790.06(12)(a) A license issued under this section does not authorize any person to openly carry a handgun or carry a concealed weapon or firearm into:
...
12. Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose;
Carry in Restaurants That Serve Alcohol
YES 790.06 (12)
Note: A “YES” above means you can carry into places like described below. “NO” means you can’t. Handgunlaw.us definition of “Restaurant Carry” is carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol. Places like Friday’s or Red Lobster unless posted with “No Gun Signs.” This may or may not mean the bar or the bar area of a restaurant. But you can carry your firearm into a restaurant that serves alcohol and sit and eat without consuming. Handgunlaw.us recommends you not sit at the Bar or in the Bar area of such restaurants. In some states it is illegal to be in the Bar area of such restaurants. Handgunlaw.us believes you should never consume alcohol when carrying your firearm. In some states it is illegal to take even one drink while carrying a firearm. If you want further info on carrying in places that serve alcohol check your state laws.
Can anyone verify the discrepancy found???
The laws on drinking alcohol while carrying a firearm in Florida are a little unclear. The law states, “It is unlawful and punishable as provided in subsection (4) for any person who is under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substance set forth in s. 877.111, or any substance controlled under chapter 893, when affected to the extent that his or her normal faculties are impaired, to use a firearm in this state.”
There is no clear definition of what “when affected to the extent that his or her normal faculties are impaired” means.
Many states write their intoxicated with a firearm law this way. Where they do not define exactly what intoxicated means (i.e. - like the DWI laws with a level of 0.08%). As I have heard a lawyer put it, many judges are familiar with the 0.08% but the police are not necessarily going to have you blow for a reading if you used your firearm in self-defense. So this makes it a judgement call.
My take is if you are carrying, don't drink at all. YMMV
So even if you are under the influence, self defense use is still legal. But it will cost you an arm and a leg in court cost.(5) This section does not apply to persons exercising lawful self-defense or defense of one’s property.
Makes no sense at all. What if the men's room requires walking through the bar?The statute reads as follows: “Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose”
You may be in the restaurant portion of the establishment, but not the bar area…
Agree with you on this. IMO if you were to have to use your gun and even if the LEO's ruled it a lawful defense, some lawyer could sue you in civil court. Then if it went to trial you could lose big time. The same with driving a car. If you had an accident and someone was hurt or killed and you were under the legal limit, a civil suit could not be good.
I do not drink and carry. My choice. Not trying to impose what I do on anyone!!!
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use or threatened use of force.—
(1) A person who uses or threatens to use force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in such conduct and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use or threatened use of such force by the person, personal representative, or heirs of the person against whom the force was used or threatened, unless the person against whom force was used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use or threatened use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using or threatening to use force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used or threatened was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection
Makes no sense at all. What if the men's room requires walking through the bar?
Another reason to buy the "Ronco Popeil's Pocket Peckerman." Or one can use a disposable urinary catheter.Unfortunately if that is the case then you can not use the restroom. No one said law makers make much sense.
Makes no sense at all. What if the men's room requires walking through the bar?
In FL if the police rule it a lawful defence you can't be sued in civil court.
Very true.Unfortunately if that is the case then you can not use the restroom. No one said law makers make much sense.
A bunch of us have lunch every Saturday at TGI Friday's. We sit at the bar; sober, armed and legal. The Jack Daniels burger is great.You don't walk through it. If the criteria for law in its application is to make sense, you are going to be disappointed with many laws. Like my father says, you don't have to like it, you just have to do it. :smile:
Now, some will argue that not only can you transition the bar area, but you can sit there as well, so long as you are not at the bar itself. Perhaps; however, Mr. Gutmacher does not agree, and also believes that transitioning the bar area is prohibited. I am aware of no case law on this, so anyone who wishes to be a test case, that would be great for the rest of us. :biggrin:
LE does not have the final say, the State Attorney does. After that, you would have to file for and be granted immunity to be shielded from a civil exposure. And depending on where you live in Florida, that is not a foregone conclusion. In fact, in So. Florida, it is almost assured you will find no relief from any of Florida's SYG laws.
Can you explain the bolded part please?
A bunch of us have lunch every Saturday at TGI Friday's. We sit at the bar; sober, armed and legal. The Jack Daniels burger is great.
Not too bad on handguns but they're hard on AR's. yesterday I had to meet with a judge in the county surrogate's court to get some documents signed. While most states don't allow handguns in a courthouse at all there's a sign on the door in Orange County, NY Surrogate's Court that says "all handgun licensee's are required to check their gun with the court officer." He locks-it up for you and you pick it up on the way out. In liberal NY!Just not in Florida. Whatever your state, it likely has some silly laws regarding firearms as well.
Sure. Before I begin, let me say that as I was referencing immunity, my comment about Florida's SYG laws could been clearer in detailing that. Hopefully, this will be.
State Attorneys are elected officials at the state and county level. Judges are elected as well. The latter will decide if you will be granted immunity. In areas where there are more liberal ideologies, you will find the same with those elected officials. Let’s look at Palm Beach County for example… the demographics there are mostly from the North East, and as a result are mostly liberal.
Between 2006 and 2011 there were 6 self-defense cases in Palm Beach County. Each of those individuals were charged. Each sought immunity, and each were denied. After they all went to trial, 4 were acquitted... all charges were dropped on one, and one was convicted of a lesser charge of discharging a firearm from a vehicle.
Under the current climate, do not expect SYG immunity in Palm Beach County (or similar areas e.g, South Florida), even if it is clear it was a lawful self-defense.
It is my understanding that you may be sued in federal court notwithstanding (in spite of) FL law.Thanks for explaining it. At first I thought you were going to say that different areas of FL had different laws but you cleared it up.
Although a DA may try to charge you and it goes to court if you are found "not guilty" you can't be sued civily. This is why George Zimmerman wasn't able to be sued civily after he was found "not guilty", his case wasn't a SYG case.
But you are right, depending on the DA and pressures from the media if they want to hold you up as an example you are going to go for a ride, especially if you are white and your attacker was black.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use or threatened use of force.—
(1) A person who uses or threatens to use force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in such conduct and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use or threatened use of such force by the person, personal representative, or heirs of the person against whom the force was used or threatened, unless the person against whom force was used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?