Loaded handguns in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. A good idea? A bad idea?
Tennessee, Arizona, Georgia, and Virgina are the four newest states to take advantage of 2 recent Supreme Court rulings saying "that citizens have an individual right — not just in connection with a well-regulated militia — to keep a loaded handgun for home defense." and this "home defense" has been expanded legally to include bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. These 4 new states bring the total number of states to allow this by law to 22.
Is this a protected and sensible right afforded by the Constitution? or a recipe for trouble?
New York Times | More States Allowing Guns in Bars
Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV)
LCAV | Second Amendment Cases
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$10 Answers
Yes, it is a great idea, as long as it does not extend to brewpubs. The country and the world is seriously overpopulated and food and other resources are not sustainable unless the population is reduced. On the other hand, I tend to visit brewpubs and would not like guns there.
No, it is not constitutionally protected. The states and municipalities have a clear right to regulate firearms even under the most pro-gun court decisions. Furthermore, the 2nd ammendment is completely misinterpreted and if it were read properly it only pertains to service in the military.
Yes, it is a great recipe for trouble. Another good idea recently introduced in Louisiana is the right to bring guns to church. We certainly need a reduction in the number of religious fanatics.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$In this day and age, everyone is grossly indoctirnated toward focusing on destroying the rights of 350,000,000,000 people because 200 do stupid sh*+. As you all can already guess, I'm in favor of the wild west - everyone has a loaded gun in the bar. It's a good idea, not because of the obvious issues of mixing alcohol with any killing weapon, but because it makes no more sense to limit guns because of alcohol than it does cars because of alcohol. In fact, cars and alcohol are significantly more harmful.
And one other note: I take offense that such a precious right is turned into a parody in Mahalo answers. All our individual Rights are under severe attack right now. Brevity only gives Rights detractors more power.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
I sincerely appreciate all of the rights I am afforded by the Constitution but I am not a fan of anyone being able to legally carry a loaded handgun (the only "right" in question) into a establishment that serves alcohol.
I can fight for my own rights but would not fight for that right for myself or anyone else because I believe if the then to now timeline extrapolation of the words and ideas written in the Constitution were to be applied also to the opinions of the men who wrote them then I can see that our founding fathers, who I would consider reasonable people, would have different opinions today and write a different amendment to apply to todays United States.
I think our founding fathers would be appalled at how we interpret the 2nd amendment to the Constitution today and probably wonder why we would have stretched the 2nd amendment to include carrying a loaded handgun into an establishment that serves alcohol.
On a compassionate, common sense level, we are in total agreement. I just do not trust our politicians and do not trust our political trends. Think about all the last minute tag-ons to any legislation that passes. If we allow them a Constitutional Congress, we're done for. Anti-gun rhetoric, no matter how well meaning, just empowers those who would take advantage of otherwise well-meaning citizens such as yourself.
If you are unable to see how all our Constitutional and inalienable rights are constantly chipped away because of the few exceptions who screw-up (those who can't control themselves and use a loaded gun in a bar - how many instances of that in 200 years?), then there is nothing I can think of to help open your eyes as to how you are being manipulated and enslaved. But I promise to continue to fight for your true freedoms (vs politically correct freedoms).
I do not want to get dragged off topic into the RICO act as that has nothing to do with carrying a loaded handgun into an establishment that serves alcohol. We are talking about loaded handgun possession and where it is sensible to allow such possession.
----
In my understanding though prosecutors are hesitant to charge people under the RICO act as it requires an additional burden of proof without adding anything to the sentencing guidelines.
A prosecutor would rather charge a defendant with murder than a "pattern of murder" even in cases involving serial killings or in a more related area charge a defendant with illegal possession of a firearm instead of "a criminal conspiracy or pattern of illegally possessing a firearm".
----
Back on topic, this is just not true and I can't seem to figure it's relevance,
"your comments are exactly how police can search and seize your property without due process"
I mentioned nothing of due process.
I only feel and am only trying to assert that allowing people to carry a loaded handgun in an establishment that serves alcohol is plain old illogical and arguing that we are given this right by the Constitution arguing correctly but ineffectively.
