Activist Judges, Bars & Guns

[babylonsister]

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/11/21/1033/6982

Activist Judges, Bars & Guns

by Steven D
Sat Nov 21st, 2009 at 10:03:03 AM EST


Ah, here's a story which is a perfect convergence of those crazy gun control advocates and activist judges infecting their sinister anti-founding fathers memes into the minds of ordinary Americans in order to defeat our precious 2nd Amendment Rights. And in Tennessee forgawdssakes! Is nothing sacred!

A Davidson County judge ruled Tennessee's controversial guns-in-bars law unconstitutional at a Friday hearing, prompting the state senator who sponsored the legislation to say he will push the issue again when lawmakers return in a few months. <...>

She ruled after an hour of arguments in a lawsuit brought by a group of plaintiffs, many of them restaurant owners. More than 257,000 people have handgun carry permits in Tennessee. <...>

"I think the judge's common-sense ruling on the vagueness of the law affirms the recent MTSU Poll that showed over 80 percent of Tennesseans were opposed to the concept of guns in bars and restaurants," Nashville restaurateur Randy Rayburn, a plaintiff in the case, said Friday afternoon.

Me personally? I don't live in Tennessee, so I don't have a dog in this hunt, so to speak. I don't go to bars or restaurants there, so I don't need to worry about one of the 275,000 people with concealed carry permits getting all "lickered up" and pulling out his or her handgun to "right a wrong" whether or not their judgmnent as to the matter might just be mildly impaired due to the effects of alcohol.

Sure, we don't let people drive drunk because cars are, after all, deadly weapons, but I'm sure {drunks} social drinkers would be much more responsible with the use of their handguns while out for an evening of the good old fashioned American pastime of public intoxication.

Still, for some reason, bar and restaurant owners seem to have come down with the liberal commie fascist disease in Tennessee, because they didn't like this law, which only expands our god given right to bear arms while pounding back a few shots of one's favorite bourbon (please no jokes -- let's keep this a serious discussion). For example, have you ever heard anything so Wimpy and Bedwettingly Unamerican as this statement?

"We will have vigilantes shooting up bars all over," said Randy Rayburn, the owner of three upscale cafes, who led opponents of the law.

Hey, aren't we a nation founded on vigilantes. Isn't that why Batman exists? Why lynch mobs were created? Why ... oh never mind. I can see this isn't going to end well. Damn liberals!

[The Straight Story]

1. They should leave this, and other things, up to the bar owners to decide

My bar, my choice :)

[Name removed]

3. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[imdjh]

4. If a place is public enough that Freedom Of Association doesn't apply, then surely the right....

.... to bear arms does.

[ThomWV]

6. This isn't about the bar owner's rights, its about the state's legitimacy in restricing a right.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[imdjh]

5. And NH has the highest per capita consumption of hard liquor.

[HopeHoops]

7. I lived in NH for ten years - trust me, I know...

My dad and stepmom were visiting (from Maryland) and we were outside enjoying a nice day. Not far away, we heard what sounded like automatic gunfire. It was probably just semi-automatic and someone with a quick finger, but it was rapid. My stepmom practically dove for cover. My wife and I just barely noticed it. It isn't like it was out of the ordinary or anything.

My stepmom couldn't believe we were remaining calm so I pointed out that it was probably just someone shooting up an old toilet in the woods. Every day shit, that.

[ThomWV]

8. I've got a neighbor who probably shoots up 5 boxes of bullets a week

I don't know what the SOB is shooting at up there, probably beer cans, but he sure does shoot a lot. Everyone around here shoots guns now and then of course but this guy is maniacal about it. Every dam afternoon, or dam nearly so it seems. I don't know where the clown gets the money for the bullets, they (he, his old lady, and her three kids by the other deadbeat she used to be married to) haven't got a pot to piss in.

At any rate its none of my business. He knows where our house is and doesn't shoot this way. As a longstanding matter of public policy in this neighborhood dam near nobody will purposefully shoot a neighbor's dog unless a livestock attack is in progress so that's not a problem either.

