A grassroots organization focused on the intelligent and sustainable development, preservation and revitalization of Tulsa.
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 26, 2019, 09:58:34 am
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9]   Go Down
Author Topic: They are ABLE!  (Read 25059 times)
Recovering Republican
T-Town Elder
Offline Offline

Posts: 29233

« Reply #120 on: August 19, 2016, 09:59:23 am »

My observations:

How did the legislature muck this up so bad that there was still a way for ABLE to mis-interpret the intent of the bill?

Why does by the glass sales create an issue for ABLE when high point beer can be consumed on premises at any number of restaurants and bars across the state?


"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first” -Ronald Reagan
All around good guy.
T-Town Elder
Offline Offline

Posts: 9379

« Reply #121 on: August 19, 2016, 10:30:03 am »

LOCAL has issued a statement too:

Here is the pertinent language. The bill basically inserted language into the existing law, the new language is underlined (sorry it cuts and pastes poorly, but I'm not going to reformat):

A. A brewer license shall authorize the holder
thereof: To manufacture, bottle, package, and store beer on
licensed premises; to sell beer in this state to holders of Class B
wholesaler licenses and retail licenses and to sell beer out of this
state to qualified persons; to sell beer produced by the licensee to
consumers twenty-one (21) years of age or older on the premises of
the brewery
; and to serve free samples of beer produced by the
licensee to visitors twenty-one (21) years of age or older.

Note, neither the samples nor sales specifically say "for on premises consumption." So the AG is interpreting that as meaning samples are for on premises consumption, but sales are not. Using the exact same words in the same clause to derive two separate meanings. Why not assume the "samples" are for off premises consumption also?

Samples and sales may only be distributed
or consumed between 10:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Samples and sales of
beer made or served by a brewery under this section shall not be
considered a "sale" of beer within the meaning of Article XXVIII of
the Oklahoma Constitution or Section 506 of this title; however,
such samples and sales of beer shall be considered beer removed or
withdrawn from the brewery for "use or consumption" within the
meaning of Section 542 of this title for excise tax determination
and reporting requirements.

Sample and Sale treated the same again. Recall the 9PM curfew was meant to appease bars as well as neighbors of breweries, in addition to liquor stores.

The whole bill is here:
« Last Edit: March 08, 2017, 08:12:59 am by cannon_fodder » Logged

- - - - - - - - -
I crush grooves.
City Father
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373

« Reply #122 on: August 19, 2016, 11:07:19 am »

While I think ABLE is overreaching to assert its power, the problem is SB424 is silent on the issue of on-premises consumption.  Other statutes in this area often specifically state whether sales are for on or off premises consumption.  For example, 37 O.S. 521, which sets out what acts the holders of various licenses can do, it provides:

“A package store license shall authorize the holder thereof: To purchase alcohol, spirits, beer, and wine in retail containers from the holder of a brewer, wholesaler or Class B wholesaler license and to purchase wine from a winemaker who is permitted and has elected to self-distribute as provided in Section 3 of Article XXVIII of the Oklahoma Constitution and to sell same on the licensed premises in such containers to consumers for off-premises consumption only and not for resale….”

A mixed beverage license holder may:

“purchase alcohol, spirits, beer or wine in retail containers from the holder of a wholesaler or Class B wholesaler license or as specifically provided by law and to sell, offer for sale and possess mixed beverages for on-premises consumption only. . . .”

SB 424 is unusual in that it was intended to allow sales by a licensee for both off and on-premises consumption.  The drafters used silence on the consumption issue to convey that intent.  They should have removed all doubt and specifically said sales could be for on-premises and off-premises consumption - particularly given how ABLE always seems to muck things up.
« Reply #123 on: August 19, 2016, 04:59:05 pm »

Why are we so anti-business in this state?
City Father
Offline Offline

Posts: 4043

Just Cruz'n

« Reply #124 on: August 20, 2016, 08:25:42 am »

Our anti-business attitude is category specific and religious based: Liquor, sex, marijuana. Otherwise we welcome and encourage businesses that exploit.

onward...through the fog
T-Town Elder
Offline Offline

Posts: 7320

These Aren't the Droids You're Looking For

« Reply #125 on: March 07, 2017, 01:05:06 pm »

A lawsuit to be filed Tuesday will allege that two state agencies illegally adopted emergency rules in response to the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s upholding of a ruling that resulted in the inadmissibility of DUI breath tests as evidence.

Edge Law Firm of Tulsa and Hunsucker Legal Group of Oklahoma City announced they plan to file the suit in Oklahoma County. Named as defendants are the Department of Public Safety and the state Board of Tests for Alcohol and Drug Influence, which oversees the breath-testing process.

The two firms in recent years have brought multiple actions against DPS regarding the administration of DUI breath tests. In September, the state Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that the machine used in these tests was not a properly approved device.

The decision resulted in all breath tests conducted in Oklahoma being inadmissible.