Do you carry a loaded handgun into bars and restaurants that serve alcohol? Or are you merely saying it should be allowed not because you feel it is the right thing to do but because the Constitution says so in an abstract an outdated interpretation?
Why would you or anyone want the right to carry a loaded handgun in a bar? Why would you want your fellow citizens to have that right? Have you ever needed a gun at a bar? Just because some founding father folks 200+ years ago say we have "right to bear arms" does not mean we should blindly and widely allow that to be applied to all circumstances. Especially not when it comes to possessing loaded handguns in establishments that serve alcohol.
I understand this common interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and I understand that others have a different and opposing viewpoint but if this question was what you meant by "parody" I both apologize and explain that parody was not my intention.
If I owned a bar or restaurant here in NH I would not serve anyone anything if they were to bring a loaded handgun into my establishment. No food, no booze, no water, no juice, no you cannot use that bathroom and I am asking that person(s) to leave the premises.
Make a scene, call the police, notify the ALCU, whatever we would go to the Supreme Court of my right to refuse service to any person at any time for any reason. Not in my bar, not legally, not illegally, not if I can help it at all.
A city just to the north of me had a gun fight start in a sit down pizza shop/bar/lounge where an innocent 19 year old kid picking up a pizza to go was shot by crossfire while trying to pick up his pizza. No shots were fired in the bar but the patrons in the bar had loaded weapons and took the shoot'em ups just outside to the parking lot.- http://bit.ly/dBDq5b
Even the shop owner was eventually arrested for discharging his shotgun in the parking lot. While I would support the owners Constitutional right to protect his place of business with a loaded shotgun they very idea of letting a patron drinking alcohol in public to legally have in his/her possession a loaded handgun for any reason is preposterous.
I would think that anyone interpreting the Constitution to read that this would be what any of the founding fathers would have meant by the right to bear arms might be picking a politically motivated Constitutional battle for the sake of that battle and not in the name of what is logically reasonable.
Eventually the people responsible for the public shooting were apprehended -http://bit.ly/coxgDG
"350,000,000,000 people are penalized" well not really, that number is what is unrealistic here. Only the very small percentage of that total US population who are of legal age to own a handgun, hold the legal status to buy a handgun, actually own a handgun, hold the proper permit to carry a loaded handgun, and actually have the desire to carry this loaded handgun in a restaurant or bar that serves alcohol would be effected at all.
I would also safely assume that there must be even a small percentage of that tiny number that still would not feel penalized by such a restriction on carrying a loaded handgun in a bar.
I do not want to do the math there but I am sure the total number of those that would be effected by any law against carrying a loaded handgun in a bar/restaurant would be very small in comparison.
And the car thing? Whole other topic but not one person in this country that does not wear or hold a badge needs to carry a gun to make it possible for them to get to work. If I had to choose I would get rid of the booze which when removed from the (car + alcohol = danger) equation also significantly reduces the risk to public safety.
Not you @buddawiggi, and not the question. Sorry, I should have been clearer re the question being thoughtful. In fact, I likewise support your individual business owner right to refuse service to anyone. But the scenario in your comment is the classic example of the unrealistic view that it's possible to have a pefect world if 350,000,000,000 people are penalized by reducing their innate Rights because of a few people's stupidity.
@buddawiggi, your comments are exactly how police can search and seize your property without due process. They can do it under the auspices of the Rico Act. When this law was put in place, the 350,000,000,000 heirs were told it was strictly to be used for racketeering mobsters and that it would never be used against every day citizens. So, citizens at the time, thinking it was a good thing to crush 100+/- racketeering mobsters said okay, and today the Rico Act is used on everyone. Hence everyone has fewer innate rights of privacy.
It can't be a perfect world. There will be collateral damage in all of life. That is life. Corralling the population into an ever smaller circle of freedom to deal with the EXTREMELY small minority of abusers and victims is not the answer. Accepting that life will always include tragedy and be realistic about accepting it is the answer. (Didn't say it would be easy, but it is more appropriate than striving for utopia through limiting the ability to actually live freely.)
