Arizona Restaurant Law Proposed (Again)

[SelfDefense]

Excerpts from SB 1132, .

4-229. Restaurant licenses; firearms; posting of notice

A. A licensee who holds a restaurant license issued pursuant to section 4-205.02 may post a notice allowing the possession of a firearm on the licensed premises. A notice allowing possession of a firearm on the licensed premises shall be conspicuously posted at the primary public entrance to the licensed premises in a position that assures it is likely to be read.

B. The notice prescribed in subsection A allowing the possession of a firearm on the entire licensed premises shall state "these premises are posted pursuant to A.R.S. section 4‑229" and the words "A.R.S. section 4-229" shall be in at least seventy-two point type.

C. The department of liquor licenses and control shall adopt rules pertaining to the design and posting of the sign permitted by this subsection.

4-244. Unlawful acts

It is unlawful:

31. For any person in possession of a firearm while on the licensed premises of a restaurant licensee who has posted a notice pursuant to section 4-229 to consume SPIRITUOUS liquor.

32. For any person in possession of a firearm while on the licensed premises of a restaurant licensee who has posted a notice pursuant to section 4-229 to remove the firearm from a holster or to remove the firearm from a place of lawful concealment except to defend the life of that person or to defend the life of another person.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

So, this bill would allow restaurant owners to post that firearms would be allowed. I can't imagine any owners to do that but it is a step. I'm not sure I support it since it might be a bad precedent down the road.

Of course, the same type bill (restaurant carry) was vetoed by our anti governor three years ago but hope remains.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[SixBravo]

Interesting. It also bans open carry in a restaurant, too.

For any person in possession of a firearm while on the licensed premises of a restaurant licensee who has posted a notice pursuant to section 4-229 to remove the firearm from a holster or to remove the firearm from a place of lawful concealment except to defend the life of that person or to defend the life of another person.

I'd love to see it pass, but I'm not holding my breath. The state legislature seems to be pretty pro-gun and pass things like this all the time but the Guv just veto's all of it.

[SelfDefense]

Interesting. It also bans open carry in a restaurant, too.

I did not like that wording as 'lawfully concealed' has no definition (as far as I know) since we are an open carry state. I first saw reference to the bill in the Red Star (surprising to see it there at all) but it erroneously reported that drinking and carrying would be allowed, which it is not.

I'd love to see it pass, but I'm not holding my breath. The state legislature seems to be pretty pro-gun and pass things like this all the time but the Guv just veto's all of it.

I don't think it will get though Napolitano either but I am curious as to why you support a law that specifically allows carry only if the business posts. If this bill becomes law it wll be even more difficult to make carrying a right (as the AZ Constitution mandates) rather
than a granted privilege by the government.

[SixBravo]

I don't think it will get though Napolitano either but I am curious as to why you support a law that specifically allows carry only if the business posts. If this bill becomes law it wll be even more difficult to make carrying a right (as the AZ Constitution mandates) rather
than a granted privilege by the government.

It's better than what we currently have. I hate that the law is what it currently is... but it is what it is. An amendment to the State Constitution clearing the rights for us to carry in a restaurant would be GREAT!! What sucks is that its not an option for us.

I recall reading something about the previous one that stated that Napoliatano's reason for the last veto was because the bill would be retroactive and cover people who had been prosecuted for the crimes up to a year or two prior and it would've muddled a bunch of current cases where that was a charge.

[SelfDefense]

It's better than what we currently have. I hate that the law is what it currently is... but it is what it is. An amendment to the State Constitution clearing the rights for us to carry in a restaurant would be GREAT!! What sucks is that its not an option for us.

From my reading of the state constitution, the right to self defense shall not be infringed. I also hate the current law. I just think that this new law would set a precedent that we need to have specific authorization (i.e. privilege) to carry. We should hold out until our rights are respected. I think this law would be a setback.

I recall reading something about the previous one that stated that Napoliatano's reason for the last veto was because the bill would be retroactive and cover people who had been prosecuted for the crimes up to a year or two prior and it would've muddled a bunch of current cases where that was a charge.

I don't think you are referring to a restaurant bill. She vetoed a bill that would make the 'Castle Doctrine' retroactive. It stemmed from the Fish case (2006?), a man convicted of murder after he was attacked by two dogs and then the owner. He stopped the owner and the man died. At the time of his trial it was Fishs' burden to prove his innocence. He failed. The state proved nothing beause it didn't need to. Many thought he should have had consideration under the new law. Napolitano raised the objection (that I agree with) that the retroactive application would bring every other case back to the courts. Fish was screwed though I don't know his current status.

Life isn't fair.

[Sheldon J]

Why would they not allow guns in a restaurant when they allow them just about every place else? Bar.... maybe but I sit N eat I want my HK close by.

[SixBravo]

I don't think you are referring to a restaurant bill. She vetoed a bill that would make the 'Castle Doctrine' retroactive. It stemmed from the Fish case (2006?), a man convicted of murder after he was attacked by two dogs and then the owner. He stopped the owner and the man died. At the time of his trial it was Fishs' burden to prove his innocence. He failed. The state proved nothing beause it didn't need to. Many thought he should have had consideration under the new law. Napolitano raised the objection (that I agree with) that the retroactive application would bring every other case back to the courts. Fish was screwed though I don't know his current status.

Life isn't fair.

Yep! You're right!!! Got my cases mixed-up. That was a damned interesting case - especially since I have backpacked along the Arizona Trail and I ALWAYS carry out there for the same reason.