concealed firearms

[Kennedy 0]

Why are you incapable of following this lile of thought.

A person can go to a bar and not drink. It's called self control. People who carry firearms have that, or they are a danger to all regardless of alcohol.

Why should a person who will not drink not be allowed to carry in a bar?

Do you like the idea of victim disarmament zones?

Personally, I don't like crazies knowing that they can attack churches, schools, and restaurants safe in the knowledge that their victims cannot shoot back.

You need to realize two things.
(1) Laws of prior restraint only work on people who have no wish to break other laws anyway.
(2) A person is more likely to stay in control knowing that they have that power and responsibility on their hip, than leaving it in the car and getting sloshed, then suddenly having access to it again.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Why should a person who will not drink not be allowed to carry in a bar?"

That would surely be a pain in the ass to verify and administer. I'm thinking breathalysers and metal detectors at the local Ice House...

"getting sloshed, then suddenly having access to it again. "

If they are sloshed, they shouldn't really have access to the vehicle, but I do see your point.

As you were folks, this is really naff all to do with me.

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

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

"Why should a person who will not drink not be allowed to carry in a bar?"

That would surely be a pain in the ass to verify and administer. I'm thinking breathalysers and metal detectors at the local Ice House...

That's the problem. They shouldn't be concerned with verifiying whether or not every citizen is on his best behavior every second of every day.
(that's called Big Brother) If someone breaks the law, THEN involve the authorities.

What I'm saying is allow people todo as they will, and if they screw up, throw the book at them. Everything you can do wrong is already against the law, why do people want to make redundant laws and quadruple check everybody else?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[akarunway 1]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"If someone breaks the law, THEN involve the authorities."
Okay, like I said, this is fuck all to do with me, I'm just chewing the fat with a fellow aviator...
The problem with this situation is that the law is not being very proactive (prevent the crime or hazardous situation from ocurring). Your approach is reactive, and can only be enforced after the law has been broken. In this case it could either be a drunk who is somehow found to be carrying, or a bar full of dead people because someone nudged someone else during a pool game.

I suspect that not all gun owners are truly responsible people, so everyone has to suffer to legislate for the minority.

Just chewing the fat with you though...adding an 'inherent safety' perspective.

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

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Kennedy 0]

OK, run with me on this one.

- Action A is against the law.
- Everytime someone commits Acction A, they are arrested and prosecuted.
- Very few people ever even consdier committing Action A.
- However, politicians have decided there is too much Action A goin on.
- Action Z is not illegal and doesn't hurt anyone and can help situations, but can be a common factor before Action A.
- Politicians want to make Action Z illegal.
- People who perfrom Action Z every day and cause no one any harm don't want Z made illegal.

And there we are in this discussion. I could make drinking 'Action D,' but you get the idea.

If something is already against the law, why would passing a making part of that action illegal change anything? THe person is alredy willing to commit a larger crime. Why would they care about a different aspect of the crime? And if they do, wouldn't that cause a migration to other means of committing the larger crime, rather than lowering the overall numbers of it?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Your approach is reactive, and can only be enforced after the law has been broken.

How exactly do you enforce a law before it's been broken? Please point out one single instance of a law that by virute of existing prevents some action from occuring.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

Your approach is reactive, and can only be enforced after the law has been broken.

How exactly do you enforce a law before it's been broken? Please point out one single instance of a law that by virute of existing prevents some action from occuring.

If only prohibitionists of all suits and sorts would realize that the nature of crime is to break the law.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 2,991]

>How exactly do you enforce a law before it's been broken?

Make it illegal for bartenders to serve clearly intoxicated people. Require DWI offenders to attend seminars on alcohol and driving. Won't prevent the law from being broken but will help.

[Douva 0]

Quote

Why are you incapable of following this lile of thought.

A person can go to a bar and not drink. It's called self control. People who carry firearms have that, or they are a danger to all regardless of alcohol.

And a person can drive a vehicle full of open alcohol containers without drinking, but it's very hard to prosecute someone for drinking and driving or drinking and carrying if they are basically on the honor system.

Quote

Why should a person who will not drink not be allowed to carry in a bar?

Do you like the idea of victim disarmament zones?

Personally, I don't like crazies knowing that they can attack churches, schools, and restaurants safe in the knowledge that their victims cannot shoot back.