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$Another rational way to look at the issue is to study the statistics. Judging from the level of stupidity thrust on us unconvinced imbeciles who do not line up to hand over their guns along with their rights on your say-so, the states on your map that allow loaded guns in bars should be rampant with bar shootings, while the states with smart people who ban guns in bars should have almost no bar shootings, correct? Not even close. In places like Wyoming and North Dakota, people tend to shoot varmints rather than each other, even if they happen to be in a bar (the people, not the varmints).
If I'm a criminal in a state with no "no guns in bars" laws, my new second best place to get a gun becomes the bar parking lot (right after stealing them from private homes).
What makes folks think they are smarter than "we the people"? If the people of California don't want guns in bars, God bless them, they can be wrong until the Supreme court gives the rights back to the people, but what on earth would posses them to want to dictate to the people of Tennessee?
What makes anti-gun nuts smarter than the USSC, the Constitution, the facts of bar shootings, the voters of individual states, and anyone else who might disagree with them?
Arrogance and condescension drips off the word of "ban the guns" proponents as if they were a whole nuther species from us poor stupid people who could possibly disagree with their obviously superior minds. Get over yourselves, get off your high horses, and discuss this like the equals that you are. Supporters of taking guns from the people are no smarter than anyone with whom they disagree, although it seems obvious that they honestly believe they are. Rather than beat us over the head with your proclamations of your obvious (to you) superiority, show us some statistics that indicate that bar shootings have gone down, and/or are less in "no bar" states. Show us the high incidence of bar shootings in states that allow guns.
Personally, I don't like bars and wouldn't cry if they all went out of business, but what I like even less is know-it-all campaigners who proclaim themselves to be obviously correct and support taking away other peoples freedom on the basis of their say-so, regardless of the rights of the other folks, and without showing a shred of evidence except for their high and mighty opinion.
I don't even HAVE an opinion, so far I haven't sen an ounce of logic. just a lot of puffed chest parading about how smart we are and how dumb everyone else must be. Not very convincing.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Kinda hostile there @keepontryin, you packing?
If we were Constitutionally afforded the right to combine booze and driving would you feel that just because the Constitution says so we should blindly take that as the law of the land?
Statistics? DUI is illegal in all 50 states but even this has still not drastically reduced the number of deaths and injuries from DUI but that does not mean we should remove the law against DUI and call it a failure. We should reexamine the law and see how it can be improved as we should do with the 2nd amendment and how it is stretched to afford a person the right to carry a loaded handgun into a bar and that's legal... but driving home afterwards is not.
"What makes folks think they are smarter than "we the people"? - we folks can because we folks are we the people, we are as much "we the people" as anyone and "we these people" and "I this person" feel that combining loaded handguns and establishments that serve alcohol is an easily avoided danger.
"Get over yourselves, get off your high horses, and discuss this like the equals that you are." I could but you guys have the guns so we are not equal. Seriously I am not arrogant, I am not condescending, I am not a anti gun zealot setting his sights on taking over the US via a discussion of the rationale behind allowing loaded handguns is bars, I am just trying to point out that some of the rights afforded to us by the Constitution are fought for for the sake of fighting for them.. not because having those rights (this right to carry a loaded handgun to a bar) is the right thing to do.
This is exactly how I feel about the pro-gun lobby> "I don't even HAVE an opinion, so far I haven't sen an ounce of logic. just a lot of puffed chest parading about how smart we are and how dumb everyone else must be. Not very convincing."
I see no logic, not one ounce, and a lot of puffed chest standing up to fight for an illogical right to carry a loaded handgun into a bar. I am not convinced.
I want our Constitution to be protected and I understand the fear about change, "If we change anything about it they will change it all!", "We will be living out of ghettos and waiting in line for bread if we reexamine the Constitution at all!" I feel those fears are justified and any exploration into a modern interpretation of the 2nd amendment should be done carefully but we should not just take at face value what was written so long ago and feel it applies to today.
