A gentleman named Taylor sued Baton Rouge in federal court alleging this unconstitutionally infringed on his 2A rights. Baton Rouge did not properly reply in court, and Taylor won by default. Eugene Volokh notes that the court still had to analyze Taylor's claim and see if it could plausibly succeed if it were to go to trial. The court decided it did.Baton Rouge Code of Ordinances § 13:95.3 provides,
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to have in his possession a firearm, or other instrumentality customarily used or intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon, in any premises where alcoholic beverages are sold and/or consumed on the premises except the owner or lessee of the premises, or their employees [or law enforcement officials]….
(b) … Any person who enters a place where alcoholic beverages are sold and/or consumed on the premises does, by the mere fact of entering, consent to a search of his person for any firearm or other instrumentality customarily used or intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon while on said premises, by any [law enforcement official], without a warrant.
(c) The phrase, “… premises where alcoholic beverages are sold and/or consumed on the premises” shall include all of the licensed premises, including the parking lot.
The court also noted that Baton Rouge's DA apparently recognized that the ordinance had constitutional problems, and the DA urged the city to rescind it and the suggested the police chief not enforce it.In sum, the Court finds that Taylor’s allegations, which the Court accepts as true based on Defendants’ default, are sufficient to establish a viable claim for relief under the Second Amendment. Consequently, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has established a sufficient basis for judgment in his favor.
Direct link to case: Taylor v. City of Baton Rouge (M.D. La. Aug. 25, 2014)
