Guns in bars

[JXJohns]

@SenorBeef

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

Thank you for doing a far better job than I did while attempting to state the same thing.

[UltraVires]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

In my opinion, it’s completely idiotic to mix guns and alcohol, but I’m all for letting thos idiots in Virginia learn the hard way. If they want to have drunk rednecks shooting at each other in bars, then let them have at it.

You mean like FL, PA, WV, TN and other states that allow it? Or are these other states just full of a better quality of drunk people than the state of Virginia?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I still don’t get it. Why doesn’t this apply to any law at all? It’s not about whayt a law can prevent, but about what it can punish. If a state wants to punish people for carrying guns into bars, I’m fine with that. What’s wrong with that?

[SenorBeef]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

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.

No, that’s not a meaningful distinction. Unless the bar is running a metal detector at the door, they don’t know if a person coming in the door is armed. It’s up to the CHL holder to follow the law and not enter the facility with a gun.

The same thing would happen under the new law, except it would be the CHL holder to follow the law and not drink, rather than follow the law and not enter. You have no laid out a logical harmful scenario that the first law would prevent that the second law wouldn’t.

[Bricker]

And again, everyone understands that in Virginia, before this change, open carry was permitted in bars. A person was permitted to strap his six-gun on his waist, belly up to the bar, and order a milk, or a boilermaker, and drink it.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@jtgain

You mean like FL, PA, WV, TN and other states that allow it? Or are these other states just full of a better quality of drunk people than the state of Virginia?

I have no idea what goes on in those states, but if they’re happy with drunken rednecks shooting up bars, more power to them.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

And again, everyone understands that in Virginia, before this change, open carry was permitted in bars. A person was permitted to strap his six-gun on his waist, belly up to the bar, and order a milk, or a boilermaker, and drink it.

You were allowed to carry while drunk?

[Bricker]

In fact, there was a well-publicized incident a few years ago with several members of a group called the Virginia Citizen’s Defense League. Following one of their meetings, several of their members adjourned to a local restaurant (might even have been a TGI Fridays, Diogenes!) to have lunch. Although all were concealed carry permit holders, they all switched to open carry as they entered the restaurant, as the law at the time required.

Alarmed at seeing a group of armed men sitting at a table discussing the menu, a diner at a nearby table called police. The police arrived, and after talking to the men, suggested that since they were concealed carry permit holders, they should just cover up their weapons to avoid a disturbance, and the officers didn’t believe the men when they explained that doing THAT would actually put them in violation of the law.

[JXJohns]

@Bricker

And again, everyone understands that in Virginia, before this change, open carry was permitted in bars. A person was permitted to strap his six-gun on his waist, belly up to the bar, and order a milk, or a boilermaker, and drink it.

Were the rednecks shooting up the place on a regular basis?

[Todderbob]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I have no idea what goes on in those states, but if they’re happy with drunken rednecks shooting up bars, more power to them.

And the fact that this doesn’t happen means nothing to you, does it?

[SenorBeef]

@Todderbob

And the fact that this doesn’t happen means nothing to you, does it?

Real world evidence is for the ideologically weak!

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

In fact, there was a well-publicized incident a few years ago with several members of a group called the Virginia Citizen’s Defense League. Following one of their meetings, several of their members adjourned to a local restaurant (might even have been a TGI Fridays, Diogenes!) to have lunch. Although all were concealed carry permit holders, they all switched to open carry as they entered the restaurant, as the law at the time required.

Alarmed at seeing a group of armed men sitting at a table discussing the menu, a diner at a nearby table called police. The police arrived, and after talking to the men, suggested that since they were concealed carry permit holders, they should just cover up their weapons to avoid a disturbance, and the officers didn’t believe the men when they explained that doing THAT would actually put them in violation of the law.

What does this have to do with my question? I asked if it was legal to carry while drunk.

ETA, “Virginia Citizen’s Defense League?” That’s hilarious. What are they defending Virginia from, and why do they need to bring firearms into a family restaurant?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Todderbob

And the fact that this doesn’t happen means nothing to you, does it?

Cite that it doesn’t happen?

If it doesn’t happen, it will. Guns and alcohol don’t mix. It doesn’t take a genius to figure that out.

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I have no idea what goes on in those states, but if they’re happy with drunken rednecks shooting up bars, more power to them.

Except there doesn’t seem to be any p[articualr wave of that happening, which is why these examples are offered: to rebut your suggestion that it will.

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

You were allowed to carry while drunk?

Open carry, yes. The current law, pre-change, already provides that “…[a]ny person permitted to carry a concealed handgun, who is under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs while carrying such handgun in a public place, shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.”

I can’t find a single instance of a person being convicted under this section.

[Bricker]

@JXJohns

Were the rednecks shooting up the place on a regular basis?

No.

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Cite that it doesn’t happen?

What does this mean? How can someone cite that an event hasn’t happen anywhere?

OK: My cite is www.washingtonpost.com. A review of their archives will show that they haven’t reported a single story where it happened.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

Open carry, yes. The current law, pre-change, already provides that “…[a]ny person permitted to carry a concealed handgun, who is under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs while carrying such handgun in a public place, shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.”

So it was ok to carry a gun while plastered as long as everyone could see it, but not if they couldn’t? What was the reasoning behind that? A souse with a gun is a souse with a gun. What difference does it make if they have their shirt over it or not?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

What does this mean? How can someone cite that an event hasn’t happen anywhere?

OK: My cite is www.washingtonpost.com. A review of their archives will show that they haven’t reported a single story where it happened.

It will.

[SenorBeef]

I just want to make clear that this is something of a hijack, the merits of alcohol + guns. I don’t have a problem with making carrying a gun while intoxicated a crime. The issue raised by this thread was about a law change in which it was and still would be illegal to carry while intoxicated.

Edit: Meant to say illegal, not legal.

[PatriotGrrrl]

@Chronos

I can see the reasoning behind this law where restaurants are concerned, but who goes to a bar if they’re not planning on drinking? “No thanks, no beer for me, I’m the designated shooter”.

Designated driver

Where have you been for the last decade or so?