"Tulsa will lay off police and firemen before we will cut back on unnecessarily wasteful streetlights."  -- March 18, 2009 TulsaNow Forum
Vashta Nerada
Offline Offline

Posts: 956

« Reply #126 on: March 07, 2017, 07:53:38 pm »

T-Town Elder
Offline Offline

Posts: 7320

These Aren't the Droids You're Looking For

« Reply #127 on: April 19, 2017, 01:28:38 pm »

Several police associations have begun pushing the "no notice" approach since about 2010. The goal, of course, is public safety. But police certainly will see how much of the 4th Amendment they can maneuver around while trying to do their job.  So far, Courts have said that the checkpoints have to be announced, but as the police will point out the Courts have not said they have to tell you where the checkpoint will be ("Well, we announced it, just like they said we have to.").

Drunk driving is a problem. But I disagree with the Supreme Court that drunk driving is such a problem that it overrides the 4th Amendment, which is essentially the current rule. I think the government should intrude on a person's life as little as possible, random governmental checkpoints doesn't seem to fit that line.

Consider this: recent DUI checkpoints in Tulsa have a "success rate" of about 3%. Meaning the vast majority of people stopped and searched by the government with no suspicion have not done the thing they have been stopped for. Of the 3-4% that are arrested, only some will actually be convicted of drunk driving. And nationwide this is considered an amazing success rate - many areas have a 1% success rate or less. Yes, they do catch criminals - but so would warrantless door to door searches. Some success does not end the debate.

What DUI checkpoints are fairly good at is generating tickets and conducting warrantless searches for other things. Though the May checkpoint only generated 8 arrests for DUI, it fined 134 citizens for other offenses and caught a few outstanding warrants (they also saw an SUV turn to avoid the checkpoint and chased it down... which seems dubious to me unless the SUV broke traffic laws to avoid the checkpoint). But writing tickets and warrant checks are not a justification to ignore the 4th Amendment, so we have to pretend our real concern is drunk driving. Tellingly, many advocates point to the "return on investment" of DUI checkpoints, which they have to, because...

DUI checkpoints are expensive. They take how many officers hours and hours, often on overtime? Several sources have indicated that the total cost of a DUI checkpoint is $10k. Hard to believe, but with a $101mil budget supporting 750 officers - taking a good number of them away for hours costs money. Every officer sitting at a DUI checkpoint waiting to find a drunk driver is an officer that isn't doing other things.

Roving drunk driver patrols have been shown in studies to be much more effective than checkpoints at actually catching drunk drivers. The roving patrols stopped far fewer people, but caught drunk drivers at a rate that was 35 times higher than government checkpoints. While the arrest rate is much, much higher - the "return on investment" is lower.

12 States ban DUI checkpoints as an unnecessary governmental intrusion. While I can believe that a governmental checkpoint is the most effective way of catching criminals, it doesn't seem American to me. Officer: "Pull over, show your papers."  Citizen: "What did I do wrong?" Officer: "I don't know, you tell me." Citizen: "Am I being detained?" Officer: "Show your papers. If you just comply you can go."

Anyone know the officer's opinion on DUI checkpoints?

April DUI checkpoint results:

May DUI checkpoint results:

...and yet they seem to be immune from the budget cuts that OHP and DPS have been whining about for months.  
3% success rate? Lets do it again and again the same way and unrealistically expect some sort of success.  If the goal is revenue collection maybe, but even Smoot went on record as saying "we know we dont make a difference" in accomplishing their stated goal of "ending DUI" so why are they still blowing tax dollars driving around the Winnebago-billboard?

Today's Whirled:  (DPS) will conduct the checkpoint from 10 p.m. Saturday to 3 a.m. Sunday at an undisclosed downtown location...to raise awareness about the dangers caused by alcohol and drug-impaired drivers.

Some of that awareness may have been true when they were more aligned with the courts orders to publicize the location.

« Last Edit: April 19, 2017, 01:31:21 pm by patric » Logged

"Tulsa will lay off police and firemen before we will cut back on unnecessarily wasteful streetlights."  -- March 18, 2009 TulsaNow Forum
T-Town Elder
Offline Offline

Posts: 7320

These Aren't the Droids You're Looking For

« Reply #128 on: May 31, 2017, 10:27:03 am »

DPS announced a DUI roadblock "south of East 11th Street and west of South Sheridan Road" which is the entire Riverside precinct.
but actually had it in the middle of Brookside at 41st & Peoria.  Im guessing this agency was involved:

Affidavit: Tulsa County deputy shows up for work intoxicated

Probably not what they were expecting from the "let them come to you" tact.

So far the only Memorial Day weekend DUI fatality I have read was an innocent motorist killed as the result of a head-on crash during a police chase.

"Tulsa will lay off police and firemen before we will cut back on unnecessarily wasteful streetlights."  -- March 18, 2009 TulsaNow Forum
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9]   Go Up
Jump to:  

  Hosted by TulsaConnect and Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines



"TulsaNow's Mission is to help Tulsa become the most vibrant, diverse, sustainable and prosperous city of our size. We achieve this by focusing on the development of Tulsa's distinctive identity and economic growth around a dynamic, urban core, complemented by a constellation of livable, thriving communities."




2210 S Main St.
Tulsa, OK 74114
(918) 409-2669