What I worry about a lot more than that idiot shooting all the time are the ones who will be taking to the woods tomorrow, the first day of Buck, guns only deer season. That's the day you get every moron who could come up with the fee for a license out there banging away at anything that moves. You couldn't get me to go out in the woods tomorrow and the dogs are on a short leash for the next two weeks too.

[HopeHoops]

9. I spent 4 years in NW PA and most people hunt for food, HOWEVER...

There are always the yahoos from Pittsburgh who come up in fancy cars loaded with beer and shoot at anything that moves. The REAL hunters can't stand them. They don't even bother to track a wounded deer. It is just a game - get drunk and shoot at shit. Then they end up in the bars at night bragging about all the shit they shot at. It is nauseating. God forbid one of them should actually KILL a deer. It would look pretty silly tied to the front of a Lexus.

I'm a vegetarian, but I respect people who hunt for food. They're taking responsibility for the meat they eat.

[X_Digger]

10. meh. TX publishes stats..

.. that show CHL holders largely obey the law- http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2007.pdf

In 2007, no permit holder was convicted for bringing a gun into an establishment that derives 51% or more of it's income from the sale of alcohol for consumption on premises (read: a bar).

If they (CHL holders) are so unlikely to break these laws (where one can and can't carry), I don't have reason to believe that they would be likely to drink while carrying (there is no legal limit for drinking while carrying in TX.. you take a sip of beer while carrying, you can go to jail.)

Of course it's up to the bar owners. I'm not sure what the fuss is about in Tennessee- all it takes is a sign, and CHL holders who are carrying stay away. (So the only ones likely to be armed in the bar are criminals who carry illegally- NOT chl holders.)

[aikoaiko]

11. States that allow guns in restaurants w/alcohol, don't allow gun carriers allowed to drink alcohol

I could be wrong but most don't. And in most states I believe the bar owners can display signs banning weapons if they wish.

Most people who go through the extra effort of background checks, submitting finger prints, and/or shooting qualifications are very careful about using their guns and generally don't use them in crimes.

[spanone]

12. and how do restaurants know is the drinker is a gun carrier?

[aikoaiko]

13. The same way they do now.

which is to say they don't because it isn't their responsibility to check.

[X_Digger]

14. The crime isn't serving to someone who's carrying, it's consuming while carrying..

Therefore the onus is not on the bartender, but on the patron. In states where this has been allowed, there hasn't been a spate of drunken CHL carriers in the news, have there?

I only have stats at hand for TX and FL, but at least in those two states, CHL/CCW holders are rather scrupulous about following the law. I would expect that they'd follow the law against consuming while carrying as much as they do other laws about where they can and cannot carry- even though most carry concealed and there's a better than average chance that they could 'get away with it', they just don't.

[S_B_Jackson]

24. As a Texas CHL holder....

I am very aware of the signage which regulates those areas I can and cannot carry be they 30.06 signs or 51% alcohol revenue signs.

Any business that derives 51% or more of their sales from alcohol knows it and should have no qualms about posting their business as such. I have no desire to carry if I'm drinking, and can live with the limitation on their premises -that means that my firearm is in a locked console vault in my vehicle- if I am not drinking. However, if I'm going for dinner with my family to the local Chili's restaurant, why should I be required to disarm? I know that laws which govern my conduct when carrying, and I voluntarily abide by them.

In the case of the former businesses with 30.06 signage, businesses which have decided that they do not wish my business, I accomodate their desire.

Although I do make sure to give my custom to their more broad-minded competitors....and receipt in hand, I often do go to the signed business and speak to the manager to demonstrate to him how much I am prepared to spend and how often, as well as stating that I will not frequent his place of business and WILL, in fact, actively encourage others to likewise boycott that business. We've had a fair amount of success locally with convincing local businesses that it IS COSTING THEM MONEY and not just chump change. About half of the businesses in the area that initially posted 30.06 signage have removed it...and I can, once again, frequent them.

