Class D Liquor License?

[medphys3]

How can you tell what kind of liquor permit an establishment has (without asking)? Are they posted in conspicuous places where we can see them?

[Petrovich]

How can you tell what kind of liquor permit an establishment has (without asking)? Are they posted in conspicuous places where we can see them?

I am sure you will find fuzzies, such as wine tasting places and such.

In practice it is fairly straightforward....if they serve booze; be it a bar or a restaurant; it's a felony to have a firearm. No ifs ands or butts.....booze, beer, pistols, shotguns, revolvers....whatever......NOPE.

This is not, BTW, an Ohio CCW rule....this is a federal law that has been on the books for decades.

[jburtonpdx]

This is not, BTW, an Ohio CCW rule....this is a federal law that has been on the books for decades.

I do not believe that to be true. It is an Ohio regulation. If it were a federal regulation, then the folks in Virginia are in a lot of trouble. See http://www.bighammer.net/

In Texas you are restricted if the establishment earns more the 51% of there money from alcohol.

In Arizona the state was recently working on passing a rule that would allow concealed carry in bars (it failed, dont remember the specifics).

So we do get to hold our state legislatures responsible for this along with many other holes in our concealed carry law....

In TX you can drop your kids off at scholl while carrying, here we can not do so since the school would be considered a destination.

[Petrovich]

This is not, BTW, an Ohio CCW rule....this is a federal law that has been on the books for decades.

I do not believe that to be true. It is an Ohio regulation. If it were a federal regulation, then the folks in Virginia are in a lot of trouble. See http://www.bighammer.net/

Oops, I stand corrected. It's a STATE law that's been on the books for decades. I guess I must have been misguided by the signs themselves. I haven't been in a bar for years, but I coulda swore they said it was a federal crime. My memory sucks.

[SMMAssociates]

Don't quote me, but the "no guns in bars" thing has been around forever.

However, AFAIK, it used to only apply to the bar itself in a situation where a restaurant had a separate bar, and didn't apply at all if the establishment just served.

Given that we let people drive automobiles with BAC's below 0.08, it seems a little silly, but remember that the folks who wrote this law wanted us to not be able to protect ourselves while taking the family to a decent restaurant, and like the idea of criminals stealing our weapons while we're in there, I'm not surprised at all that the rules have changed for the worse.

Eventually, we'll defeat the forces of sheepleness, but in the meantime, I live awfully close to Pennsylvania....

Regards,

[medphys3]

I didn't realize that beer only was a Class D. Rudy's and Pizza Hut come to mind.

[CurtInOhio]

The rule of thumb I use is that if they serve alcohol, I don't carry. Dorothy Lane Market has wine tastings in the Dayton area... they have a class D license to do so, and post a sign stating that you can't carry, as does Trader Joe's. Kroger sells wine, but they don't serve it, so no worries there.

[Scott]

they have a class D license to do so, and post a sign stating that you can't carry, as does Trader Joe's. Kroger sells wine, but they don't serve it, so no worries there.

Trader Joes at Sawmill and 161 doesn't post....

Our Krogers in Hilliard has a liquor store with the "if you are carrying in this liquor establishment you may be guilty..." sign at the entrance. I understand that does not apply to CHL holders...

If I see a neon beer sign in the window of an establishment (ie restaurant) that's my clue they have a class D....

[jmwildenthal]

The state maintains an online listing of what establishments have what kind of permits:

http://www.liquorcontrol.ohio.gov/onfileapps.htm

Next, I will bring up a point that may get this post redacted. I will preface that I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice; any conclusions you reach and actions you take are your own.

The ORC specifically exempts malt beverages (beer, most hard ciders and many wine coolers) from the definition of liquor (4301.01(A)(1), IIRC). As such, carrying in a place like Pizza Hut might actually be legal. However, I am not willing to be a test case. I am willing to call whoever Petro named as the primary contact for the brochure. He might recognize my name, as I have emailed Petro's office on this matter several times and for some reason my question has not been one of the "thousands" his office has answered.

[Willy P]

Scott watch that! It is the way Chopotly (sp) had me sweating bullets the first time I walked in to pick up a to go order at the Rome Hilliard location. Check it out, no signs, NONE. When I looked at the gal to pay for the order I noticed a cooler behind her that had drinks in it and some turned out being beer that you take in the other room and drink while you eat.

[JJones]

Scott watch that! It is the way Chopotly (sp) had me sweating bullets the first time I walked in to pick up a to go order at the Rome Hilliard location. Check it out, no signs, NONE. When I looked at the gal to pay for the order I noticed a cooler behind her that had drinks in it and some turned out being beer that you take in the other room and drink while you eat.

See above post, then repeat after me:
Under Ohio law, Beer is not liquor.

Jacques.

[Aaron]

Scott watch that! It is the way Chopotly (sp) had me sweating bullets the first time I walked in to pick up a to go order at the Rome Hilliard location. Check it out, no signs, NONE. When I looked at the gal to pay for the order I noticed a cooler behind her that had drinks in it and some turned out being beer that you take in the other room and drink while you eat.

