Over 50% of income from alcohol sales

[Erock]

How is one to know if a business generates over 50% of it's income from alcohol sales.  I have eaten steak at a small town bar with 20 other people. More food & nonalcoholic drinks were served than alcoholic drinks at least on this particular night.  Do you ask to see their financial reports?

I noticed their prohibited sign posted on a wall inside the dining area among advertisements & community news as we were leaving.  Was not posted at the door facing outward.  Was there for 2hrs but couldn't see it from where I was sitting.

Thoughts on this? 

[bkoenig]

I don't know how you would know, either.  I've run into a similar problem, where I was carrying but didn't know if a pizza place that sold beer was above or below 50%. It's a very ill-conceived part of the law.

[tstuart34]

I feel this should be on the business owner not us. I know this is not the case but it should be. No sign no problem is how I see it at this pount

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[Erock]

I would agree. It's should be written into the liquor license laws that if a business generates 50% income from alcohol sales they are required to then post a sign. A properly posted sign then makes it pretty cut & dry.

Not sure why a percentage of sales is even a part of the law. What's the purpose behind that language?

[RLMoeller]

The purpose is that many people did not want Concealed Carry to pass in Nebraska.  So as the attempt in 2006 finally had a shot at passing, numerous restrictions were put in the bill to satisfy those senators that really believed there would be "blood in the streets".  This is one of them.  You do know that Nebraskans are nothing but a but of drunks, right?  (So said a few opponents at the time).

There are senators today that don't want to make any changes to benefit us because they hate you.  Seriously.  Just look at the LB289 floor debate and the comments made by Senators Cook and Chambers directed toward gun owners.   Other senators are so ignorant to what we deal with regarding signage and other restrictions it is difficult to get them to support changes. They just don't realize what the law actually is and why a change is necessary.   That's why we try so hard to get in front of them and educate them.  The most effective way to educate a senator is for a constituent to share a personal story about how they have been affected by current law.

[RobertH]

I hear ya Erock.  how can we tell how much food or booze a local establishment sells?  plus, is the 50% over a day, month, year, lifetime?  its quite vague.  and so is the signage requirement.

Erock, make sure to get set up for a Full Member.  you can read, discuss and vote on how the NFOA will testify on the upcoming committee bills.  and tell your friends/family/coworkers to get involved.  spreading the word and being active is the start to make some real changes.

[m morton]

i use this as my rule... if the place has "bar"& grill in the name i don't carry or a bar that server just fried foods no real menu . if it's a sit down place to eat and serves booze too then i enter ... 

[depserv]

Does anyone know if there have been any prosecutions from this edict?  I don't know much about bookkeeping, so maybe someone can tell me how easy it would be to establish that a place gets 50% of its income from booze or only 49%?  Could it vary maybe from one day to another, or one season to another?  And is it net or gross income?  My guess is if you go in and eat a steak and don't create a disturbance and your gun is well concealed you won't have a problem.  But as the saying goes, **** happens.  So this law should not be on the books, and clearly was put there by liberal bigots looking for any excuse to harass those who choose to be armed.  But compared to other illegal edicts imposed by traitors, this is one of the smaller ones.

[ILoveCats]

Does anyone know if there have been any prosecutions from this edict? 

...

But compared to other illegal edicts imposed by traitors, this is one of the smaller ones.

Yep.  I'm kind of thinking in the grand scheme of "priorities", this is not a high one.  If anyone is aware of one prosecution -- let alone many -- I'd be interested to hear about it.

Given our legislature we could easily have ended up with something that forbade carry in any estabishment that sells any alcohol at all, even it's 1% of sales.   You know... "for the sake of children's safety, and to keep our law enforcement officers out of harm's way, and in the interest of abused spouses, and to prevent cruelty to puppies," and all that sort of thing.

[depserv]

Yep.  I'm kind of thinking in the grand scheme of "priorities", this is not a high one.  If anyone is aware of one prosecution -- let alone many -- I'd be interested to hear about it.

Given our legislature we could easily have ended up with something that forbade carry in any estabishment that sells any alcohol at all, even it's 1% of sales.   You know... "for the sake of children's safety, and to keep our law enforcement officers out of harm's way, and in the interest of abused spouses, and to prevent cruelty to puppies," and all that sort of thing.

Anyone who is opposed to gun control is engaged in a war on women (even though men were calling guns equalizers before the word feminist even existed).  And he hates puppies.   

[m morton]

if a place servers alcohol as a bar or a restaurant as a card holder /a ccw  you may not consume alcohol while carrying any ways so not really an issue for me if i am going to drink i lock my gun in a box... and don't remove it till i am home.  but if it's a restaurant i bring it in. if it's posted i drive to the next place ...

[Mudinyeri]

if a place servers alcohol as a bar or a restaurant as a card holder /a ccw  you may not consume alcohol while carrying any ways so not really an issue for me if i am going to drink i lock my gun in a box... and don't remove it till i am home.  but if it's a restaurant i bring it in. if it's posted i drive to the next place ...

^ Pretty much this.

Another "test" that one might use would be one's receipt for the purchases from the establishment.  Since no reasonable person could expect an individual to audit the books of an establishment before entering, a receipt showing no alcohol purchases might be something of a defense if there ever was a prosecution.

[depserv]

I don't know what debate might have led to the insertion of this nonsense into state law, but I suppose it might be (or have been) argued that even if the one carrying is not himself drinking, having anyone carry a gun in a place where others are getting drunk is a threat to public safety, because even one not drinking might be forced into a bar fight, and someone ends up getting shot who otherwise might have only gotten a black eye.  I don't agree with that argument, but it might be why they wrote the law the way they did, when what they should have done is simply treat carrying under the influence the same way they treat driving under the influence.  Or I should say the excuse they used, not the reason; the reason is simply to harass those who choose to be armed. 

[UseofForceLawyer]

i use this as my rule... if the place has "bar"& grill in the name i don't carry or a bar that server just fried foods no real menu . if it's a sit down place to eat and serves booze too then i enter ... 

This is a pretty good "best practice."