‘Guns in Restaurants/Bars’ legislation

[JerryC]

Another media assault on CCW permits.
http://www.artonissues.com/2012/03/...nt-owner-liabilities-and-rights-infringement/

This guy asserts legislation that allows concealed carry weapon (CCW) permit holders to bring handguns into establishments that serve alcoholic beverages potentially infringes on establishment owner’s rights and/or subjects them to liability. "Having founded and managed a place of business, I approached this legislation from the perspective of a business owner, focusing on such things as workplace liability. A list of potential legal issues was sent to attorneys with two national organizations familiar with this type of legislation: The Legal Community Against Violence and The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence." Yeah, these are totally unbiased organizations.
He goes on to spout stuff like; "Although law prohibits licensed gun owners from consuming alcohol while in possession of their firearm, gun ownership (including CCW) has been linked to heavy alcohol use, numerous instances of CCW permit holders having DWI convictions, and instances of licensed gun owners being found in possession of their firearm while intoxicated." and "A recent multi-state study published in an international peer reviewed journal on injury prevention linked gun ownership (including CCW) to heavy alcohol use." Of course he lists no supporting documentation. Why does the media continue to print junk like this?

 

[Tom488]

A further study has found numerous instances of people operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, thereby linking automobile ownership with heavy alcohol use. For the safety of all involved, it is apparent that the private ownership of automobiles must be abolished.

 

[Owen Sparks]

I never have understood why CCW are prohibited in PLACES that serve alcohol.

You would think it would only apply to people who are DRINKING alcohol.

I have a friend who is such a tee-totaler that he prides himself on having never even tasting alcohol yet he has to leave his pistol in the car when he goes out to eat at normaly tame places like Outback Steakhouse or Applebees.

 

[Sam1911]

I've never understood why laws are written to apply to people who harm no-one, period.

Assault and manslaughter and murder are illegal. Don't see much reason for a lot of extra baggage in the legislation to make those things "extra-illegal."

Assault and manslaughter/murder are illegal ... if you've been drinking. And if you're in a bar. Or a restaurant serving alcohol. And if you're in a restaurant that DOESN'T serve alcohol. And if you're in a school. And if you're in a bank. And if you're in a place that charges admission. And if you're in a park, a federal building ... and on, and on.

Seems that assault, murder, and manslaughter are the evils we're trying to prevent. Not the state of inebriation or presence in location X,Y, or Z while being armed.

If MURDER (and its consequences) does not send up red flags in your consciousness that dissuade you from doing something unpleasant, seems that a bunch of tacked-on minor charges like being armed in a verboten location would not really register, either.

But, what do I know? I'm from a state that doesn't have (almost) any laws like that and we manage to stay fairly peaceable, don't have any outrageous heightened rates of antisocial behavior in those locations prohibited in other jurisdictions, and manage to lock up folks who harm others without the benefit of these add-on laws. We're probably doing it wrong.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

If the doofus is so worried, why not put up a 30-06 sign or whatever his state's equivallent is?

Then people can make up their own minds about whether they want to patronize his place or not.

 

[k-frame]

Why do you call this guy "media?" He has a one-man, one-act web site.

 

[Owen Sparks]

I've never understood why laws are written to apply to people who harm no-one, period.

That I do understand, too well. It is called COLLECTIVISM and it is evil.


Any time you are seen as part of some group rather than as an individual, (people in a bar in this case), you are seen as no better than the least member of that group and are treated accordingly. Contrary to popular belief, laws are NOT made for everybody. They are made for the least common denominator or weakest link, criminals and idiots.

This is the main problem with weapons laws. They assume you to be a potential criminal before the fact simply because you possess a tool that you MIGHT misuse in a the future. The fact that you have not harmed anyone is totaly irrelivant.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Even though this particular guy is a gun grabber....there are even "pro-gun" and "pro-2A" people who favor laws prohibiting guns where alcohol is served and prohibiting drinking and carrying.

Like many have said already on this thread: the applicable negligent/criminal behavior is all that should be illegal, not the possession of an object by people who are going to remain law-abiding even inside a bar or under the influence.