See above post, then repeat after me:
Under Ohio law, Beer is not liquor.

Jacques.

Interesting

that makes a few more places accessible. Anyone have any first hand accounts with this?

[jmwildenthal]

From the ORC:

§ 4301.01. Definitions.

(A) As used in the Revised Code:

(1) "Intoxicating liquor" and "liquor" include all liquids and compounds, other than beer, containing one-half of one per cent or more of alcohol by volume which are fit to use for beverage purposes, from whatever source and by whatever process produced, by whatever name called, and whether they are medicated, proprietary, or patented. "Intoxicating liquor" and "liquor" include wine even if it contains less than four per cent of alcohol by volume, mixed beverages even if they contain less than four per cent of alcohol by volume, cider, alcohol, and all solids and confections which contain any alcohol.

(B) As used in this chapter:

(2) "Beer" includes all beverages brewed or fermented wholly or in part from malt products and containing one-half of one per cent or more, but not more than twelve per cent, of alcohol by volume.

END INCLUDE - EMPHASIS ADDED - I AM NOT A LAWYER - THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE - A REAL LAWYER HAS PUBLICLY DISAGREED WITH MY INTERPRETATION

ORC 2923 does not provide a different definition of alcohol, so 4301.01(A) is likely the relevant definition.

Now I wouldn't bet that many people are aware of this distinction, particularly any of any local constabulary. So if I were to be caught/noticed, I would expect to be arrested. But I'd also expect the charges to be dropped or (in the case of a jerk DA) dismissed when they make it to court.

I would also note that 2923.121 requires that the handgun be carried in a room (or open air arena) (room is not defined in ORC) where liquor be dispensed (common meaning: poured out into servings, no ORC definition). If the bar is in a separate room, staying out of there should be sufficient. However, if they serve wine by the bottle, I would think the entire restaurant would be a danger zone. As long as there were no bottles of wine you'd be legal, but as soon as one is brought to a table in the same "room," you'd be violating 2923.121.

I have emailed Petro's office twice on this and never received any response. Others from the CCW-TALK listserv have also emailed and not received any response. My guess is that he doesn't want to acknowledge the truth. It would sound/look bad for him as a candidate to state that Ohio law allows handguns where "beer-only" is served. Something about shooting the messenger....

[Scott]

Scott watch that! It is the way Chopotly (sp) had me sweating bullets the first time I walked in to pick up a to go order at the Rome Hilliard location. Check it out, no signs, NONE. When I looked at the gal to pay for the order I noticed a cooler behind her that had drinks in it and some turned out being beer that you take in the other room and drink while you eat.

Yeah, I had forgotten that Chipotle didn't have beer signs* (that I had seen anyway)! Fortunately, I knew they served beer from prior experience before I started carrying.

*Hmmm...I wonder if that's part of the family athmosphere that Mickey D's is trying to foster?

I'll tell you, it does get rather annoying that the AG's office is deliberately dodging questions on these issues. Maybe when Candidate Blackwell is asked his position on these issues, Candidate Petro might finally loose his tongue?

[SMMAssociates]

Jim:

I would also note that 2923.121 requires that the handgun be carried in a room (or open air arena) (room is not defined in ORC) where liquor be dispensed (common meaning: poured out into servings, no ORC definition). If the bar is in a separate room, staying out of there should be sufficient. However, if they serve wine by the bottle, I would think the entire restaurant would be a danger zone. As long as there were no bottles of wine you'd be legal, but as soon as one is brought to a table in the same "room," you'd be violating 2923.121.

This one's a little iffy, IMHO. You could go either way on bringing a bottle to the table, and particularly if the patron did the carrying. (Ignoring how you'd get your hands on it.)

IMHO (and IANAL), the "dispensing" thing may need the Courts to keep prosecutions down.

The AG probably isn't going to say anything - kinda political.... However, his office has passed on the "hotel lobby" exception, which would at least give one hope. Basically it says that if you're in a hotel, and there's a bar in the lobby, as long as you stay out of it, you can go to the desk, etc. No mention is made of the restaurant that's likely there too, but the implication is that if somebody brings a drink from the bar into the lobby, so what, although if it's served out there it could be interesting.

By your definition the hotel restaurant would be OK, of course, but that'd be one more test case.

Time will tell....

There's a nice restaurant in a Hilton out in the Columbus 'burbs that's in the lobby. You have to either sit down and look at the menu, or look at what the other diners are doing, to see that they serve.... Oooops....

The real problem with this, of course, is that we're not lawyers, and the definitions we need are either too fuzzy or too non-existent. It's like the famous "is" question - sometimes "white" means "black".... For example, the ghostbusters signs often say "without lawful purpose" or some such. The AG's sample sign has similar wording, but is explained that such wording doesn't mean us.... (Which is kind of funny because if you see that sign on private property there's good reason to assume that it does - he's sampling a sign for otherwise enumerated CPZ's, not private property. Another one for the lawyers....)

(We having fun yet?)