[slackmaster]

15. They don't - A concealed weapon is supposed to remain concealed except when it is used

It's not up to restaurant employees to enforce the law. That is the responsibility of the person who has the permit and the weapon.

[taurus145]

16. It's certainly not allowed in KY. n/t

[Euromutt]

20. That varies a bit, depending on the state definition of "bar"

Washington state does not permit carry of firearms in areas designated off-limits by the state Liquor Control Board to persons under 21, such as bars, "lounges" (bars attached to restaurants) and bar areas within restaurants; in essence, places where one goes primarily to drink, and food is incidental.

It is however, legal to carry into a restaurant that serves alcohol, and consume alcohol while carrying. It is, however, in effect illegal to be legally "under the influence" (i.e. BAC of 0.08% or more) and in possession of a firearm while not on one's own property. What it boils down it is that it's okay to have a glass of two of beer or wine with your meal while you're carrying, but you need to leave your piece behind if you're going to be doing any dedicated drinking.

The thing is that, to the best of my understanding, states like Tennessee and Arizona don't make a distinction between different types of establishment that serve alcohol: a restaurant with a wine list is for legal purposes equal to a bar, so that permitting carry in the former resulted in also permitting carry in the latter.

[PavePusher]

17. I see your profile claims Georgia as your home state.

From the http://www.handgunlaw.us/ website:

Georgia Code 16-11-127 A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when he carries (Police, Military and others
listed under GC 16-11-130 are exempt)
To or while at a public gathering any explosive compound, firearm, or knife designed for the purpose of
offense and defense.

(b) For the purpose of this Code section, "public gathering" shall include, but shall not be limited to,
athletic or sporting events, churches or church functions, political rallies or functions, publicly owned or
operated buildings, establishments at which alcoholic beverages are sold for consumption on the
premises which derive less than 50 percent of their total annual gross food and beverage sales from the
sale of prepared meals or food and you cannot drink alcohol while there. Nothing in this Code section
shall otherwise prohibit the carrying of a firearm in any other public place by a person licensed or
permitted to carry such firearm by this part.



Got a plethora of gunfights in restaurants that serve alcohol?

What makes 50% the magic dividing line between responsible citizen and crazed killer?

How is it that states where firearms may be taken into 'bars' don't seem to have significant problems, but places where it is not allowed have populations that are so untrustworthy? Who's stupid?


I will note that Arizona has not had any noticable uptick in bar shootings since legalizing bar carry almost two months ago. Oh, those nutty Arizonans...

[one-eyed fat man]

19. taxes and licenses

"What makes 50% the magic dividing line between responsible citizen and crazed killer?"

Here in Kentucky if an establishment makes 50% of its money from the sale of food it is a 'restaurant' and regulated, licensed and permitted to serve alcohol under one set of rules. If the place makes most of its money from booze, then it's a 'bar' and comes under another set of rules. Communities can and do decide to permit restaurants to serve alcohol while prohibiting bars.

KRS 244.125 prohibits loaded firearms (concealed or otherwise) in places where alcohol is sold by the drink, except for a bona fide restaurant open to the general public having dining facilities for not less than fifty (50) persons and which receives at least fifty percent (50%) of its gross annual income from the dining facilities by the sale of food.

This has pretty much been interpreted to mean you can legally carry if you happen to be having dinner in a restaurant that serves alcohol or has a bar, but are not seated in the "bar area."

DUI and public intoxication are causes for denial or revocation of licenses. Anyone who argues that the law is permitting people to drink while armed is being deceitful.

[PavePusher]

21. Umm, you pretty much missed my point entirely.

What is it about people that they will be well behaved in an establishment that derives less than 50% of it's revenue from alcohol sales, but turn into crazed murderers in places that get more than 50% of their sales from alcohol? Is there some magic power in the licence? A special ray emmiter on the door frame? Mind-bending power from the glass bottles?

It's a stupid, ineffective, feel-good-look-at-me-be-tough-on-crime stunt law.

