FYI-Restaurant carry passed

#26
#26
IPorange said:
It's sad that they have to specifically say in the law that if you are drinking you can't have the gun on you. That's something that should go without saying. Drinking, firearms, and public places should not intersect.
Click to expand...

Something that (to the best of my knowledge isn't included in the bill) I would have liked to have seen specifically spelled out is that it must be concealed carry in such establishments. If you're eating a steak with a good IWB holster the only person that will ever have a clue you're packing is you.

I think very, very few permit holders open carry anyway but I'd like to have seen it added that restaraunt carry be concealed only.
 
#27
#27
I'm for the bill, but I'm also for a felony charge against anyone carrying a firearm and consuming alcohol. Hopefully Bubba doesn't have a .45 on him, anyhow, and if he does and drinks under this bill, I hope they throw the book at him. This law is for responsible gun ownders, with valid carry permits, not for wannabe badasses throwing back Bud Heavies.

I look forward to it mainly so I don't have to leave a gun in the car while I go in to eat dinner. However, when I'm out on the town for the night, the gun will stay at home, locked up, ammunition separate.
 
#28
#28
jwells said:
I'm for the bill, but I'm also for a felony charge against anyone carrying a firearm and consuming alcohol. Hopefully Bubba doesn't have a .45 on him, anyhow, and if he does and drinks under this bill, I hope they throw the book at him. This law is for responsible gun ownders, with valid carry permits, not for wannabe badasses throwing back Bud Heavies.

I look forward to it mainly so I don't have to leave a gun in the car while I go in to eat dinner. However, when I'm out on the town for the night, the gun will stay at home, locked up, ammunition separate.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like you are exactly the type of person for which this legislation was intended.
 
#29
#29
kev20 said:
No way! Then there must just be a ton of stories out there about people shooting up restaurants in those states, no? You know, since it's so dumb and all.
Click to expand...
All it will take is one loose cannon in Tiptonville or Ducktown to use a gun in a bar and Hatvol and rest of the bleeding hearts will point at that single incident as a reason to abolish the law. It will be blown waaaaayyy out of proportion and highlighted as wild wild west meets Tennessee. Then we'll be condescended to by the elite, high brow liberals and scolded for having law abiding citizens to actually exercise their 2nd Amendment right.
 
#30
#30
Rasputin_Vol said:
All it will take is one loose cannon in Tiptonville or Ducktown to use a gun in a bar and Hatvol and rest of the bleeding hearts will point at that single incident as a reason to abolish the law. It will be blown waaaaayyy out of proportion and highlighted as wild wild west meets Tennessee. Then we'll be condescended to by the elite, high brow liberals and scolded for having law abiding citizens to actually exercise their 2nd Amendment right.
Click to expand...

Pay attention to such scenarios though. For any such accusations to have any merit the following critera would have to be met.

1. The shooter must be carrying with a currently valid permit.

2. The establishment in question cannot be a "bar" to begin with. Specific criteria for the establishment to be defined as a restaurant are in place. This bill was at no time intended to allow carry in a "bar" as defined by common vernacular.

If both of the above do not apply to the shooting in question then any argument citing the incident against the legislation in question is rendered moot. The shooter was already carrying illegally under the provisions of the bill.
 
#33
#33
Those that are most likely to shoot someone in an establishment that serves alcohol are already carrying a firearm into them.
 
#35
#35
jcwvolfan said:
Those that are most likely to shoot someone in an establishment that serves alcohol are already carrying a firearm into them.
Click to expand...
and will have much bigger problems (than the fact that they were carrying) if they decide to use it. Just another worthless law now on the books! Now comes another little jewel....If you are served with an order of protection, you must turn your firearms over to another responsible adult. I can hear Barney at the door now...."Shake Down"
 
#36
#36
I continue to believe that if people habitually arm themselves going into public places so as to be ready for that one in a hundred million chance that some nut has planned a massacre there -- and they'll be ready to take 'em out -- so many more people will be killed by accident or over petty squabbles that get out of hand than will be saved by some untrained goofball having the cajones to take on the guy in the trenchcoat blazing away in the auditorium.
 