Washington only prohibits firearms in portions of establishments that are licensed by the liquor control board to be restricted to +21 years of age. That law is too much in my opinion. In Washington it is legal to carry a firearm in a restaurant that serves alcohol, legal to carry and drink alcohol, and even to carry while intoxicated. One would think that blood would be running in the streets...but we just have a problem with guns and alcohol.... and neither does any other state with lesser gun control laws.

Oh well... people will always continue to get on their soapbox and try to pass laws that only affect those citizens who would not commit criminal acts anyway so they can feel warm and fuzzy inside and thump their chests and proclaim how safe they have made society for the sake of the children.

 

[Telekinesis]

If the doofus is so worried, why not put up a 30-06 sign or whatever his state's equivallent is?

Not all states have that option. In Alabama, "no gun" signs have no force of law other than the use of trespassing charges if you are asked to leave and refuse (which are the same regardless of whether or not you are carrying a gun).

Personally, I think the only restriction should be on carrying while intoxicated. Sort of a "if you can't drive, you can't carry" type of thing. I think its stupid that in some states people can be barred from carrying in a restaurant like Applebees just because there happens to be a bar at one end of the restaurant.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Not all states have that option. In Alabama, "no gun" signs have no force of law other than the use of trespassing charges if you are asked to leave and refuse (which are the same regardless of whether or not you are carrying a gun).

So what?

Put up the sign if you don't want people carrying in your place. If they violate the sign, ask them to leave. If they won't, charge them with tresspassing.

Now comes some sophist who will ask. "But how do you know they're carrying?"

(For those who just turned in, how would you you know if someone in your establishment is carrying if you live in D.C. or Chicago?)

 

[NavyLCDR]

Personally, I think the only restriction should be on carrying while intoxicated. Sort of a "if you can't drive, you can't carry" type of thing. I think its stupid that in some states people can be barred from carrying in a restaurant like Applebees just because there happens to be a bar at one end of the restaurant.

This is just my personal opinion....I think a law against carrying while intoxicated goes too far. To me, that would be like making it legal to possess car keys when over the limit. I'm all for a stiff sentence enhancement for negligent use of a firearm while under the influence, though; but I think behavior should be punished, not the possession of an inanimate object.

 

[brboyer]

Florida got this one right in our statutes (almost).

You can drink while carrying...you can get falling down drunk while carrying, however if you fire a gun, or hold one openly in your hand, you go to jail, unless it was in justified self-defense. Seems like the proper way to handle the situation.

Oh and where they failed is that is illegal to carry into a portion of a licensed alcohol dispensing establishment, that it primarily devote to dispensing the alcohol. IE, the bar part of a bar or restaurant, etc. Stupid...just like most of the other restricted places in Florida.

 

[Telekinesis]

So what?

Put up the sign if you don't want people carrying in your place. If they violate the sign, ask them to leave. If they won't, charge them with tresspassing.

My point is that in AL (and states with similar laws) the sign has no more force of law than a sign saying "no cell phones." While a LEO can confront someone in violation of a 30.06 sign (please correct me if I'm wrong), he can not under a general "no guns" sign in AL. In Texas law, the violation is in your presence; in AL, the violation is in your refusal to leave. Those are different in the eyes of the law.


Navy, I see what you're saying and philosophically I agree with you, but I think its a real fine line between someone who is drunk with a gun and someone who is drunk and screwing around with a gun. I'm sure that my view is greatly influenced by the fact that I'm on a college campus and see frats having parties with HEAVILY intoxicated people running around doing the stupidest things they could possibly come up with. Perhaps it will change when I don't see that kind of thing every weekend.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I've never understood why laws are written to apply to people who harm no-one, period.

Because, I think, there are activities that contain enough inherent danger to life and limb that, even if no harm actually results, those activities may be considered grossly (criminally) negligent anyway. We may argue about what those activities are (maybe driving intoxicated, maybe doing brain surgery intoxicated, maybe flying a commercial or military jet intoxicated...), but I think almost all of us could think of some activity that should be criminal, even if no harm results.

Personally, I like the drunk driving as an analogy for drinking while CCW. So far (and who knows, it may change) it is not illegal to walk into a bar while having access to a car (keys in your pocket). It's not even illegal to get drunk and have access to a car. But once you drive the car, you're in legal trouble if you're drunk. And I think that's fine. (Of course, just being drunk in the car, engine off, with the keys is apparently a crime, too.)