[Euromutt]

25. Actually, I can sort of see the distinction

I reckon it's an--admittedly somewhat arbitrary and therefore imperfect--attempt to make the distinction between places where one goes primarily for the purpose of consuming a meal (restaurants) and where one may incidentally consume some alcoholic beverages with the meal on the one hand, and on the other, a place where one goes primarily to consume alcoholic beverages (bars) and may incidentally consume some food with one's drinks.

I think the reasoning goes that when you go to a restaurant, the duration and nature of your meal is generally going to limit the amount you imbibe. I mean, what's heaviest you can drink with dinner? An aperitif (read: cocktail or mixed drink) while you peruse the menu, a few glasses of wine with your meal, and a digestif (brandy or whisky/whiskey) with coffee, and considering how long your meal is going to take to consume that many units, you're at most going to be slightly over the limit to drive (trust me, I'm licensed to tend bar in the state of Washington). And most Americans, in my experience, don't drink anywhere near that much with dinner; one or two glasses of beer or wine is more like it, if that. And more to the point, if you're going to a restaurant, you're going primarily for the food.

On the other hand, if you're hitting a bar, you're very likely there, first and foremost, to drink (and enjoy certain social interactions that are pleasantly lubricated with alcohol), and part of the problem with booze is that it impairs your judgment whether or not to have another drink, so when you're not restricted by an external determining factor on when to stop drinking (e.g. you finish your meal, dessert and coffee), you might drink a fair amount (even if, as in Washington state, bartenders are supposed to stop serving you if they think it'll put you over the legal limit to drive, even if you're not driving).

So in a restaurant, you might have zero to a few drinks, but in a bar, you're probably going to have at least a few and very possibly more. That makes it a very different consideration whether you're carrying in one or in the other.

[eqfan592]

18. Ahhh, I love your post here.

Just dripping with ignorance and the type of pure idiocy I've come to expect from the other faux liberals like yourself out there.

[Redneck Socialist]

22. Blood will run in the streets

"Sure, we don't let people drive drunk because cars are, after all, deadly weapons, but I'm sure {drunks} social drinkers would be much more responsible with the use of their handguns while out for an evening of the good old fashioned American pastime of public intoxication."

And yet oddly enough we still let people who drive into bars.

It's a good thing that criminals that drink always leave their guns at home when they go out for a night on the town.

My state allows guns in bars and doesn't even have any laws against carrying a gun while drunk. Somehow we manage not to have shoot-outs every night. Odd that.

[Euromutt]

23. "Let's keep this a serious discussion"? Bit late for that

You've predicated your entire post on the notion that the law in Tennessee permits people to not merely consume alcohol while in possession of a firearm, but to get "lickered up." Very simply, the law does not allow that. Sure, you may point out that there's little to stop a CCW permit holder from legally carrying into a bar and then illegally getting hammered, but then again, prior to the passage of the present law, there was little to physically prevent someone from illegally carrying into a bar (with or without a CCW permit) and getting hammered. In other words, the present law hasn't increased any risks, while decriminalizing behavior that should not form a problem in and of itself (i.e. carrying into an establishment that serves alcohol, provided you don't imbibe). Just like it's not a problem to go into a bar if you're driving, provided you stay sober.

And may I add that I rather resent the use of cod-yokelisms like "lickered up" that anti-RKBA types appear to be all too prone to on this forum. Just because I'm a gun owner and an RKBA advocate doesn't mean I don't have a college-level education and am incapable of speaking and writing correct English, and that applies to a good many pro-RKBA posters on this forum. Trying to depict us as uneducated yahoos en masse from the outset is frankly a strong indication that you're not intent on a mutually respectful exchange of views.

"We will have vigilantes shooting up bars all over," said Randy Rayburn, the owner of three upscale cafes, who led opponents of the law.

I wouldn't call the above statement un-American, but I would call it pants-shitting hysteria, very much on a par with the dire prediction of "every fender-bender will result in a gunfight" and "blood will flow in the streets" that the gun control lobby perpetuated every time a state considered making its CCW permit system "shall issue"; it didn't happen once.