Ban on Carry on Alcohol Licensed Premises Ruled Unconstitutional

Gavel in Court

At least as applied to firearms carried in a vehicle in the parking lot of the licensed establishment:

As written, the clear language of § 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 § 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 § 13:95.3 “could be unconstitutional ‘as applied’ to a person within the parking lot of a grocery store.” 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 § 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.

14 thoughts on “Ban on Carry on Alcohol Licensed Premises Ruled Unconstitutional”

  1. I’m more disturbed by paragraph b:

    (b) … Any person who enters a place where alcoholic beverages are sold and/or consumed on the premises does, by the mere fact of entering, consent to a search of his person for any firearm or other instrumentality customarily used or intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon while on said premises, by any [law enforcement official], without a warrant.

    So under this law, if I stop at a convenience store to get gas, I have just consented to a warrantless search?

    1. I agree, and think that could be challenged, but I didn’t dive into detail to see if that claim had been made in this case.

  2. 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.

    Until some legislator gets a bright idea to add an “Implied Consent” to the CCW law, no?

    Hence the importance of Constitutional Carry and/or unlicensed open & car carry.

    1. Implied consent hinges on the idea that driving is a privilege. I believe there’s precedent that you can’t condition the exercise of one fundamental right on surrendering another.

    2. I actually think driving should be a right too, but that’s a separate argument. I also think implied consent, in that case, is a crock of shit as well, but that’s an even more separate argument.

    3. 1. Structure any “CWI” (Carrying While Intoxicated) law that is based on BAC so that a BAC below the threshold is a positive, affirmative, and absolute defence against a charge of carrying under the influence of alcohol, while mandating that police must inform you that “blowing clean” gets you off. Also, for any testing that is conducted, police must follow the same exact test procedures as they would for a DWI BAC test.

      2. State that, when a BAC test is desired but consent is not forthcoming, a warrant may be obtained for such testing, based on other probable cause. If he’s drunk, he’ll still be drunk in an hour when the magistrate issues a warrant. (If he’s sober enough that he’s “drunk” now, but will be below the legal threshold, he’s honestly not significantly drunk — our BAC thresholds are predicated on similar delays; someone who is at 0.08% is roughly as impaired as they would be after a hard day at work after a restless night. It’s within the noise of normal lfe stresses and distractions.)

      3. Allow conviction on the basis of non-invasive intoxication indicators that have documented validity. (Yes, there are “drunk tests” that do not require blood, breath, or urine testing.) However, state that such non-invasive indicators may provide probable cause for a warrant, and in the absense of actual scientific tests of breath, blood, or urine may be used as evidence at trial, that if the scientific measurements of alcohol levels are done, the observational indicators (slurred speech, smell of alcohol, eye tracking, etc.) revert to merely providing probable cause.

  3. I think Baton Rouge let themselves lose this case on purpose so they wouldn’t have to deal with the negative image of allowing “guns to mix with demon rum” by just repealing the ordinance.

  4. Minnesota driving: <.08%
    Minnesota carrying <.04%
    No restrictions on carrying in an establishment that sells alcohol regardless of food/alcohol ratio.
    It's difficulty walking by the bars as you have to step over the rivers of blood from the shootouts over bar stools and jukebox music choices.

    I believe Utah has wording regarding carrying while intoxicated but no limits on entering any type of establishment.

    This type of regulation seems to be the exception, as many states regulate the food/alcohol ratio and/or ban drinking at all.

    Now it's a different discussion as to the advisability of drinking while carrying if you are involved in an incident, but the point made earlier about driving a heavy truck at .07% may be more of a risk to society.

    1. Indiana law is even more liberal. The only state law regarding guns and alcohol makes it illegal to give a gun to an intoxicated person. Nothing about being in possession while intoxicated. Nothing about carrying into a bar and drinking. <sarc>And boy does the blood flow in the streets around the bars!</sarc>

  5. You can argue all day long about the legalities of carrying in an establishment that serves alcohol but where does it stop? I live in a neighborhood behind a school. So I can’t carry in my car as I drive out of the neighborhood? Enough is enough. If I want to carry in a bar, I will. I need to be the responsible person not to consume alcohol. Screwing around with our second amendment right based on little issues is bullshit. I generally carry 2 firearms in the open and one to two concealed. If a bar, or any establishment, requires me to disarm, they must have and armed guard or a lock box. I walk into my bank daily with exposed firearms. Never had I had a problem.

    1. And what’s wrong with this we site? My computer is set for my timezone yet it reports my post 3 hours later. Isn’t there anyone out there that knows how to write code???

    2. It might be bullshit, but the law requires us to debate these things, because a lot of our fellow citizens don’t agree with us.

Comments are closed.