Restaurant Carry

[D_Fence]

An establishment has to serve A LOT of drinks to go over 50% revenue, especially in Ohio where last call is relatively early. If you are familiar with the establishment's overall business, it will be pretty clear. I'd even be shocked if places like BW3s were over 50% alcohol. I doubt the heavy drinking and drinking only customers on weekend nights can offset the lunch and early dinner orders.

I think what is more contradictory with the 50% rule is the classic neighborhood bar and grill that is over 50% food, operates as a restaurant for lunch and dinner, but a bar after 10 or so when they drop the full menu and only serve appetizers. Yet, presumably, the same law applies no matter the time of day.

In Texas, the business simply has to post a sign indicating if they are over or under 50% alcohol sales. I can live with the Kentucky rule that basically says "stay out of bars and stay away from bar areas in restaurants".

[logos]

The only problem I see with the 50% rules is how would we, the law abiding armed citizens, know who is above and below this 50% mark? Bars are obvious, but what about places like BW3 or other sports bars that (I would judge) are tossup?

One possible solution would be to leave changes to the law vague. For example just put in an exception for restaurants without a solid definition of what constitutes one (bar serving peanuts....sounds like a restaurant to me).

Another would be design "knowingly" into the law in a manner similar to the CPZ rules, such that one can not knowingly enter a class D premise that derives >50% of its revenue from alcohol sales. With no posting requirement for these establishments, that would really take the teeth out of a 50% law. I don't like the idea of making restaurant/bar owners put up a sign to indicate if they are above or below this limit, and doing so might just induce them to put up a CPZ sign instead of taking the time to figure out the new rules.

[D_Fence]

I don't like the idea of making restaurant/bar owners put up a sign to indicate if they are above or below this limit, and doing so might just induce them to put up a CPZ sign instead of taking the time to figure out the new rules.

And, like I wrote above, the 50% rule doesn't always match the intent of the law. Many restaurants operate and look just like bars at night, despite still falling under 50% alcohol for the entire week.

[Daniel]

If you want compromise on 'class D carry', just know our side will be the only ones compromising.

The problem with the "all or nothing" approach is that the answer is almost always "nothing".

I don't favor the 50% rule. As has been pointed out, it is too difficult to tell (I'm told liquor has such a high mark up that it doesn't take much to bring revenues from alcohol sales over the 50% mark). I'd rather insert an exception for restaurants into the law, just as an exemption for retail stores was inserted. There is a legal definition for a restaurant, so it wouldn't take much to insert it.

[Timmy44221]

Ironically, OC is the only version of carry in dispensing restaurants in Virginia.
If you enter a restaurant you must uncover your firearm to be legal.

Yep I know some VA residents who do that for that reason.

Bill

I have done this in VA when I was visiting family. Noone noticed. Heck it took the people i was with almost an hour to notice, when I went to use the restroom.

I would like to see all carry restrictions lifted when it comes to places that serve. I could see us getting restaurants this yeat and all class D next year. I dont think I we will ever see a law that doesnt ban consumption while carrying.

[schmieg]

Ironically, OC is the only version of carry in dispensing restaurants in Virginia.
If you enter a restaurant you must uncover your firearm to be legal.

Yep I know some VA residents who do that for that reason.

Bill

I have done this in VA when I was visiting family. Noone noticed. Heck it took the people i was with almost an hour to notice, when I went to use the restroom.

I would like to see all carry restrictions lifted when it comes to places that serve. I could see us getting restaurants this yeat and all class D next year. I dont think I we will ever see a law that doesnt ban consumption while carrying.

When I first visited my brother in Virginia after getting my license, we went to a restaurant that served and I uncovered the gun. He noticed a bit later as we were walking to the restroom and moved my shirt back over it. I had to explain the law to him. He was shocked that we had to OC in that situation, but it didn't bother him that I carried.

[sethmcdonald]

Well I would like to see the laws change more to a West Virginia style CCW law. Bar, restaurant, almost anywhere is acceptable under their laws for CC.