I suspect that some of us may consider carrying while drunk as similar to being drunk inside the car but not driving, while others may see it as simply being drunk but having the keys in your pocket.

Oh: either way, not a good idea...but which bad ideas should be crimes?

You can drink while carrying...you can get falling down drunk while carrying, however if you fire a gun, or hold one openly in your hand, you go to jail, unless it was in justified self-defense. Seems like the proper way to handle the situation.

I'd agree. Not meaning for a moment that being drunk is EVER a good idea for anyone.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Very well said, Loosedhorse. It's funny... no state has made it illegal to be intoxicated and be in possession and control of car keys. Every state in the union acknowledges that even people who are intoxicated should have enough control of themselves to not put the keys in the car and drive (which IS illegal in all 50 states). I just don't see why it has to be different with a firearm.

 

[Bubba613]

Tennessee just finished a grueling debate about "guns in bars" (really allowing carry in places that serve alcohol, like Appleby's). A judge threw the first law out. The legislature remade the law and it passed.
Since then we've had thousands of shootings daily involving permit holders getting angry and pulling their guns.
Oh no. Actually we haven't had any more bar shootings than we did before the legislation.
Every time there is a move to loosen gun restrictions for permit holders some people always scream about shootings in the streets, etc. It never happens. There is never an increase in shootings by permit holders no matter what the law is.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Should everyone who sets foot in an establishment that serves alcohol be required to leave their cars at home and take a cab even if they do not drink?

Of course not. What is the difference?

 

[Bubba613]

It's a gun law. It doesn't have to make sense.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Should everyone who sets foot in an establishment that serves alcohol be required to leave their cars at home and take a cab even if they do not drink?

I think they should. For the sake of the children and officer safety, of course!

 

[Steve_NEPhila]

Minority Report

I am surprised so many of you have missed it thus far. A law that prevents "guns in bars" is really legislation to prevent thought crimes. This is very similar to "hate crimes." I will break it down:

Banning guns in bars will make people safer because the evil in mens hearts cannot be contained. I (the lawmaker, activist or strange left wing bleeding heart) cannot control myself, therefore I think you cannot either and thus a law must be made to prevent you from doing whatever evil I decide.

I really enjoy the absurdity of hate crimes, as much as these restrictions in certain states on where one can carry a gun. For example, is there really a difference in killing someone or killing someone because they are in some protected class??? The person is still dead and murder is still illegal. In my opinion, the law should be fair and just... murder is indeed murder if it was done because you were really pissed off or if you did it because you hate all (insert special class of people here). What the law does with hate crimes is create groups of people with special protections, that is not afforded to all... that does not sound like a blind woman to me.

 

[Bubbles]

If DUI is illegal, why do bars have parking lots?

 

[rugerman07]

I see no problem with concealed carry in restaurants that serve alcohol because you're there for a meal and might want a nice, ice cold beer to wash down that new york strip steak you just ordered. Point being, you're there for a meal, not out partying.

But, what if you're out for a night on the town partying with friends at one of your favorite bars? Would concealed carry be a good idea? I don't think so.

 

[brboyer]

I see no problem with concealed carry in restaurants that serve alcohol because you're there for a meal and might want a nice, ice cold beer to wash down that new york strip steak you just ordered. Point being, you're there for a meal, not out partying.

But, what if you're out for a night on the town partying with friends at one of your favorite bars? Would concealed carry be a good idea? I don't think so.

Why is that?

 

[rugerman07]

Originally Posted by rugerman07
I see no problem with concealed carry in restaurants that serve alcohol because you're there for a meal and might want a nice, ice cold beer to wash down that new york strip steak you just ordered. Point being, you're there for a meal, not out partying.

But, what if you're out for a night on the town partying with friends at one of your favorite bars? Would concealed carry be a good idea? I don't think so.

Why is that?

Well, let's say you are intoxicated and in your state of drunkeness you use your weapon in what you believe to be a justifiable self defense situation. How well do you think your judgement of using lethal force would stand up in court?

 

[brboyer]

Well, let's say you are intoxicated and in your state of drunkeness you use your weapon in what you believe to be a justifiable self defense situation. How well do you think your judgement of using lethal force would stand up in court?

Well in my State, whether a person is drunk or not, if the facts indicate a reasonable person believes that they are in imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, then no arrest or prosecution would result.