I never said anyone was dumb, made any claim to being smart, or showed any sort of "your obvious (to you) superiority" I am a person and a citizen like everyone else but above all a voter and I have the right to respectfully point out with reasonable intelligence where I feel my fellow citizens are in the wrong which I have done here.
How many sips of beer would you estimate it would take to turn someone from a responsible, gun carrying citizen to a gun waving maniac? 10? 20? 150? Do you think that a gun waving maniac who has had too many sips of beer would be thwarted by a sign or a law that say "no weapons"? What keeps beer sipping gun waving maniacs from going to their car and getting a handgun to blast away at all those who enrage him?
Have you ever seen it happen? perhaps you should find different bars to hang out.
I don't own a handgun, but 45 million (by some counts) of other Americans do, so attempts to stereotype a hostile gun owner falls as flat as the reminder of the "feelings" based argumentation.
Looking at your unbiased source: "Legal Community against Violence"? Gee, I wonder how many of them are NRA members LOL.
"If the constitution gave us the right to dui...?" Really? How about gun violence statistics, specifically in bars, since that is the topic? Why so hard to provide supporting evidence beyond "I think". Obviously some people think differently, but to you, their judgments are illogical and appalling, even though they may be thoughtful individuals who just request a bit more evidence than, well, none.
Show me some compelling evidence beyond your opinion is all
The same reasons as carrying anywhere. That's easy.
Here in NH "Open container" can be considered any loose bottles of alcohol within the reach of (including all of the passenger compartment) the driver and any incomplete packs of beer such as having 5 out of 6 beers in a 6 pack..open container.. or even a complete 24 pack of Bud but with the cardboard having the seal broken...all open container. All open container even though every bottle of beer is closed and possibly in a complete pack.
I know this because I have been charged and convicted of this crime
Carrying a gun is not the same as using a gun. There's your difference between owning a car and driving a car. And also a difference between being in possesion of alcohol (perfectly legal in every state) while operating a vehicle and DRINKING or having an OPEN container while driving. The other difference is this you can certainly carry alcochol in your car, where did you get the idea that you cannot be in possession of alcohol in a car? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard! How would you get it home from the store? Until now, you have made no disticntion whatsoever between drinking and carrying or not drinking and carrying. You have been adament that it is illogical and appalling interpretation of the 2nd amendment to even CARRY a gun into a place that serves alcohol, regardless of whether you drink or not, or drink to excess. I cna have a beer, get in my car and drive home, and if I had one, put my gun away, and break no laws whatsoever. I know it's not nearly as exciting as imaginary beer sipping maniacs driving drunk and firing weapons all the way home, but there you have it, most of us live lives of quiet desperation! (as opposed to loud gunfiring maniacal beer sipping and driving).
There are many laws concerning firing guns in public, and until you prove that a person carrying guns in bars violate them more frequently than other people, you remain unconvincing. You would be shocked at how many bar patrons are carrying, legal or not, and yet they remain responsible, and do not drink to excess when carrying. It's never the guy carrying that goes all rambo on everyone, it's always someone who has to go to his car or his house and come BACK with a gun.
All I'm saying is this: Before we go marching in and declare that everyone has to march lock step with the gun control lobby, shouldn't we ask to see some evidence? (other than word of mouth stories about my aunt tilda)
Concerning your lack of evidence, I am not the one trying to take away constitutional rights with no more than an "I think"(and my thoughts should rule?). I am not the one calling the Supreme court and the state legislatures decisions, illogical and appaling. It would seem the burden would be on you.
One drink = impairment. We are beginning to be impaired the moment the alcohol touches the mucus membranes on the walls of out mouths. Impairment while under the influence is the issue here and impairment begins with the first sip.
Each individual will be different but if we let the 230lb guy pack a .38 then we have to let the 100lb guy pack a .45 as well and that 100lb guy is a danger to everyone if he has a loaded handgun from sip one.
Unfortunately for me and many Americans the burden is on us against the money heavy NRA/Gun lobby and the many Americans who feel even considering that the folks who wrote the 2nd amendment to the Constitution were/are fallible even now 200+ years later is instantly wrong so yes any of us choosing to stand up and say "Why would you need or want that right?" are always going to be met with strong (usually armed) resistance.
