In another thread, Kit wrote:
I was wondering what others thought or knew about the legalities of this. In some states, like Arizona, citizens are permitted by law to carry firearms in public. As such, it is not uncommon to see someone with a handgun holstered, or with rifles/shotguns in their vehicles. On the other hand, some Arizona businesses have signs stating no firearms allowed. I haven't read the phrasing of this AZ code, so I'll defer to others who know more about it as to whether this contradicts state laws or not.A business owner has a right to ban firearms in his own establishment, and to kick you out if you are ignoring his rules.
Another example is the right of off-duty LE in California to carry concealed firearms. However, many bars or other venues still will not allow entry, even when identified as LE. Following is the CA state law regarding this:
12027(a)(1)(A) - Persons authorized to carry concealed firearms. Any peace officer (as defined by 830.1PC, 830.2PC, or 830.33(a)PC) whether active or honorably retired ... who during the course and scope of their employment as peace officers were authorized to, and did, carry firearms.
The Attorney General has stated that CCW status for off-duty officers is permitted largely in part to the fact that such officers sometimes must act as peace officers, as we consider more fully [over time], and in that sense are never off duty. He further pointed out that peace officers have general obligations that go beyond their duties to a particular agency. For example, 836PC states that peace officers have the right to make arrests for offenses committed in their presence for violations unrelated to their particular employment; 142PC requires any peace officer to receive custody of any person who has been arrested by a citizen or face fines and/or imprisonment; and The Alcoholic Beverage Control Act states it is a misdemeanor crime for any peace officer to not enforce and/or report any violators. Furthermore, many off-duty officers carry due to the possibility of retaliation from criminals they've had prior on-duty contact with, or, from those criminals who simply are able to "recognize" the traits of LE when off-duty (this problem will only make since to those who are in the LE field, but it is a significant concern for those that are "typical cops").
In 1995, the Attorney General Daniel Lungren gave the legal opinion that “...As long as the person has the status of being a duly appointed peace officer, the statutory exemption for possessing a firearm applies regardless of when or where the person may exercise peace officer powers. Such has been our consistent interpretation for 15 years, recently approved by the Court of Appeal in its Orange County decision”. This opinion is endorsed by the California Department of Justice. Of course, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution states citizens have the right to bear arms ("A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed").
So, I understand that business owners reserve the right to refuse service, but especially when those who operate businesses aimed towards being "open to the public" collectively make a trend of refusing service to those legally permitted to carry firearms, is there a point where the refusal becomes a form of unlawful discrimination? I believe that the spirit of refusing service to customers was intended towards those that prove themselves to be disruptive or offensive. Obviously business owners can't refuse service to someone based on their race, because racial discrimination is protected by law. But so is firearms possession, per authority of 12027PC. And all the above listed reasons for carrying off-duty would apply as much to being in the open public as it would to being inside any business open to the public.
I'd be interested to hear the opinions of others, and especially any legal citations or opinions in general. On the other hand, I'd like to avoid obsessing over the obvious issues of rather it is *smart* for off-duty officers to choose bringing their guns to public places in which they intend to drink alcohol (I'm sure problems, or fear of problems in this regards, are the reason for this trend of refusal of entry), as this will only detract away from the legal contributions.
Regards,