You admit that there is potential harm for gun-owners (unknowingly carrying their gun illegally) and you admit that this harm would be absent under the new ruling (gun-owners would know exactly where it is illegal to carry their gun). Under your proposed solution, by necessity, results in harm for gun-owners who wind up on the wrong side of whatever the definition turns out to be, not to mention the expense and hassle of the legal process even for those that wind up on the right side of it.

In its own way, this could be considered a punt back to the legislature, as they are no longer “off the hook” with their constituents who want to be able to legally carry in restaurants, so hopefully they’ll pass a law with clear definitions.

I’m actually quite surprised that you would advocate that legislating-from-the-bench that specifically circumvents the legislature’s expressed desire to continue to restrict the presence of guns in bars would be preferable to reverting to the last stable status quo.