#37
#37
because it's happened so many times in the other 34 states that already have the law?
 
#38
#38
lawgator1 said:
I continue to believe that if people habitually arm themselves going into public places so as to be ready for that one in a hundred million chance that some nut has planned a massacre there -- and they'll be ready to take 'em out -- so many more people will be killed by accident or over petty squabbles that get out of hand than will be saved by some untrained goofball having the cajones to take on the guy in the trenchcoat blazing away in the auditorium.
Click to expand...

You don't have to be that well trained to point and shoot. I'm an excellent shot. Give me any type of handgun and the lunatic in the trenchcoat is a dead man. I think the law has more to do with people wanting protection in the parking lot and on the way to the restaurant.
 
#39
#39
kev20 said:
because it's happened so many times in the other 34 states that already have the law?
Click to expand...


Which? People shooting would-be Columbine imitators or people shooting strangers because they had too much to drink and made the wrong smart ass comment?
 
#40
#40
lawgator1 said:
I continue to believe that if people habitually arm themselves going into public places so as to be ready for that one in a hundred million chance that some nut has planned a massacre there -- and they'll be ready to take 'em out -- so many more people will be killed by accident or over petty squabbles that get out of hand than will be saved by some untrained goofball having the cajones to take on the guy in the trenchcoat blazing away in the auditorium.
Click to expand...
Between two lawyers like yourself at hatvol, surely the two of you could find some evidence that there is widespread gun violence being caused by these law abiding citzens. :popcorn:
 
#41
#41
kptvol said:
You don't have to be that well trained to point and shoot. I'm an excellent shot. Give me any type of handgun and the lunatic in the trenchcoat is a dead man. I think the law has more to do with people wanting protection in the parking lot and on the way to the restaurant.
Click to expand...


Remind me not to wear my trench coat.
 
#44
#44
hndog609 said:
Please read post #30 in this thread before making such comments.
Click to expand...


I was speaking wholistically to the notion that a better armed general public would result in a reduction in crime and specifically to the curtailing of thse lunatics showing up in schools or malls and what not, not to any particular measure or bill on a particular place or circumstance. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
 
#45
#45
lawgator1 said:
I was speaking wholistically to the notion that a better armed general public would result in a reduction in crime and specifically to the curtailing of thse lunatics showing up in schools or malls and what not, not to any particular measure or bill on a particular place or circumstance. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. Appreciate the clarification.

Still, I'm not sure statistics are your friend in this. Some of those areas with the lowest incidences of gun violence are states associated with more "lax" gun laws whereas, and I don't think this one is even up for debate, some of the most likely places to get shot are also those with the most draconian gun laws.

More and more the pro-gun set points to Great Britain as an example, and it's starting to stick.
 
#46
#46
hndog609 said:
Ah, I see. Appreciate the clarification.

Still, I'm not sure statistics are your friend in this. Some of those areas with the lowest incidences of gun violence are states associated with more "lax" gun laws whereas, and I don't think this one is even up for debate, some of the most likely places to get shot are also those with the most draconian gun laws.

More and more the pro-gun set points to Great Britain as an example, and it's starting to stick.
Click to expand...


Statistics on this issue are all over the map, I'll confess. But my opinion on the subject -- again in general terms -- is based much more on having been on the planet for 45 years and having surmised from that time that accidental or spur of the moment reckless shooting deaths are extremely commonplace and appear directly correlated to people having access to firearms in bad situations relative to the extremely infrequent occurence of someone deciding to go on a shooting spree. Add to that the naive thought some seem to have, that they'd have the stones and the temperament to go all Dirty Harry on the bad guy's azz, and I reach the conclusion that having everyone be armed and ready for that once-every-five year scenario is just stupid.
 
