There seems to be a bit of confusion regarding the laws governing guns in bars in Arizona. To its credit, the azdailysun.com does its level best to un-confuse Copper State conceal carry weapons holders. They start off with a summary: “If you have a concealed carry weapons permit, you may legally enter with a firearm into a bar or restaurant that has a liquor license — unless the bar or restaurant has a properly posted sign that prohibits it.” Easy! Only . . . “If you carry a concealed weapon without a permit (as allowed by the new law), you are not allowed to carry a firearm into bars or restaurants that sell liquor — even if there is no sign prohibiting it.” Uh, OK. And now for the really confusing bit . . .
The law requires a licensee to post a sign prohibiting firearms if no firearms are wanted in the establishment, [Officer Rebecca Kiener] said . . .
Kiener also said that if a sign is not posted properly — near the liquor license, on the correct paper, etc. — a gun owner with a CCW permit may still legally enter the premises of an establishment.
For instance, if a license holder posts a “no firearms” sign at the front door, but the liquor license is behind the bar, a gun owner with a CCW can enter legally with his weapon, Kiener said.
Ready?
Kiener said that armed CCW permit holders may still enter an establishment legally for the purpose of confirming whether a license holder has properly posted “no firearms” signage. Once the gun owner has confirmed a valid “no firearms” requirement, he or she must then leave the premises.
People who carry concealed weapons without a permit, which is now legal, may not enter armed into an establishment with a liquor license, whether or not there is a properly posted “no firearms” sign, Kiener said.
So how many of the new non-permit holding concealed carriers know that bit of the law, and how many restaurant owners are going to tell them? Or argue with them if they believe they have the right to enter the premises and check for a properly posted sign? Government, eh?
This sort o thing is not particularly unusual, although I will have to agree that this version is a bit convoluted. At least with a license they can find out where they are legal without breaking the law–in Ohio, we can't carry where liquor is served, but there is no way to know if liquor is served from the outside of many restaurants.
This is one of the many reasons I tell any potential CCW carriers to go ahead and take the 8-hr (or optional 14-hr) permit course. For $60, it is worth it for knowledge of the law alone. Other benefits include purchasing/trading firearms easier as there is no need for the NICS background check. It is also a nice "get out of a ticket" card, although it isn't advertised as such.
So whether I have a certain piece of paper from the state government (CCW) I essentially can’t exercise my Constitutional right to carry? Sounds convoluted to me. It sounds like a double, two and a half twist back flip with a triple spiral double speak to vent a person’s constitutional right to me.
So it’s okay to waive some of your Constitutional rights as long as it has benefits for you. How about everyone purchasing and trading firearms without any government involvement or “permits”? Why should firearms be treated any differently than buying a baseball mit? No government entity infringes on people purchasing ball gloves, why should it be any different for a firearm? Or a hammer or baseball bat? Why? Because the Constitution doesn’t say the right to buy a baseball mit shall not be infringed. If it did the government would be all over it.
Carry, Carry often, carry always. It’s supposed to be “CONSEALED”, right?
So whether I have a certain piece of paper from the state government (CCW) I essentially can’t exercise my Constitutional right to carry? Sounds convoluted to me. It sounds like a double, two and a half twist back flip with a triple spiral double speak to vent a person’s constitutional right to me.
Comments are closed.