DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk K-9 Consensus Do guns and booze mix?

Our governor this past week signed into law a bill that permits concealed weapons holders to bring their weapons into bars and restaurants serving alcohol. Good idea or not? As for me, I'm not up in arms about it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090628/ap_on_re_us/us_guns_in_bars

Would you have approved the bill? single choice
	No
	Yes
Votes accepted starting: 07/15/09 11:56 AM
View Results

I'm not sure I want some drunk in a bar carrying. However, I don't have a problem with someone having dinner and a drink packing. No vote.

I voted yes - it's a good idea. With one caveat - I don't want a DRUNK person doing it. (just because a restaurant serves alcohol is no reason to disallow a licensed person to carry in that establishment, in my opinion.)

From your article:

"One of the bill's sponsors, Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, said it's about time Arizona passes such a law, and that the most important thing is that people carrying guns into bars aren't allowed to drink."

I could see someone bringing their gun with them into a restaurant that happened to serve liquor ..... but how many people are going to take it into a bar and not drink?

I'm quite Ok with it, actually... even though parts of me is screaming at myself that this is ridiculous.

Why do I feel it is Ok? Simple: There WILL almost certainly be an incident as a direct result of this where someone will lose their life.... but there will be countless non-incidents where absolutely nothing at all out of the norm occurs... and I feel it is high-time we start to legislate for the norm in this country and stop all of the knee-jerk legislating for the exceptions based upon some tear-jerker, heart-string story.

Bad idea in my opinion. Unless establishments that serve alcohol screen for weapons as people enter, they aren't necessarily going to know who is carrying a weapon and who isn't. Consequently, they aren't going to know if they are serving alcohol to someone who is armed or not. This just seems like a recipe for trouble.

Well, Y-Town you again legitimize why we here in the Grand Canyon State pay our legislators only $24,000 per year.

Oh by the way, a school kid from California doing a report noticed that "The Grand Canyon State" so commonly used here wasn't our official nickname. Actually we have no official nickname. So state historians and legislators lined up a bill to make the nickname official as this year's "feel-good" no-brainer legislation.

Then they forgot about it and it never got to the governor. Oh well, there's always next year and some other kid doing a report.

Remind me again why somone needs to bring a gun to dinner?

Ask Plaxico Burress how that worked out for him.

It doesn't bother me since the person who brings a gun in with ill intent is going to do so no matter the law.

The law probably is similar to the Tn law just passed....the person with the gun can't be consuming or have consumed liquor.

Who cares if somebody walks in to Wild Wings for a dozen spicy garlics and they have a gun in the holster??

Quote:

---

Who cares if somebody walks in to Wild Wings for a dozen spicy garlics and they have a gun in the holster??

---

I don't.

Where I do care is when this guy has a dozen spicy garlic wings at BWW (yummy!), several beers, some shots, gets into an argument and then has an impaired sense of judgment.

As I said, I am talking about law abiding citizens.

The law as it is written in this state is you can't consume or have consumed liquor and still carry.

Of course nobody wants some yahoo shooting out the bar mirror like in some cowboy movie.

The person intent on breaking the law is already in the place, law or no law.

worst, idea ever on a daily basis people do things when they are drunk they wouldnt do while sober. and that can include shooting people.

they should also include lcd dispensers at these bars that allow guns

I think Pounder's point is completely valid and doesn't at all contradict yours. There are plenty of law abiding citizens that read a headline or just hear that they can now carry their gun into a bar or restaurant and will be ignorant of the law's details. The "not permitted to drink" part is pretty much being treated just as the the stuff contained in the fine print at bottom of some ads.

jc..

A person drinks, gets in an argument, goes out to his car gets his gun, and comes back inside and catches everyone by surprise.

I'd rather be face to face when someone reaches for their gun, than get blindsided when I think the argument is done and they have left.

Although if I have any kind of altercation with someone who has been drinking, I make a point of leaving as soon as possible, some people don't let things go.

I don't know if I can agree with this Peen:

Quote:

---

The person intent on breaking the law is already in the place, law or no law.

---

There are some people like that. No matter what, they're looking for trouble. The people I'm talking about are those who aren't really looking for trouble, but in the heat of the moment after having an impaired judgment pulls it on someone.

Quote:

---

but in the heat of the moment after having an impaired judgment pulls it on someone.

---

You aren't even arguing Peen's point. His point is that the law (as it's written in Tn) states that if you are carrying you CAN'T drink...

Peen, this is more of a hypothetical question, but I have to ask...

Why would somebody go to a bar and choose to carry a gun over having a few beers? That just seems like a stupid idea to me. I'm going out to a bar with some buddies, maybe grab a bite to eat and shoot some pool and watch the ballgame... but I'm not going to have a few beers, specifically so I can pack my .44... I don't get why anybody would choose carrying the gun over having a few beers.... Seems silly to me.

That's because you don't sleep with other guys wives

Voted yes. Drink = no carry. Simple really.

That's just one example. I go out and drink minimally, usually never drunk. Not everyone is like us.

Quote:

---

There WILL almost certainly be an incident as a direct result of this where someone will lose their life.... but there will be countless non-incidents where absolutely nothing at all out of the norm occurs... and I feel it is high-time we start to legislate for the norm in this country and stop all of the knee-jerk legislating for the exceptions based upon some tear-jerker, heart-string story.