#47
#47
lawgator1 said:
Statistics on this issue are all over the map, I'll confess. But my opinion on the subject -- again in general terms -- is based much more on having been on the planet for 45 years and having surmised from that time that accidental or spur of the moment reckless shooting deaths are extremely commonplace and appear directly correlated to people having access to firearms in bad situations relative to the extremely infrequent occurence of someone deciding to go on a shooting spree. Add to that the naive thought some seem to have, that they'd have the stones and the temperament to go all Dirty Harry on the bad guy's azz, and I reach the conclusion that having everyone be armed and ready for that once-every-five year scenario is just stupid.
Click to expand...

As a pure generalization I think your basic sentiment has some merit. I'm staunchly pro 2nd amendment as defined under Heller but I don't believe for a minute having anybody that wants to carry anywhere at any time is a good idea.

More specifically to the point of this thread though is how difficult it is in keeping people on point in making the distinction between "people with guns" and "people carrying with valid permits". The number of incidents involving wrongful shootings by permit holders is extremely low. By that I mean people with carry permits rightfully defend themselves (justified shootings, it's more common than you think) far, far exceed the number of bad shootings.
 
#48
#48
hndog609 said:
As a pure generalization I think your basic sentiment has some merit. I'm staunchly pro 2nd amendment as defined under Heller but I don't believe for a minute having anybody that wants to carry anywhere at any time is a good idea.

More specifically to the point of this thread though is how difficult it is in keeping people on point in making the distinction between "people with guns" and "people carrying with valid permits". The number of incidents involving wrongful shootings by permit holders is extremely low. By that I mean people with carry permits rightfully defend themselves (justified shootings, it's more common than you think) far, far exceed the number of bad shootings.
Click to expand...


Does this account for people who are not the one having the permit being the one to end up shooting it? Whether that be someone who stole it from the home of a licensed owner, or otherwise....

In other words, to be a fair comparison, I think you have to account for the fact that the properly permitted gun (or gun belonging to a properly permtited person) is not welded to hand of the good guy.

Just because a gun starts out "legal," does not mean it ends its life that way.
 
#49
#49
lawgator1 said:
Does this account for people who are not the one having the permit being the one to end up shooting it? Whether that be someone who stole it from the home of a licensed owner, or otherwise....

In other words, to be a fair comparison, I think you have to account for the fact that the properly permitted gun (or gun belonging to a properly permtited person) is not welded to hand of the good guy.

Just because a gun starts out "legal," does not mean it ends its life that way.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure your logic applies since it is focusing too much on "the gun". The only way I think you can really apply your logic is if, while lawfully carrying, a person gets jumped and his/her weapon is used on the scene by the criminal. A gun stolen from some home is just a stolen gun and entirely circumvents any "lawful carry" issues. Remember, unless you are specifically wanting to basically open a new topic the point of all of this is focused entirely on people legally licensed to carry a firearm and where they may do so.

Now, having a weapon taken from a lawful carrier absolutely can happen. It happens with LEO's too. Having said that the incident rate is so low I'm not even aware of a statistic on it and if there was any hard evidence of that being a problem you can bet the Brady Bunch would be all over it.
 
#50
#50
hndog609 said:
I'm not sure your logic applies since it is focusing too much on "the gun". The only way I think you can really apply your logic is if, while lawfully carrying, a person gets jumped and his/her weapon is used on the scene by the criminal. A gun stolen from some home is just a stolen gun and entirely circumvents any "lawful carry" issues. Remember, unless you are specifically wanting to basically open a new topic the point of all of this is focused entirely on people legally licensed to carry a firearm and where they may do so.

Now, having a weapon taken from a lawful carrier absolutely can happen. It happens with LEO's too. Having said that the incident rate is so low I'm not even aware of a statistic on it and if there was any hard evidence of that being a problem you can bet the Brady Bunch would be all over it.
Click to expand...


Your point ignores the obvious reality that people with concealed weapons permits do not always have the gun with them. They leave them in closests and in cars all the time.

In fact, I'd wager that at this instant the great majority of people in this country who have a concealed weapons permit have at least one firearm, unattended, in a car or a home and relatively unsecured, at that.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top