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

[NorCalAthlete]

Curious on that as well. While it may not be advised, I'm still curious as to the strictly legal interpretation of "not stamped on permit, not in PC" and I don't recall anything about primarily serving alcohol on my application or subsequent renewals. Can they or can't they charge you if it's not stamped on your permit?

[Librarian]

Old Bald Guy posted the Sac DA letter; newspaper said

A former Mendocino County deputy district attorney has been sentenced to 30 days in jail and three years of informal probation in connection with shooting a man during a fight in downtown Sacramento, according to the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office.
...
He was charged earlier this month with two misdemeanors for carrying a concealed weapon in public. He pleaded guilty to one count of carrying a concealed firearm prior to his sentencing on Wednesday, Sacramento officials reported.

Charged with CCW in public - for which an LTC is an exemption - and sentenced. That works only if his LTC were invalid at the time of the incident. That means that the judge ruled it was invalid, and the only reason noted was his drinking.

The chain of inferences therefore brings us to the statement on the application having the same effect as a restriction printed on the license.

A case that convicts, apparently on the language on the app, invalidates my reasoning that the Legislature should have been taken to know what it was doing (as often as I'm sure they do not). Judges trump Librarians.

[Dvrjon]

And Librarian and I have had this "chat" before.

I believe the AG has the authority under the Penal Code, to place binding restrictions on the license through the application. (These are NOT chargeable offenses for which one can be arrested; they are administrative restrictions).

26175. (a) (1) Applications for licenses, applications for
amendments to licenses, amendments to licenses, and licenses under
this article shall be uniform throughout the state, upon forms to be
prescribed by the Attorney General.
(2) The Attorney General shall convene a committee composed of one
representative of the California State Sheriffs' Association, one
representative of the California Police Chiefs Association, and one
representative of the Department of Justice to review, and as deemed
appropriate, revise the standard application form for licenses. The
committee shall meet for this purpose if two of the committee's
members deem that necessary.

That's a pretty wide authority, but it is in statute. It does not allow the AG to establish crimes while carrying, but a stipulation that the use of alcohol cancels the license seems within this authority, if the committee deems it appropriate.

(Just last year, the title of the form was changed to include renewals, but it didn't require a Legislative Act to accomplish).

I had hoped that the Gardner case would specifically tell us if the restriction was printed on the license by the IA, or if they used the application authority to nullify it. Unfortunately, that has not yet been made clear in the case. However, "violating the terms and conditions of his permit" seems much different than violating stated restrictions on his license.

For my part, I consider the LTC to be restricted "at birth" through the application.

Best.

[steadyrock]

I am married and so this is not such a concern for me, but for the sake of others: what about titty bars? The only actual good they (officially) sell is alcohol but I'll wager it is less than 50% of their revenue.

[Dvrjon]

...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.

Can they or can't they charge you if it's not stamped on your permit?

There is no crime of drinking while carrying concealed, so you won't be charged for that.

However, issuance of the LTC is an administrative process. If one violates the administrative conditions, the license becomes null at the moment of violation. After that violation, you no longer have a valid LTC, and you can be charged with concealed carry and carrying a loaded weapon (as Gardner was). Reading the ADA's comments on the case, he seemed disappointed that he couldn't push harder, but acknowledged the "self-defense" aspect of the case was solid. I have no doubt he was getting ready to run an ADW charge.

[Doheny]

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....

So now we have another thread with vague answers. Thank you for your thorough search efforts.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2

[SoyB3an]

So now we have another thread with vague answers. Thank you for your thorough search efforts.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2

Appreciate all the responses so far but...
LoL
I think I'll be on the safe side and eat exclusively at McDonalds

[ElDub1950]

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.

There's no real definition, but the above is exactly how my IA explained it.

[steadyrock]

^Mine too.

[PutTogether]

I've been operating this way:

If there is a sign saying "no one under 21 admitted" I don't go in with my gun.

If there is no sign, I DO go in with the gun, but I DO NOT drink any alcoholic beverage.

My thought process was this:

We define a BAR as a place where alcohol is intended to be consumed on the premises. A lot of alcohol. You can sometimes play darts at a bar, you can sometimes get a snack at a bar, but you can ALWAYS get a drink at a bar. The people AT the bar are there not for the darts and the snacks, but so they can drink. As a society, we are so positive that a BAR is a place primarily for the consumption of alcohol, that we POST SIGNS to keep those under 21 (and therefore unable to drink) out of the bar. What would a person under 21 be doing in the bar if the bars primary purpose is to provide a place to consume alcohol? The answer - Nothing, since a bar is involved primarily in the serving and consuming of alcohol, and those under 21 are not allowed to consume alcohol. Since we've established that there ARE places that are primarily concerned with having patrons drink alcohol, and that these places can be further defined by their forbidding entry to those under 21, we can safely assume that ALLOWING those under 21 entrance to a place, means that the primary purpose of that place is obviously not the consumption of alcohol.

What about chills? What about the BAR AREA at chills? Well, they let kids in there. And if they let kids in there, the primary purpose for being there can NOT be consumption of alcohol. Again, the places that are identified as being primarily in the business of selling alcohol for consumption on the premises are legally forbidden to allow entry to those under 21.

We can now tell that these off limits alcohol places don't allow people under 21. Places that might serve alcohol, but don't make it their primary concern to do so, WELCOME customers under 21.

If people under 21 are welcome - then so is my gun. (But I won't drink) If people under 21 are forbidden - then my gun waits in the car.

[Malaprop14]

If people under 21 are welcome - then so is my gun. (But I won't drink) If people under 21 are forbidden - then my gun waits in the car.

Your gun waits in the car, but you can still not carry while intoxicated. That's the same as drinking while having it on you, but I'm guessing you mean that you will not be carrying after drinks.

[EM2]

...
If there is no sign, I DO go in with the gun, but I DO NOT drink any alcoholic beverage.
...

Your gun waits in the car, but you can still not carry while intoxicated. That's the same as drinking while having it on you, but I'm guessing you mean that you will not be carrying after drinks.

I think he understands this or he just doesn't drink alcohol anyway.

[PutTogether]

Your gun waits in the car, but you can still not carry while intoxicated. That's the same as drinking while having it on you, but I'm guessing you mean that you will not be carrying after drinks.

I took this for granted and didn't mention it, but you're right, it does deserve mentioning.

If I did drink, I also would not carry (or drive) afterward.