OK For Person With Concealed Weapons License to Carry a Concealed Firearm in Restaurant Serving Alcoholic Beverages

by Jeffrey Huntley Garland on Mar. 01, 2018

Criminal Criminal  Felony Civil & Human Rights  Constitutional Law 

Summary: A person holding a Florida concealed weapons permit can "carry" in a restaurant which also serves alcoholic beverages under many circumsatnces.

                                       OK For Person With Concealed Weapons License
                     to Carry a Concealed Firearm in Restaurant Serving Alcoholic Beverages

      “Easy Rider” (not his real name) was arrested on 6/25/17 for having a concealed firearm at Earl’s
Hideaway in Sebastian, Florida. Easy Rider was surprised, because he showed the Sebastian police
officer his concealed weapons license. The police officer asserted that the concealed weapons license did not work in Earl’s Hideaway, because it “is a bar which is primarily designed for the sale and consumption of alcohol”. The State subsequently filed an information charging Easy Rider with a violation of his concealed weapons license.

      Attorney Jeffrey Garland identified constitutional problems with Section 790.06(12)(a)(12), Fla. Stat.
This provision declares that a concealed weapons license does not authorize carrying a weapon or
firearm into certain establishments dispensing alcoholic beverages: "(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."

      Earl’s Hideaway was obviously licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the
premises, but the statute requires more than that. The statute distinguishes between “dispensing” and “consumption”. The statute further divides an establishment into portions. Only those portions “primarily devoted” to “dispensing” alcoholic beverages would be places where a concealed weapons license would not authorize a concealed firearm.

      What does §790.06(12)(a)(12) prohibit?  It is impossible to say:
1. How is “primarily devoted” supposed to be evaluated? The State asserted that it was a
percentage of gross sales. There is nothing in the statute which actually says that a percentage of
gross sales is to be used.
2. Earl’s Hideaway opens for breakfast from 7:00 A.M. until 11:00 A.M. doing business as
“Earl’s Hideaway Kitchen”. It is open for lunch from 11:00 A.M. until 5:00 P.M. doing business
as “Earl’s Hideaway Grill”. After 5:00 P.M., and until closing, it does business as “Earl’s New York
Style Pizza”. In short, Earl’s Hideaway is a restaurant which also sells alcoholic beverages, not just
a bar as alleged in the arrest affidavit.
3. The State’s gross sales theory of prosecution is not authorized by the statute. Even if the
gross sales theory could be used, why should overall gross sales be used for a particular time of day
or for a particular portion of the restaurant?
4. Under the State’s theory, a reasonable person would violate the law by “carrying” at 7:30
A.M. when alcoholic beverages are not even being sold. No reasonable person would know that
“carrying” was illegal in the morning.
5. Why would a reasonable person assume a firearm was not allowed for lunch? Earl’s
Hideaway does lunch business as a “grill”, not as a bar. Certainly the police are not going into a
fancy country club or a swank restaurant and arresting folks for concealed weapon violations.
Sounds a lot like due process and equal protection violations.
6. The statute divides an establishment into “portions”. Nothing in the statute says how the
portions are to be drawn. It is certainly just as reasonable to define a portion by time frame (lunch
or breakfast) as by geography. The State’s assertion that a single “gross sales” percentage is contrary
to the plain wording of the statute. The statute plainly divides the establishment into “any portion”.
It seems obvious that the “primary devoted” test must be related to the portion occupied by Easy
Rider and at the time he was occupying it.
7. The statute further states that the restriction on “carrying” only applies to “any portion” which
is “primarily devoted” to “dispensing” alcoholic beverages. The statute does not say primarily
devoted to consumption of alcoholic beverages. Earl’s Hideaway mixes and pours all alcoholic
beverages at a relatively small area behind the bar. Easy Rider was lunching at a low top table on
the patio overlooking the beautiful Indian River. It was obvious that no “dispensing” was taking
place on the patio.
8. Although the statute divides an establishment into “portions”, there are no standards showing
how such portions are to be drawn. The statute does not define a portion in terms of distance from
a mixing or pouring area. Nor does the statute talk about any barriers. In short, the State’s theory
that Earl’s Hideaway should be considered a single unit is completely contrary to the plain language
of the statute.
9. §790.06(12)(a)(12) runs contrary to the general pronouncement set forth in §790.25(4) that
all of Chapter 790 is to be liberally construed in favor of the right to keep and bear firearms:
This act shall be liberally construed to carry out the declaration of policy herein and
in favor of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes...[a]nd
nothing herein shall impair or diminish any such rights...
10. Finally, there is this little thing called the Second Amendment to the United States
Constitution, as well as Article 1, §8(a), of the Florida Constitution.

      Easy Rider announced ready for trial on 9/13/17. Jury selection was to start on 9/18/17. The State
elected to nolle prosse the charge on 9/15/17.

      Call the outcome in this case a victory for the Second Amendment

Legal Articles Additional Disclaimer

Lawyer.com is not a law firm and does not offer legal advice. Content posted on Lawyer.com is the sole responsibility of the person from whom such content originated and is not reviewed or commented on by Lawyer.com. The application of law to any set of facts is a highly specialized skill, practiced by lawyers and often dependent on jurisdiction. Content on the site of a legal nature may or may not be accurate for a particular state or jurisdiction and may largely depend on specific circumstances surrounding individual cases, which may or may not be consistent with your circumstances or may no longer be up-to-date to the extent that laws have changed since posting. Legal articles therefore are for review as general research and for use in helping to gauge a lawyer's expertise on a matter. If you are seeking specific legal advice, Lawyer.com recommends that you contact a lawyer to review your specific issues. See Lawyer.com's full Terms of Use for more information.