quote:

Originally posted by egregore:

quote:

There are two laws in CA and they are in conflict.

The first one says you cannot CCW in a location where alcohol is the primary purpose of the establishment, so long as you're not drinking. Lucille's is a BBQ place and a definite restaurant.

A little further down it says no carry at all on any premise that has a liquor license.

That doesn't make sense as written. Did you mean to say can in the second paragraph?

I took it as similar to NM law. You cannot carry into a bar. You can carry into a restaurant that serves alcohol, so long as you aren't drinking. They even further parse it down here- you can only carry into restaurants that have a beer/wine license, but no carry at all if they have a liquor license. None of it makes sense, regardless of the wording.

It makes for confusion but is being interpreted as allowing carrying where there is alcohol as a secondary purpose but later subsections refine it to exclude any place that has a liquor license.

This was all part of CA's push to expand sensitive areas as a response to Bruen but now with the latest case out of Hawaii, can CA law stand? Its unclear how much sway the state's licensing controls.