There is no way to tell if someone is correctly carrying today, legally or otherwise. Consuming while carrying is still illegal whether one has a permit or not. This law passes and it is still illegal to carry and chug.
A permitted concealed carrier can not legally drink in a bar while carrying after the law is passed any more than he can do so today. So either that guy is going to flaunt the law today while carrying or he might do so after the bill is passed. Either way he is still breaking the law regardless of whether this bill passes or not.
I don’t want to put words in your mouth. Are you asserting that by allowing someone to legally carry a gun into a bar or restaurant that serves alcohol, they will throw away their crime free past and have a drink, and possibly jeopardize their ability to carry legally in the future, simply due to the fact that they are now allowed in the place while carrying?
This kind of logic is, and has always been, utterly fatuous. I don’t know why gun nuts think it’s so clever. By this logic there’s no point in having any laws as at all, because there are no laws that criminals won’t break. Why have laws against serial murder? They don’t stop serial killers.
I’ve gone to bars to watch football games or play pool without drinking before - a decent bit, actually. But I would guess that the main point of this law concerns alcohol-serving restauarants.
If you’ve decided to carry a gun, there’s no reason you would make an exception (and all the hassle that goes along with it) of restaurants, for really no reason.
You are probably trying to engage in a general “wtf who needs guns for anything??!?!” hijack, so I would suggest not indulging him.
Laws guide those who follow them. those who flaunt them don’t care. the person in Va or any other state who has qualified to carry concealed have already proven them self to be a good citizen and one who follows the rules. Are you seriously trying to make the point that if that same person can now carry and eat at TGI Fridays he will break the law, get drunk and shoot up the joint?
What have those “gun free” areas done to the rates of gun crimes committed by legal permitted carriers?
I think drunk people are more likely to shoot shit up, yeah. I wouldn’t want people bringing guns around my kids at TGI Fridays either. I’m glad the restaurants in Minnesota have the sense to keep the guns out.
They have no proactive component at all then? Most people don’t generally attempt to follow the law? The threat of punishment doesn’t disincentivize the behavior?
Edit: Your last post is basically “uh guns and alcohol are a bad combo”, yeah, duh. But tell us why this law changes anything. If you go to a bar and drink, you’re still breaking the law - the only difference here is that if you go to a bar or restaurant and don’t drink, you’re no longer breaking the law. Why is that bad?
I already explained this in post #31 and #34. I’m not arguing against the law because people may break it, I’m saying that it’s irrational to apply a double standard to whether or not you think people will obey laws.
In order to open up the possibility that this law will cause harm, you need to think:
People who would otherwise be carrying guns into bars and getting drunk while carrying guns do not do so now because the law says that it’s illegal to go into a bar while carrying a gun.
But if you removed the law that they couldn’t enter the establishment, but only kept the law that said they couldn’t drink while carrying a gun, no one would obey it because [undefined reason] and therefore it creates a dangerous situation.
It is not logical to hold these two positions. The only thing currently keeping legal CHL holders from entering bars with guns is their compliance with the law. THAT VERY SAME COMPLIANCE would still be in effect for the law that says they couldn’t drink while armed. If you think that they’re going to break the law, then neither law matters. If you think they will obey the law, then this change in law causes no harm because they still can’t drink while armed.
The people in this thread are basically just saying “uhhhh guns bad, alcohol and guns even worse!” without bothering to actually think about the logical implications of what we’re talking about. It’s the same sort of feel-good but illogical and empty thinking that makes people think that somehow enacting gun free school zone laws will prevent school shootings.
In that case, there’s nothing to compare it against. As soon as CCW went into effect the signs went up. There was never a time with CCW and without the signs, so there isn’t any way to measure how the effects would be different without the signs.
I already said if the sate of Virginia really wants this then let them have it it. There is a difference, though, between a law that just puts a blanket on keeping firearms out on bars, and one that puts an onus on the establishments themselves to determine whether their serving someone is packed or not.