However being unarmed and in the minority does not make my opinion, and the others who feel this might be an issue worth real and reasonable re-examination without prejudice to the "It's in the Constitution" argument, any less valid or any less of the right thing to do. And being wrong or just outdated for extended periods of time does not give an idea any more validity under re-examination.
I really would rather see any compelling evidence you might have that would show me a benefit to allowing Americans to have the right to carry a loaded handgun in an establishment that serves alcohol.
I am all for "sticking to you guns" but what is the reason anyone would even want this right? Is there any evidence that a responsible possessor of a loaded handgun in a bar or an establishment that serves alcohol has ever used this weapon effectively to prevent a crime, protect his property or home, or defend his country from those that would choose to do it harm? Where is the evidence that this is a useful or responsible right?
Arguing that "It's in the Constitution" is correct in one interpretation but incorrect in others so I would like to see exterior to the "It's in the Constitution" evidence of any usefulness to having this right.
I bring up the DUI because I find it odd that if we drive a car while drinking alcohol or drive a car while even in possession of alcohol it is illegal but it is a protected right to carry another deadly weapon when put together with alcohol (the loaded handgun) in the establishment that is serving the alcohol.
As a child I lived in a house with 3 alcoholics (a grandmother, a father and an aunt). There was constant bickering, fighting, screaming and cursing. And had there been a handgun in the house, many of the incidents may have ended up with one or more people dead (perhaps even me or my little sister). When there are several people in a room who have consumed too much alcohol their logic goes right out the window. The pain that was inflicted on my mother and me during these drunken outbursts will never be forgotten and I again I shutter to think what the outcome might have been if guns had been involved.
When my mom remarried, we were subjected to a local private club where individuals drank to the point of stupidity. I saw more than a few bar room brawls but had this private club allowed the members to carry guns, many lives might have been ruined in the heat of a drunken argument.
I personally believe that guns in the hands of unskilled, untrained professionals in any establishment where alcohol is served can be a disaster for the entire community rather than offer protection for any one business. I would hope that our law enforcement would and government would work together to come up with a solution to assist in protection of business owners and citizens. However, we do not live in a perfect world. If the law is to allow individuals to keep guns on the business premises then stricter rules should apply for training the citizens/ business owners to exercise proper steps in using said weapons.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Bad idea.
pinky8
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Talking technically,
we're human beings who really don't have full control on his senses. And after the intake of alcohol it further minimizes. When one drinks, it is medically proven, becomes careless and fearless of the conclusion. So loaded-guns would be a TIME-BOMB waitin' for 00:00.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$I do, however, feel that strict codes of conduct should be instated because of the public environment. Additional permits for the firearms in a business setting requiring specific training and passing of appropriate courses based on the purpose would then be my suggestion. I would even go so far as to have it put in writing that the owner of the firearm/business agrees to be held accountable for how the firearm is used regardless of who is using it. I understand the reluctance some states may have in allowing this in an environment with heavy drinking. A sound and thorough collection of rules would fix that. I would say right at or perhaps just a notch about security officer training would work.
As long as they are responsible, there should not be an issue. For certain I would require a gun lock and an approved place of storage. I know it may seem like a lot to some, but then again, it is a loaded gun in a room full of drunks.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
well, thank you.
I worked in a tattoo shop in Austin. 6th street. So we had our share of drunk who we then put in pain because they paid us to. There was a gun in the shop, but the owner kept it locked up in the storage cage. It was understood why that was and I agree with him. We had the option to stick it out with our fist or we could bring our own LEGAL weapon.
We were then warned we would be fired if we put a hole in anything but the offender. And then we would be fired if we were not in our legal right to shoot them. Needless to say, most of us stuck to using a table leg or bat that we brought to work. It worked out fairly well.
What had me curious as to the logic behind allowing this was that not only is the business owner within his rights to carry a loaded handgun on him in the bar or restaurant by so are the patrons...makes me think whomever wrote the law has never been in a room where there were drunk/high people and loaded handguns.
