Great post Brian! :thumsup
That's something I've always wondered about as well Rick and usually don't sit there either. But in a place like outback I think that saying for the booths in that area it would be a stretch to say that the primary purpose was to dispense alcohol. I think it would be very rare to see anyone sitting there and not eating. It does seem to me to be a bit of a gray area. Just tossing that out there for comments.I believe that Brian’s concept of “dispense vs deliver” makes perfect sense, and I never concern myself about eating in a place that has a bar, other than not sitting at the bar, or within an enclosed area (example: Outback Steakhouse) that defines the bar area. That’s probably even going overboard a bit, and is probably OK, as long as one isn’t sitting at the bar.
Truth be told, I’ve been carrying for so many years that I’ve never given it a thought, even when asked if we want to sit at a high top, or booth, within the bar area. I always decline, but that’s because those areas I’ve found to be generally more noisy, and the sevice below par.
Even though you addressed this to DED I'm still going to respond to your "behind the bar, not on the bar" angle. Remember I said the rules of statutory interpretation require us to give meaning to all words in the statute and to avoid surplusage (which is words that end up having no meaning due to the chosen interpretation). Another rule is that one must avoid interpretations that arrive at an absurd result. It would not be proper to attempt to interpret the statute as only restricting carry on the CWFL "behind the bar" as to do so would render the entire subparagraph meaningless. A non-employee CWFL holder will almost never be behind the bar and an employee can carry concealed behind the bar without a CWFL by virtue of F.S. 790.25(3). Given a strict view of what "dispense" means, the best interpretation of "portion of the establishment primarily devoted to [dispensing]" would be the bar itself, behind and in front, in my opinion.Deadeyedick: While sitting at a bar and leaning forward on a stool -- while your gun itself might not be visible, with small of back carry it might be clearly inferred from the impression on your shirt. *If* one were to do that, complying with the interpretation that alcohol is being dispensed behind the bar, not on the bar (interesting -- one never sees a shot poured on the bar in front of the customer except at the movies... ), that would probably be a good place for appendix carry (I'm still wary of that with a Glock, for instance, for obvious reasons) or a front pocket holster.
I remember the case being discussed here and I have Google searched for the case on various occasions since that time and not found it. The gist of the case as I recall was that it was mainly about trespassing (he was asked to leave and refused). Honestly I don't even know why they bothered with the misdemeanor charge for violating 790.06(12) since it was uncontested he had a firearm and trespassing with a firearm is a felony. I don't remember who brought the case up but I seem to think it was one of the Florida Carry principals, and they brought it up in the same context I did - that they felt the ruling was wrong but that any time you go to court you're rolling the dice.BrianB: Thanks for the thoughtful, detailed response. Your interpretation of the portion "primarily devoted to [dispensing alcoholic beverages]" is compelling, and I wonder if the VFW (or similar) case was simply a trespassing case (because he was asked to leave and didn't), or whether the court or judge actually determined that the entire establishment met the definition of a portion devoted to dispensing. Do you happen to have to name of the case, so that one could look up the details in public records?
Which is why I think the interpretation that you cannot even walk past the bar to go to the bathroom is completely wrong. It is patently absurd to think that the legislature intended CWFL holders to be able to go into a bar/restaurant (which they obviously did), but intended that once there -- depending on the arbitrary layout of the place -- they would be required to "hold it" until their eyeballs were floating and they were forced to go home to relieve themselves!Another rule [of statutory interpretation] is that one must avoid interpretations that arrive at an absurd result.
Good observation.Which is why I think the interpretation that you cannot even walk past the bar to go to the bathroom is completely wrong. It is patently absurd to think that the legislature intended CWFL holders to be able to go into a bar/restaurant (which they obviously did), but intended that once there -- depending on the arbitrary layout of the place -- they would be required to "hold it" until their eyeballs were floating and they were forced to go home to relieve themselves!
I have said before, and without intending to encourage others will say again, there are things in this world that I worry about and things that I don't worry about. F.S. 790.06(12)(a)(12) never registers as more than a passing thought for me. If I'm literally sitting at a bar, or present in an establishment that is a bar, while armed, chances are I'm carrying on my Class G and not my CWFL anyway (since I'm not a drinker and don't frequent bars).Concealed means concealed, I have carried within a bar area many times in 30 plus years and never had a issue. I always carry especially when I am out riding my Motorcycle with friends. Most places we stop at are bar/rest. I always keep my CW concealed. I wouldn't want to be without it. I rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. JMO
what is the appropriate amount...1 Glass of wine with dinner? 2, 3 or more...alcoholic beverages
You can legally carry a concealed weapon on your person with a CWFL even if you are legally intoxicated - even if to the point of being blackout drunk. Is it a good idea? Of course not, but we're talking about legality.I believe that #2 is questionable, as I’ve never seen anything to indicate that one can’t have an adult beverage while carrying.
Can you cite what statute that’s based on? :dunno
Since I carry whenever I leave home, and have been for over 30 years, I have had alcoholic beverages on occasion when dining out, and have never given it a second thought. So far, I’ve never gone rogue and started shooting the place up in an alcohol induced frenzy, either.
I don’t believe you’ll find anything in Florida Law that precludes an adult from having alcohol while carrying.
You can legally carry a concealed weapon on your person with a CWFL even if you are legally intoxicated - even if to the point of being blackout drunk. Is it a good idea? Of course not, but we're talking about legality.
Florida does have a statute regarding "using" a firearm while under the influence of alcohol, but in order to be considered as "using" the firearm it has to be loaded and in your hand. Carrying it on your person doesn't count. Also, if you are intoxicated and need to use the firearm in lawful self-defense your acts are exempted from the statute and not a violation.
790.151 Using firearm while under the influence of alcoholic beverages, chemical substances, or controlled substances; penalties.–[/B]
Brian, have not heard of that exemption - where is that stated?