"place having a primary purpose of dispensing alcohol" Restriction?

[SoyB3an]

One of the CCW restrictions is that the licensee cannot:

'• Be in a place having a primary purpose of dispensing alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption.'

What I've found on the forum gave me vague answers. Obviously this applies to any bar, lounge, or nightclub. But what about a place that HAS a bar inside and caters to families?
Examples:
Yard House
Dave & Busters
TGIFridays
Lucky Strike
Buffalo Wild Wings
???

[Old_Bald_Guy]

I don't know from Dave, Buster, or the Yard House. I'll use Chili's as an example: Don't sit in the bar, get a table in the restaurant section.

[thegamettt]

IMO You're cool on all of those. A good rule of thumb is probably age restriction. That would tell me primarily serves alcohol. Remember, concealed is concealed, if you do it right nobody knows anything.

[Doheny]

Both of the above are good examples.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2

[Librarian]

But there is no definition of the phrase 'a place having a primary purpose of dispensing alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption.' It isn't a legal term, and it isn't in Penal Code. Folks who have asked their issuing agencies have received no clarification.

By what measure would one determine "primary purpose"? Square footage? Number of seats? Percentage of income from alcohol?

It looks like 'stay out of bars'. Since we now have a case where drinking was sufficient to invalidate the man's LTC, we know the 'consumption of alcohol' is a bad thing for keeping one's LTC.

[jerhyn]

I have always understood it to be, don't go to a bar since their primary purpose is alcohol. Since you can't drink alcohol while carrying you wouldn't sit at the bar in Chili's either, but their happy hour makes you want to regardless.

[Malaprop14]

If you would consider the place a "bar" then it is a no-go. A bar that serves food is still a bar. Chilis, Applebees, whatever, those are classified as restaurants and not bars. You can sit in the bar area and even at the bar IMO and eat and as mentioned, you CANNOT DRINK while carrying regardless of where you are sitting or where you go. Plain and simple.

One of the guys I took my CCW class with said he was a bouncer at a local bar. During the day they serve food and alcohol and are considered a restaurant. After 10 or 11pm, they impose a 21 and older restriction, supposed to kick out anyone underage, and the place is then classified as a bar. That means when they kick out all the kids, anyone carrying would have to leave too. Same thing, even if you were in there when it was considered a restaurant, you cannot drink anyway.

[Old_Bald_Guy]

[Old_Bald_Guy]

Tangentially, if Mark49 is still around, he should note the total absence of any restriction requiring notification of the IA by letter within 5 days (or 10 days or a fortnight or whatever it was he claimed) of contact with an LEO during a traffic stop or other activity.

[JoshuaS]

As far as I can tell the penal code places no restriction on LTC either with consuming alcohol or being at a bar. The PC by itself allows it, more or less.

But the DOJ has, in the standardized application, thrown in the place that serves alcohol primarily language. So maybe ask the DOJ what exactly they intended when they decreed a new law without the legislature? (sorry, obviously don't be that snarky)

Unless the restriction is actually placed on your license, I don't think they can charge you with anything, but obviously they can yank your LTC. Frankly even having a beer while carrying shouldn't be an issue (I think I would favor an actually inebriated standard, say a certain BAC). But unless the law changes so that the IA loses discretion, I wouldn't push my luck

It seems clear that a restaurant that happens to serve alcohol is not the intended subject of any restriction. For the most part I think this is fairly clear. The are very few places that I would think would be ambiguous. The Pub in El Cerrito is almost certainly primarily alcohol (but they have argued otherwise, selling tobacco and therefore claiming you can smoke inside). Or a few breweries that served food as sort of an afterthought. At what point does the food become the primary business? Something which I have seen happen?

Play it safe and keep your ltc. We aren't going to see a court ruling clarifying since it isn't a law.

[71MUSTY]

What about out on the patio which has a primary purpose of being where people can smoke?


JUST KIDDING Jeez.

[Old_Bald_Guy]

[Sohum63]

I tend to go with if people under 21 are allowed I'm ok. The most common thing for me has been they have a family seating area that generally has a long wait or you can be seated in the bar area right away. Now you get to choose if you go put it up or make your group wait for no reason. One I found interesting was the bar area was down a narrow ramp packed with people with no easy exit vs the family section that had better exits and more visibility of what was going on. So I had to go unarmed if I wanted the privilege of putting myself in a pretty poor location, I'm in a wheelchair and if it was difficult getting in under normal operation with the ramp packed with people I doubt I would be going anywhere it there was an emergency. Food looked good but I decided to go somewhere else especially considering their lot was full so I was parked down the street in a tucked away place, perfect for a snatch and grab even if the gun was locked up under the seat and cabled to the rails.

[Librarian]

As far as I can tell the penal code places no restriction on LTC either with consuming alcohol or being at a bar. The PC by itself allows it, more or less.

But the DOJ has, in the standardized application, thrown in the place that serves alcohol primarily language. So maybe ask the DOJ what exactly they intended when they decreed a new law without the legislature? (sorry, obviously don't be that snarky)

Unless the restriction is actually placed on your license, I don't think they can charge you with anything, but obviously they can yank your LTC. Frankly even having a beer while carrying shouldn't be an issue (I think I would favor an actually inebriated standard, say a certain BAC). But unless the law changes so that the IA loses discretion, I wouldn't push my luck

That was my position, until Gardner, this year.

I still think that was the wrong result, for the reasons you write. Unfortunately, someone paid to make such binding interpretations has made what I think irrelevant.

[JoshuaS]

That was my position, until Gardner, this year.

I still think that was the wrong result, for the reasons you write. Unfortunately, someone paid to make such binding interpretations has made what I think irrelevant.

I was under the impression that such a restriction was listed on Mendocino permits, and hence did violate the conditions of his permit.

Assuming that your IA does not put such a restriction on the license, that is when I don't think they could charge you. But the standard CCW application does mention it. But I would argue that is invalid, the DOJ has not the complements to impose restrictions. Only the PC or the issuing authority as specified by the PC.

I tried looking up details from the Gardener case. Did the court actually go so far as to rule the DOJ' s dictate legally binding?