I love this "I would even go so far as to have it put in writing that the owner of the firearm/business agrees to be held accountable for how the firearm is used regardless of who is using it." an ideal addition to any law allowing loaded handguns to be carried in a room serving alcohol.
and my favorite part? "but then again, it is a loaded gun in a room full of drunks." Bingo.
...it's all about accountability. No action should ever be taken if you don't plan on embracing the consequence of that action.
If you are going to carry into a bar, you have to have the permission of the owneer ahead of time. In many instances, a police officer will ask for records showing that the permission was given. In most cases now, a bar owner will give a written approval to the person making the request so that there is something on file if there is some kind of issue.
There was a puch a few years ago to make it so that a person could not carry a firearm into any facility that carried alcohol. This idea was shot down quickly. It was also shot down to require the writte permission at restaurants that serve alcohol. This type of permission only has to be given at facilities that make a majority of their money from the sale of alcohol. Casinos are an exception as you still have to get permission from them to carry on their premisses.
The original intent of the Constitution granted the right to bear arms in the hope that those that had a firearm could use it to help, or (more importantly) use it in a local militia that would help the police or the military in case of an attack. The need has changed, and the interpretation has changed with it.
There are many intersting aspects of the gun control debate. This is one of my favorite argument analogies:
A person becomes disgruntled at work and walks into his place of buiness and brandishes a gun. He shoots off six rounds, killing one person, and injuring two more. Another coworker pulls out his gun (which he has a permit for), and fires once that the suspect and kills him.
On one side of this debate, one could say that if the killer was not able to get a gun in the first place, the person that he shot and killed would still be alive. On the other hand, if the normal worker did not have the right to carry a gun, the psycho might have killed a lot more people.
As a writer who focuses on a the horror movie industry, I have to pay close attention to fears. One of the most common fears is the fear of dieing The more impeding the chances of being killed are, the less likely someone is going to do something. If a person has a strong reason to believe that a certain action will cause death, the rational side of the brain will speak up, and that person will usually be less likely to do something stupid.
If a person were to know that a large number of people in the area might have guns, he or she might think twice about doing something that could cause death. Remember, the reason why a person goes into a building (like work or school) is usually to take down as many people as possible. If there are a bunch of people that might start shooting back, the chances of taking out a bunch of people becomes lower (and so does the possible attractiveness).
When it comes to guns in a bar, I am a strong supporter of extra provissions being taken. In my younger days, i spent a lot of time in bars, and ended up in more than my fair share of bar fights (I never started them, just tried to end them). I would not wanted to have to have thought in the back of my mind that a person might pull a gun on me. I would have gotten my butt kicked more than once if I spent my split seconds worrying.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
This makes a lot of sense,
> "If you are going to carry into a bar, you have to have the permission of the owneer ahead of time. In many instances, a police officer will ask for records showing that the permission was given. In most cases now, a bar owner will give a written approval to the person making the request so that there is something on file if there is some kind of issue."
I think it is worth mentioning and I like that you did mention the fear rationale as it fits in the cold war mutually assured destruction sort of logic and I believe that works, the only "but" I have is the booze.
It would make a lot more sense to let people carry concealed if they were not drinking and, at least in Tennessee, that is part of the law one is breaking the law if they are packed and drinking but not if they are abstaining from alcohol that day or evening.
I know alcohol impairs judgement by the sip so a patron with a legal handgun one sip can become a criminal with a waving gun in a matter of a minute or by the next sip. I do not believe I would go to any establishment where people might be drinking and might also be carrying a loaded handgun legally... or illegally for that matter.
Well said, population control and resource management through liberal interpretation of the 2nd amendment and enactment of laws made reasonable by that interpretation.
Could we just go a head and allow high school students to carry concealed on campus? Those pesky wannabe suburban gangsta kids have to go but they might also need to protect themselves from the in school police (SRO student resource officers) in Key West as they can now use the tasers they carry on the students.
http://keysnews.com/node/26759