[JimMullinsWVCDL]

Well I would like to see the laws change more to a West Virginia style CCW law. Bar, restaurant, almost anywhere is acceptable under their laws for CC.

[dr-exmedic]

Well I would like to see the laws change more to a West Virginia style CCW law. Bar, restaurant, almost anywhere is acceptable under their laws for CC.

Ditto PA.

Michigan style would also be an improvement; if I remember correctly, they allow restaurant carry but at no time carrying may you have a BAL > 0.02.

[BobK]

Well I would like to see the laws change more to a West Virginia style CCW law. Bar, restaurant, almost anywhere is acceptable under their laws for CC.

Dare I say, "+1".

I don't like the whole 50% approach because it really does not matter whether I am sitting in a restaurant or sitting in a bar, I have a God-given right to be able to protect myself. Even someone frequenting a low-life bar has the right to self-defense.

Don't get me wrong, common sense says regardless of where you are sitting, being drunk with firearms is stupid. But I am of the attitude that even a person with a few beers in them has the right to protect their life. Judge the criminal behavior, not where someone is sitting or what they drank.

[Cyclimus]

Philosophically, I agree with the mindset of any restriction on a right is wrong/unconstitutional/immoral/etc but as a political science major in college I learned that the ultimate method of getting a good law passed is to find a way to make it appear attractive to those that are either on the fence about it or are outright against it. I think the law could be crafted in this way:

Restaurant carry is legal for all CHL and open carry is legal as well, however, at no time can they imbibe in any beer or liquor of any kind. Bar carry is legal for designated drivers, bouncers, etc but the same rule applies - no alcohol. I think by doing this, we can avoid the difficult argument with antis and common joe citizen about alcohol and firearms mixing by basically putting it in the law.

Just a side note, while 1 beer may not "intoxicate" you, if you're involved in a self-defense shooting, your legal bills just escalated by about ten-fold at least. You better believe that you're going to have a hell of a civil lawsuit on your butt questioning your state of mind.

[Tweed Ring]

Here's a tangential opinion. I believe all non-governmental entities should have the option/choice of permitting or barring the carrying of concealed firearms. This makes it easier for everyone - property rights are protected, self-defense rights are protected, and free-will is acknowledged, with known consequences for illegal or foolish behavior.

I'd also increase the Ohio firearm spec to be increased from 3 to 5 years. Second offense, mandatory 10 year jolt.

[FormerNavy]

It's at the top of the list to get some kind of fix on this. We're probably going to have to compromise and accept a "no consuming" provision. If so, fine. Then we'll get that removed next year.

Do you think this will be possible with the current makeup of the Ohio House? Even though we have a pro-gun Dem Governor, and some pro-gun Dems, isn't it the House leadership that decides what comes up for a vote? Is the leadership anti?

[rickt]

It's at the top of the list to get some kind of fix on this. We're probably going to have to compromise and accept a "no consuming" provision. If so, fine. Then we'll get that removed next year.

Do you think this will be possible with the current makeup of the Ohio House? Even though we have a pro-gun Dem Governor, and some pro-gun Dems, isn't it the House leadership that decides what comes up for a vote? Is the leadership anti?

As I expounded here, the House may not be as bad as you might expect:

http://ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=25202" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One thing I am deeply concerned about is who is Budish going to name as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Before they took down last session's info, I noticed that Tyrone Yates was on the Judiciary Committee last session. If he gets the nod due to seniority, then we will have a major roadblock to passing any pro-gun bills.

Yates has always voted anti-gun, has an NRA rating of "F" and last session introduced a bill to repeal state preemption. He would be the absolute worse choice for Chairman.

[Daniel]

It's at the top of the list to get some kind of fix on this.

Do you think this will be possible with the current makeup of the Ohio House?

Yes, I do. Of course, I also think it is possible the Browns will win the Super Bowl next year.