--------------------

---

I think drinking and driving falls into this as well. People drive home from teh bar after a few drinks EVRYDAY. They don't kill anyone, or wreck their car. But sometimes it does happen, and we need to just accept that accidents happen instead of passing law after law.

Quote:

---

But who goes into a bar and doesn't drink?

---

Well when the guys go out here, we always have the designated driver and the designated gun toter.

JC..

Many of you are only focusing on 1 part of this. It is not just bars they are allowing, it is restaurants that serve alcohol. Problem is that it can be difficult to distinguish the 2, so your "bar" get's included.

Do any of you see a problem with going out to dinner and carrying a concealed weapon? That would include a deli or cafe that serves alcohol.

I have no problem with it at all.

I think it's kinda silly that folks feel the need, but I have no problem with it.
My personal thoughts are that if you feel the need to carry to an establishment, perhaps you should just upgrade the class of establishment you are going to.

Well when you consider that most muggings happen in a parking lot between the establishment and your vehicle, it kind of makes sense.

You carry to protect yourself, it doesn't do any good in the trunk of your car.

Absolutely not!

Senate rejects pro-gun measure on concealed weapon
By JIM ABRAMS (AP) – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON — Gun control proponents scored a rare victory as the Senate rejected the carrying of concealed weapons across state lines.

The 58-39 vote Wednesday defeated a measure giving people with concealed weapons permits the right to carry their firearms into other states that have similar gun laws. Sixty votes were needed to approve the provision, an amendment to a defense spending bill.

It is an unusual setback for the gun rights side, which has been able to muster majorities of Republicans and pro-gun Democrats to move its agenda through both the Bush and Obama administrations. Opponents say the concealed weapon proposal would force states with tough gun laws to accept gun-carrying visitors from states with weaker laws.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Gun rights advocates sought to show their political muscle again Wednesday with a Senate vote giving people with concealed weapons permits in one state permission to carry their hidden weapons into other states with similar gun laws.

Under an agreement of Senate leaders, 60 votes were needed to pass the measure, an amendment to a defense spending bill, and the outcome was uncertain. But the gun rights lobby, putting together Republicans and pro-gun Democrats from rural states, has a strong winning record in recent years.

Backers, led by Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., say truckers and others with concealed weapons permits should be able to protect themselves when they cross into other states. Opponents say the measure would force states with strict procedures for getting permits to accept permits from states with more lax laws.

The provision, Thune said, will ensure that the nation's 5 million concealed-carry permit holders can travel through the 48 states allowing concealed weapons without infringements on their fundamental rights. Only Illinois and Wisconsin have no concealed weapons laws.

But Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said the proposal would allow people from states that give permits to people with alcohol problems, or child abuse convictions, or which don't require any firearms training, to carry concealed guns in states with rigorous conditions for issuing permits.

"The visitors can ignore the law of the state, the law that the elected representatives of the people of that state have enacted," he said.

The gun proposal would make concealed weapons permits from one state valid in other states as long as the person obeys the laws of other states, such as weapons bans in certain localities. It does not establish national standards for concealed weapons permits and would not allow those with permits to carry weapons into Wisconsin and Illinois.

National Rifle Association chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox said the last two decades have shown a strong shift toward gun rights laws. "We believe it's time for Congress to acknowledge these changes and respect the right of self-defense, and the right of self-defense does not stop at state lines," he said.

Gun control groups were strongly in opposition.

Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens during a two-year period ending in April, according to a study by the Violence Policy Center. "It is beyond irrational for Congress to vote to expand the reach of these deadly laws," said the center's legislative director, Kristen Rand.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said the bill would "incite a dangerous race to the bottom in our nation's gun laws." He said his own state, which has strict gun control laws, would have to accept concealed weapons permits from states such as Arizona, which issues permits to people with drinking problems, or Alaska, where people with violent misdemeanor convictions can get permits.

"Folks in Minot, N.D., and New York are going to have different conceptions about what's right for their locality," said Jim Kessler, vice president for policy at Third Way, a centrist think tank that supports gun rights. "In some states you have to show a real need" to get a permit, he said. "In other states you have to show that you can stand on two feet."

So far this year gun rights advocates have had the clear advantage in Congress. They managed to attach a provision to a credit card bill signed into law that restores the right to carry loaded firearms in national parks, and coupled a Senate vote giving the District of Columbia a vote in the House with a provision effectively ending the District's tough gun control laws.

House Democratic leaders, unable to detach the two issues without losing the support of pro-gun Democrats, abandoned attempts to pass the D.C. vote bill.

web page

I'm glad the Senate voted that way. I really see that particular issue as a states rights issue more than a gun control measure.

Would the passage of this bill really STOP a concealed carry ?

Useless drivel. Guns are not the problem. Lawyers and the criminal justice system are.

People are the problem.

I bet there's a lot more concealed weapons carried than there are permits.

I was a bartender. I am OK with guns. I am OK with alcohol. No problem if only one is loaded at a time. Bars do not promote that kind of good judgment and foresight. It is not at all reassuring to know the majority can be smashed, smoking, and strapped. Especially if you are the bartender. Or talking to the wrong girl.
If you see where this is pointed . . . .