You need to realize two things.
(1) Laws of prior restraint only work on people who have no wish to break other laws anyway.
(2) A person is more likely to stay in control knowing that they have that power and responsibility on their hip, than leaving it in the car and getting sloshed, then suddenly having access to it again.

I don't like disarmament zones. Fortunately, the ban on carrying in churches was lifted in Texas a few years ago. I hope someday they lift the ban on schools. But those are different scenarios from bars. You made the point, "Laws of prior restraint only work on people who have no wish to break other laws anyway." My point is that "people who have no wish to break other laws anyway" can loose track of exactly what their wishes are, after a few drinks. Many people have no intention of drinking and driving until they've had six beers and the bartender announces "last call." Likewise, a man might not think it's worth drawing his weapon to defend the honor of his woman until he's had a few, at which point it might seem to him to be completely justified. Part of the responsibility of carrying a concealed weapon is being able to make snap decisions about the justifiable use of lethal force. Making good snap decisions is not one of the earmarks of drunkenness. Sure, some people could carry and not drink, but how many people really go to a bar and not drink? How many people are going to change their lifestyle and their drinking habits to be able to carry in a bar? A more likely scenario is that people will enter under the pretense of not drinking and then decide it's okay to drink if they just use their best judgment. And as we've already established, judgment goes downhill with each drink. If bars are your scene, go drink and have fun with your friends and accept it as a bad time to operate heavy machinery or carry a firearm.
If that's really not good enough for you, propose a system whereby nondrinkers (concealed carriers and designated drivers) are "flagged" with some non-removeable identifier when they enter a bar so that they can't be served. That way you and I can go to bars with our friends, as the designated driver/group protector, and carry our concealed weapons.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

>How exactly do you enforce a law before it's been broken?

Make it illegal for bartenders to serve clearly intoxicated people. Require DWI offenders to attend seminars on alcohol and driving. Won't prevent the law from being broken but will help.

That didn't answer the question of how you enforce it prior to it being broken.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Please point out one single instance of a law that by virute of existing prevents some action from occuring.

All you guys claim the 2nd amendmend does just that!!!!!!!!!!!!

[turtlespeed 220]

Devils advocate - I hold no opinion on this subject - but what if a guy doesn't drink - never drinks and still goes to the bar . . . gets sucker punched and his gun in now in the hands of a drunk.

Wouldn't it be better - in this situation- to disallow firearms in a bar to begin with?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

Please point out one single instance of a law that by virute of existing prevents some action from occuring.

All you guys claim the 2nd amendmend does just that!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nice try. But the 2nd amendment is not a law. It is the ennumeration of a right. The power of the people to defend themselves is what prevents criminals from preying on them, because laws against robbery, murder, and assault don't do the job. If no one exercised their 2nd amendment rights, then it being written down on a piece of paper would have no effect whatsoever.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Nice try. But the 2nd amendment is not a law. It is the ennumeration of a right. The power of the people to defend themselves is what prevents criminals from preying on them, because laws against robbery, murder, and assault don't do the job. If no one exercised their 2nd amendment rights, then it being written down on a piece of paper would have no effect whatsoever.

And how is that different from say a speed limit law. I know many people who adhere to them, who otherwise may drive quite a bit faster. So, does that law not alter their behaviour?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

And how is that different from say a speed limit law. I know many people who adhere to them, who otherwise may drive quite a bit faster. So, does that law not alter their behaviour?

Sure does, but it is still not ENFORCING the law prior to it being broken. And to make your comparison valid, you would have to outlaw driving in order to prevent people from speeding. There's nothing inherently wrong with driving, it's the speeding that is the problem. There's nothing inherently wrong with having a concealed weapon in a bar, it's having a concealed weapon when you are drunk that is the problem.

It swings both ways. If you think the law is preventative, then write the law to prevent what you want to avoid, not a broader scope that would include people that are not a problem.

Like I said, in PA, it's legal to carry in a bar. It's not legal to carry while you're drunk. That works just fine, makes sense, and doesn't unnecessarily make illegal an otherwise innocent act.

The law is preventative for law abiding people. It is moot for non-law abiding people.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Like I said, in PA, it's legal to carry in a bar. It's not legal to carry while you're drunk. That works just fine, makes sense, and doesn't unnecessarily make illegal an otherwise innocent act.

agree with you on that.

Wonder if PA has less bar fights than states where one can not carry concealed in a bar?

