ 13:95.3 â€œcould be unconstitutional â€˜as appliedâ€™ to a person within the parking lot of a grocery store.â€ Similarly, the ordinance prohibits law-abiding citizens from purchasing and possessing firearms at any establishment that sells alcohol, thereby rendering the sale of firearms at establishments like Wal-Mart a criminal act. Indeed, even Defendants concede that Â§ 13:95.3 impinges upon a right protected by the Second Amendment.
A step in the right direction. I tend to think the only restrictions of this manner that would be constitutional are on carrying while intoxicated. I’d also note if you can drive a 2 ton bludgeon down the road at 70MPH while sporting a 0.07BAC, carrying a gun being inherently less dangerous than operating a vehicle, people who carry are owed at least the same amount of deference.
That’s not the say the courts would go for that. The state will probably argue when it comes to vehicles there’s implied consent. Even if they set a BAC level for carrying, it couldn’t be enforced, since the cops can’t get any leverage over you to get you to blow. Not that I agree with implied consent when it comes to vehicles, but the state treats driving as a privilege, and at least in Louisiana, carrying a firearm is a right subject to strict scrutiny.