Carrying guns inside restaurants that serve alcohol could be next

[corneileous]

The relevant statutes have already been posted in this thread.

I’m assuming the statutes provided are current post 10/1/19?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Aries]

While some of you guys are looking things up, how about adding another item. I have my CC (Now SDA) license. Where does it say I can not go into Chilies and sit at (#1) the bar and have a sandwich and (#2) a beer? All the $ from all the areas of Chilli's goes into the one business pot. What is the difference in where you sit, table, bar, outside on the patio? Where is that defined? Yes there is a marker around the bar for under age people not to sit at the bar but I have never seen anything else concerning firearms, nor anything that says I can not have a beer as long as I am not intoxicated or impaired which I read as the same as passing a sobriety test for driving.

Rather than just personal opinions, how about some real statutes.

I'm not done, but I have done some poking around.

If your questions are addressed, I don't find them in SDA 2019, it would have to be in some other statute. I found a couple of websites that seem to assume you cannot consume alcohol while carrying (these of course are not official) and one that refers to Oklahoma as one of several states that only says you cannot be "under the influence". As far as I've found in any actual law, currently, it only says you cannot be under the influence.

I don't find anything in SDA 2019 about sections of restaurants, or where you can or cannot be sitting. Only that if you do not have a license, you cannot carry there if they serve alcohol, but if you have a license you can carry there if it is not their primary business. There is an exception for peace officers and private investigators.

I think the bill being referenced in the original post is HB 1111, and it would apparently change these two provisions. It changes Section 1272.1, C (which originally refers to private investigators) to say:

"Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to authorize any person, employee or private investigator with or without a firearms authorization in actual physical possession of a weapon to consume beer or alcoholic beverages in any establishment where beer or alcoholic beverages are consumed."

If I understand correctly, to summarize the entire section:
You (anyone) cannot carry if their primary business is alcohol (a bar).
There are exceptions for peace officers, owners, employees (with owners permission), proprietors, and private investigators, as long as they do not consume alcohol.
It still provides an exception for a peace officer to consume while in the line of duty, but I do not see that exception for private investigators anymore.
It specifically allows anyone to carry in the bar section of a restaurant, as long as they do not consume alcohol.
Section 1272.2, A would require a business to post a 51% sign if their primary business is alcohol.

Double check me, it's entirely possible I don't understand correctly, have overlooked something in anotyher part of the bill, or may not even be looking at the correct bill or version of the bill. I am looking at the "Engrossed" version of the bill, since it has the latest date. I'm not sure exactly how the different versions works from this website...

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2019-20 ENGR/hB/HB1111 ENGR.PDF

This page lists the various versions, you may have to select the "versions" tab... There are significant differences in the versions, I quoted the one with the latest date.

http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=HB1111&Tab=1&Session=2000

 

[CHenry]

I dunno, I may be wrong but if you have a permit and decide to have an alcoholic beverage at a restaurant with your meal, even if you happened to be open carrying a pistol given that the restaurant you were at didn’t have any kind of policy against guns or even open carrying, I would think you would be fine.

Of course, don’t take that for gospel but like someone said earlier this afternoon, if you’re carrying concealed, who the hell’s gonna know anyways?? Again, that’s why concealed means concealed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I may or may not sit at the bar at Texas Roadhouse (service is best at the bar and so is TV viewing for football) and have a Prime Rib and a beer or 2 on the weekend while I'm concealing. Is this legal? Nope, but like stated, I'd rather be judged than carried. Now if I had to use my gun at that moment, id be extra careful about my options in that moment and I actually dont think anything would come of it after the dust settled and there are maybe a few dead customers and hopefully a dead bad guy because I killed him. The smoke and mirrors would be thick and as long as I'm not stumbling drunk, dont see an issue.
Thats my opinion on how I may or may not choose to exercise my freedom, uncontrolled by unconstitutional law.
YMMV

 

[corneileous]

I may or may not sit at the bar at Texas Roadhouse (service is best at the bar and so is TV viewing for football) and have a Prime Rib and a beer or 2 on the weekend while I'm concealing. Is this legal? Nope, but like stated, I'd rather be judged than carried. Now if I had to use my gun at that moment, id be extra careful about my options in that moment and I actually dont think anything would come of it after the dust settled and there are maybe a few dead customers and hopefully a dead bad guy because I killed him. The smoke and mirrors would be thick and as long as I'm not stumbling drunk, dont see an issue.
Thats my opinion on how I may or may not choose to exercise my freedom, uncontrolled by unconstitutional law.
YMMV

Do you have a permit?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CHenry]

Do you have a permit?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nope, not anymore.

 

[corneileous]

Nope, not anymore.

That’s kind of what I figured. But well, if they change this law, you won’t no longer be breaking a law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

I would like to see that law as well.

IIRC, the above statute is what's usually quoted, and my reading of it agrees with corneileous' view (lol, much as it hurts to admit that).

This is neither here nor there but in response to this last part- it’s not my fault that you still insisted on doing and argued with me on something that’s no longer required by law....[emoji18][emoji4]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CHenry]

This is neither here nor there but in response to this last part- it’s not my fault that you still insisted on doing and argued with me on something that’s no longer required by law....[emoji18][emoji4]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

um, I believe he said he agrees with you?

 

[corneileous]

um, I believe he said he agrees with you?

That’s not what I meant, I was just playfully referring to a past disagreement that he and I had that I felt lead to the crack about it being not necessarily a great coincidence for having to agree with me. Lol.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Poke78]

There was some talk as soon as constitutional carry was passed that there needed to be some "clean up". This sounds to me like that.

That whole episode was reminiscent of a trip to K-Mart: "Clean up in aisle 6!" No sooner had it passed than the cognoscenti were greasing their "follow-on bill" down the skids to get a carve-out for public trusts to be able to treat open carry differently, saying this was the required payback to get CC votes from some Tulsa and OKC legislators.

Never forget Otto von Bismarck's wise observation that people who love the law and sausages should not watch either one being made. The Oklahoma Legislature proves that saying every day they are in session.