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

And a person can drive a vehicle full of open alcohol containers without drinking, but it's very hard to prosecute someone for drinking and driving or drinking and carrying if they are basically on the honor system.

So you prefer Big Brother to the honor system? If someone doesn't cause a problem, and doesn't hurt anyone else, what's the problem? You're so worried about this secondary law that you give it more strength and want more power to enforce it than you give to the initial problem: MURDER.

Honestly, please tell me you can see the difference bewteen enforcement and the honor system. Yes, I suggest that authorities leave you be, until you cause a problem. Once there is a problem, I'm not saying you should take the suspect's word that he hasn't been drinking. But why do you care before hand?

Quote

I don't like disarmament zones. Fortunately, the ban on carrying in churches was lifted in Texas a few years ago. I hope someday they lift the ban on schools. But those are different scenarios from bars. You made the point, "Laws of prior restraint only work on people who have no wish to break other laws anyway." My point is that "people who have no wish to break other laws anyway" can loose track of exactly what their wishes are, after a few drinks.

If that is your position, then make a law against drunk carrying, not against being in bars. It's very simple.

Quote

Sure, some people could carry and not drink, but how many people really go to a bar and not drink? How many people are going to change their lifestyle and their drinking habits to be able to carry in a bar? A more likely scenario is that people will enter under the pretense of not drinking and then decide it's okay to drink if they just use their best judgment. And as we've already established, judgment goes downhill with each drink. If bars are your scene, go drink and have fun with your friends and accept it as a bad time to operate heavy machinery or carry a firearm.

This says it all right here. You think you know people better than they know themselves. You are simply unable toaccept that a person can use his own judgment and self control. You think we need to be controlled for our own good.

You are also creating a logical fallacy. You are comparing the population at large with a very small and very different subset.

Quote

If that's really not good enough for you, propose a system whereby nondrinkers (concealed carriers and designated drivers) are "flagged" with some non-removeable identifier when they enter a bar so that they can't be served. That way you and I can go to bars with our friends, as the designated driver/group protector, and carry our concealed weapons.

Do you realize how _________ that is? You want to put a visible flag on the people who are carrying concealed? Think that one through and try again.


It's not good enough for me because I don't think people need to be kept on a leash. If you disagree, then we simply will not come to a consensus here.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

"getting sloshed, then suddenly having access to it again. "

If they are sloshed, they shouldn't really have access to the vehicle, but I do see your point.

So what if they shouldn't have access to the vehicle? Let's say they don't, let's say they get a taxi home. The gun's at home. Maybe he takes it out there and shoots his wife. The point is, the lack of access to the gun in the bar (which is completely voluntary, by the way, since if he did take it in, no one would likely ever know) doesn't really save lives that he might take.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I suspect that not all gun owners are truly responsible people, so everyone has to suffer to legislate for the minority.

Okay, so then we pass these laws. And the target of the laws -- the gun owner who is not responsible and so should not be allowed to bring his gun into a bar -- goes and brings his gun there anyway.

After all, the law disallows bringing the gun into the bar -- it cannot and does not prevent it from being done. So we're back to where we started before we passed a law that good honest self-controlled people now are obligated to obey: the bad irresponsible guy will still bring his gun into the bar and make a potential nuisance or danger of himself with that gun, and the law simply provides a reason to punish him if he is found to have brought the gun there. And he's likely to be found to have the gun there only if he actually takes it out and uses it criminally against someone in the course of his drunkenness -- in which case that by itself already triggers our laws to punish him for doing that, and those laws are quite severe.

So I think I've demonstrated the uselessness of such laws.

The good people who are not a threat follow them, double-nullifying what was already a null threat. Good people voluntarily disarmed do not spare anyone criminal attack, injury or death.

By definition, the bad people ignore these laws because the nature of the bad people is to do what they want to do regardless of right or wrong, and the law. So the result is that the bad people will be the only ones in places like bars, or stores that say "concealed firearms prohibited," to be carrying guns.

In truth, though, I'm sure that a lot of people who are good citizens, non-law breakers, non criminals, non-violent, DO go armed into places where their guns are forbidden, and I defend this behavior. These are people who recognize the futility of signs and policies that say, "Criminal predators, don't bring your guns in here." They want to be armed in case such a criminal decides to turn this "gun-free zone" into a killing field. They want to be armed because they are justifiably indignant that such an absurd rule would prevent them from carrying their means of self defense, when they know that they themselves are no threat to anybody except those who would attempt to do unprovoked harm to innocents.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Deuce 1]

Arizona has open carry.

When I was down training at Gunsite, in Prescott, I bought two cases of beer from the Safeway with a loaded G21 on my belt and three mags.

Very weird, for a California boy, but that's the way they do things there.

Also cool to walk into a bar and have the barmaid say, literally "What'll it be, boys?"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

>How exactly do you enforce a law before it's been broken?

Make it illegal for bartenders to serve clearly intoxicated people. Require DWI offenders to attend seminars on alcohol and driving. Won't prevent the law from being broken but will help.

Yes, and once again, a law against bartenders serving clearly intoxicated people cannot prevent that act from occurring, it merely provides the statutory righteousness for punishing offenders who commit it.

You keep refusing to acknowledge the most basic principle of laws: they are powerless to stop actions from occurring, existing only to be a basis for which actions will be later punished after they occur, and how.

This is such a simple concept, yet seems to be such a huge obstacle to many people's understanding.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Devils advocate - I hold no opinion on this subject - but what if a guy doesn't drink - never drinks and still goes to the bar . . . gets sucker punched and his gun in now in the hands of a drunk.

Wouldn't it be better - in this situation- to disallow firearms in a bar to begin with?

What if what if what if?
What if a cop gets called to a decoy emergency call by a criminal, who clocks him on the head and steals his handgun, his handcuffs, his mace, baton, police radio and everything else he has on him?

Maybe we should reconsider the wisdom of allowing cops to have guns when they go on patrol. (We already know what bad news it is that they take their guns home at night, from all the stories I've seen of their kids finding the guns and shooting themselves.)

In your hypothetical scenario, are you saying that after sucker punchng the non-drunk gun carrier, the drunk has the presence of mind to pat-down the gun carrier for weapons? We also assume the gun carrier has been knocked utterly senseless?

I guess I could stack a hypothetical question to utterly support having the sober gun carrier be allowed to carry his gun into the bar.

What if a bunch of drunks in the bar barricade the door, and start viciously raping a woman at the bar, and the telephone is out of order (as though a call to the police would stop the crime in progress before any physical harm got done anyway)? Wouldn't it be best to have a sober person able to stop the vicious and potentially murderous attack? What if the gang rapists could be heard saying to each other stuff like, "I'm gonna enjoy slitting this little lady's throat after I come in her tight little pussy?!" What then?

So come on, let's not get really stupid and outlandish with our examples, and pretend that they have so much relevance to real life. Fact is, I ... know... a friend... who has carried his gun into bars many times, in large part because he knew he would not be drinking -- and despite what has been suggested in this thread as some sort of likelihood[/], he never just broke down and started getting sloshed despite his original intentions. He simply enjoyed the band's music, and the company of his friends, and walked back to his car later on confident that he had the means to safeguard his life and, potentially, the lives of others.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Nice try. But the 2nd amendment is not a law. It is the ennumeration of a right. The power of the people to defend themselves is what prevents criminals from preying on them, because laws against robbery, murder, and assault don't do the job. If no one exercised their 2nd amendment rights, then it being written down on a piece of paper would have no effect whatsoever.

And how is that different from say a speed limit law. I know many people who adhere to them, who otherwise may drive quite a bit faster. So, does that law not alter their behaviour?

If the law were a physical barrier to people deciding to FLOUT the law and speed despite it, then you would never see speeders because speeding would have been rendered impossible to do by the law.

But we know that a law has no physical power to stop a behavior. If you see people obeying the speed limit (good luck!), it is not because the law stopped them, but because they decided voluntarily to accede to the law because they are unwilling to suffer the penalty if caught speeding.

The Second Amendment itself is no protection to anyone in a physical sense. It provides for the fact that we may outfit ourselves with physical objects that can be used to stop crimes in progress. Are you unable to see the difference between a paper law and an actual ability?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[newsstand 0]

All right so there are two reasons for the laws. One to harass law-abiding citizens and two to provide an additional penalty for law breakers.

Does that make you happy? Part two is the real reason for the laws.

If you rally want to whack your spouse the laws won't have any impact. But if you are drunk and pissed they might slow you down until you are a little more rational.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes