Why I won't allow guns in Keefer's Restaurant

[Robb]

Why does this commie hate America??


(snip)

Our point is this: We believe that alcohol and guns are a toxic mix and a thorough, common-sense approach to public safety is needed. That is why we posted a sign in our restaurant prohibiting guns.

I personally have been involved in the restaurant and bar business for more than 40 years — from busboy to restaurant owner — and I have served hundreds of thousands of people during my career. I have seen the effect alcohol can have on the judgment and disposition of guests. When I was manager at a local restaurant, a well-known professional athlete put a Bowie knife to my jugular vein when I asked him to relinquish his weapon. Many years ago, a friend was shot and killed in the parking lot outside a bar after a fistfight. A second friend barely survived a shot to his abdomen from the same intoxicated gunman who had lost the fight.

It is illegal to drink and drive, and it should be illegal to drink and carry a gun.

The bill approved by Illinois' General Assembly permits concealed-carry in bars and restaurants (including family restaurants) having less than 50 percent of gross receipts from the sale of alcohol. This is irresponsible and implies that the guest drinking chardonnay at a high-end restaurant can't become just as impaired as the customer drinking whiskey and beer at a corner tavern.

By prohibiting guns in places deriving more than 50 percent of its gross receipts from the sale of alcohol, the bill acknowledges the danger of mixing alcohol and guns, yet it turns a blind eye to what happens in places with less than 50 percent alcohol sales. Some restaurants with higher per capita consumption of alcohol easily could fall below the 50 percent threshold because of disproportionately high food menu prices. Alcohol consumption should be measured by individual consumption. Using percentages of gross receipts fails to address individual behavior and puts the lives of innocent guests and workers at risk.

Read More: http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130801/OPINION/130739928/why-i-wont-allow-guns-in-keefers-restaurant

[mick063]

1. Bravo

Let it be known to all business owners.

I see a gun carrying customer in your establishment, I leave immediately.

[AndyA]

8. Same for me.

I will not remain in a restaurant or other business if I see people carrying weapons. I don't think it's prudent to do so. The public is expected to TRUST every STRANGER with a gun. That's insanity. A parent wouldn't let a STRANGER take their 9 year old daughter someplace in a car, so why should that same parent trust a STRANGER with a gun to not harm them or their daughter?

There are other rights besides the right to bear arms. There is a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All too often that gun right infringes upon the other rights. I think the right to life is above all others, since you don't need any rights if you're dead.

[X_Digger]

16. Out of sight, out of mind?

Concealed means concealed.

Perhaps you should ask the manager if they prohibit concealed carry. Of course you mind find your choices quite limited after that..

[rl6214]

72. Concealed carry is concealed for a reason.

[Hoyt]

83. Yeah, so the toter won't look like a silly fool.

[mick063]

101. Yep

I can't help it if I can't see it.

Openly showing is a big message board communicating a message I disagree with.

I would hope that concealed carry goes away as well.

[rl6214]

109. And this comment doesn't make any sense at all.

[RC]

119. Your reply sure doesn't make sense, but the one you are replying to does.

When I see someone, other than a law enforcement person carrying in public, what I see is the person showing off his paranoia and a couple of other personal short comings, such as a lack of maturity and good judgement.
There is no reason for customers to be having their guns in a family restaurant. Customers will not be ask to kill their own food.

[rl6214]

122. Yeah, none of these people needed to kill their own food either

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre

[heaven05]

118. yeah

to kill people. geez

[greatauntoftriplets]

2. I vaguely know Glenn Keefer.

His restaurant has big "No Weapons Allowed" signs on the doors and I have no doubt that he enforces that. I always liked him, but this increases his stature, IMO.

[GreenStormCloud]

141. How does he enfore that rule?

Does he have people enter through a scanner? Does he pat down incoming customers?

[mnhtnbb]

3. We are now entering the Twilight Zone in NC, too, with guns allowed in bars.

It is CRAZY.

The bill recently passed allows restaurant/bar owners to prohibit guns,
but how are they supposed to check for concealed weapons? Buy
a metal detector?

At least one bar owner in Raleigh has said "no guns". Period.

http://www.northraleighnews.com/2013/07/28/3065447/shaffer-at-raleighs-players-retreat.html

[thecrow]

29. Virginia also...

I ws horrified when my brother emailed me that now he could carry a gun into church.
I told him that completely ruined the Peace and love aspect of church, but he's a gun nut.
Don't like the sermon? Blam!
Need some money from the offering plate? Gimme that money or else.
Good grief.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

65. "The Bible is violent."

That's how a wingnut neighbor justifies those who carry in her church. And she'll be one of them soon, since she's working toward a CCW permit. Yeehaw.

[Hubert Flottz]

115. "You look like the Devil this morning," Blam

Preacher ran off with your wife, Blam.

[Travis_0004]

127. I agree.

Too many people with guns in churches, like this asshole.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/11/nation/na-shoot11

[Pelican]

4. I'm glad that he's up front about it...

Even if I disagree it allows me to make an informed decision where I put my dollars.

[JustAnotherGen]

22. Do you live in his area?

What's the bar food like there?

[Pelican]

25. Nope...

Sorry...

If I did, I wouldn't patronize his establishment based on his stance but that is his right as a business owner and I support it.

[greatauntoftriplets]

26. It's an upscale steak house.

I do live in the area, but it's a little expensive for me.

[JustAnotherGen]

37. I think this man's idea

Is wonderful. Especially since it is a bit upscale (did a quick google search) - It's probably comparable to our favorite restaurant in Bridgewater NJ - Char.

Honestly - I'm going to come off a bit snooty here - but I think bringing guns into a place of this nature is a bit low brow . . . save it for the roadhouse boys and girls. It's not for this man's restaurant or Char. Really? You need a gun to keep a bunch of Yuppies and DINKS in line?

[greatauntoftriplets]

38. I agree with you.

You've described the clientele well. It's in a very hip neighborhood of downtown Chicago with an expanding residential population. Google's Chicago office is in the same building (though they're moving) to give an example. But, like I said, I can't afford it.

[JustAnotherGen]

44. Hooey Hooey Hooey

It's a marketing demographic acronym for - even worse - here it comes -

Double Income No Kids


Oh lordy lordy my husband and I are those terrible terrible 'selfish' childless people!


I won't stop using it anymore than yuppies and buppies and the recent addition of 'hipsters'. DINKS are the highest non business targets of fraud (brute force account take over) at my wireless company.


ETA: Learn about us. The DINK demo and Single By Choice crowd have a powerful dollar.
http://www.dinklife.com/dinklife-launch-press-release
http://www.businessknowledgesource.com/marketing/5_keys_to_marketing_to_dinks_021974.html
http://www.marketingteacher.com/lesson-store/lesson-segmentation-demographics-and-behavior.html - A referenceable family life 'cycle'

[tumtum]

48. Thanks for explaining that.

I didn't know that it had another meaning, all I saw was the word and flashed back to VN.

Just a little friendly tip, you might want to put a period after every letter for us old VN. farts.
I'll go ahead and delete that post.

[JustAnotherGen]

60. My dad

Never used those words AT ALL. He was a Green Beret - Army Captain.

Never learned it in my house.

[tumtum]

106. I'm ashamed to say that during my tours I did use the term.

But I eventually wised up and now deeply regret it.

[DustyJoe]

177. why regret it

As a fellow combat vet I feel you have no need to regret something you called the enemy 45 years ago. With the notable exception of the Paula Deen hullabaloo over a decades old utterance, you have no need to feel any shame or regret. With what terms and words do you think the VC and NVA referred to US troops ? Do you think they have regrets about it ? Your proud service stands for itself and I at least personally feel that how you referred to people trying to kill you 45 years ago should be with no regrets. I certainly have none personally. Veterans still call Germans nazis and krauts, the Italians still have a veteran affectionate term along with Japanese and Korean veterans. The Iraq/Afghan veterans also have lovable terms for their muslim enemy counterparts. Non veterans may disagree, but they weren't in the field facing the enemy.

[Bandit]

179. Would you consider yourself a racist?

Do you always refer to asians as "dinks" or "gooks" or "chinks"? How do you refer to black people?

[tumtum]

180. Back then? Yes.

Now? No. As I got older and wiser, my views changed.

[LanternWaste]

45. DINKS = Double Income - No Kids

DINKS = Double Income - No Kids

Pretty sure the vast majority of people (even those lacking the skills of context) are aware of it as being used as such.

[tumtum]

49. Got it, see post 48.

[awoke_in_2003]

82. Guess I am not in the vast majority...

I had no idea what it meant.

[surrealAmerican]

46. In somewhat more recent usage ...

... it's short for Dual-Income-No-Kids. I think we can safely assume which the poster meant here.

[tumtum]

50. Got it, see post 48.

Thank you and I'll delete that post.

[kestrel91316]

41. If I lived there he'd get LOTS of my business. I agree completely with him.

People who go through life so terrified of their fellow humans that they have to carry a loaded gun everywhere are dangerous. I avoid them whenever possible.

[tumtum]

42. If they're carrying concealed, how do you know they're carrying?

When I carry concealed, nobody knows and I don't telegraph it.

[JustAnotherGen]

47. If you lived where I lived

*Snooty nose in the air sniff* - you don't need a gun. The 206 corridor from Mendham down to Princeton is not exactly a hot bed of violent activity!

[tumtum]

51. That may be true, but that's not what I asked.

[JustAnotherGen]

59. If I answer the question

I'll be really snotty and snooty - so I'm not going there. Goes to stereotypes and such.

[RC]

121. You may think nobody knows.

It's kind of obvious more often than the CC person thinks it is.

[LanternWaste]

43. I guess we'll cancel each other out... as he just found a new customer in me.

I guess we'll cancel each other out... as he just found a new customer in me.

[Erose999]

52. Me too, I'd eat there if I end up in that area in my travels.

[msanthrope]

5. It's a great point--we don't allow people to drink and drive, why should they be allowed

to drink and carry?

Of course, living in the state where one is supposed to polish off a case of beer before trying to blast a deer, I realize it would ruin the fun. I always hunted....and then drank. Seemed the safest option.

[X_Digger]

20. Who's allowing people to drink and carry concealed? (It *is* still illegal, btw..)

It's up to the owner of the establishment to choose whether or not to allow concealed carry, but it's a bit hyperbolic to say that this change is 'allowing' people to drink and carry concealed.

[thecrow]

27. The Illinois law

"The bill approved by Illinois' General Assembly permits concealed-carry in bars and restaurants (including family restaurants) having less than 50 percent of gross receipts from the sale of alcohol."

permits/allows

[X_Digger]

28. The other half of that is that it doesn't allow *carrying* while drinking.

Concealed carry is legal in restaurants in TX (assuming the business doesn't prohibit it) but it's illegal to carry and drink.

You can carry in a restaurant, but you can't drink.

[AlinPA]

74. If it's concealed, who the hell would know?

[X_Digger]

84. Without pulling a driver over, how do you know he has a license?

Just because a crime isn't immediately visually detectable, that doesn't mean it's widespread.

If CHL holders in Texas are representative of the CHL population as a whole, chances are they're not likely to break this law any more than other laws.

[AlinPA]

86. Why bother with your chart and the last sentence? My question has nothing to do with that.

[X_Digger]

87. No, it's perfectly relevant.

Unless you're proposing that CHL holders are supah-ninjas who break the law without getting caught, looking at conviction rates among CHL holders is perfectly valid.

Just as looking at the rate of people caught driving without a license is a valid means of determining whether or not driving without a license is a serious problem.

Both are problems that are not immediately apparent.

[Robb]

88. Texas CHL holders are merely better at beating the rap.

Assuming they're more law-abiding is a hilarious and adorable conclusion.

Only 2 out of 10 arrested concealed carry permit holders end up convicted of the crimes for which they were arrested; the overwhelming majority either beat the rap completely (46%) or are convicted of lesser crimes (32%).

[X_Digger]

96. Oh look, random data point without data for comparison.

What's the general population (over 21) percentage for both those measures? It doesn't appear in your link, but we can still do a comparison..

Let's see.. from table 2, the arrest rate for the general public during that time period is 5,589 per 100,000.

The conviction rate of the public for that same period is 1,004 per 100,000. (see DPS link below, add 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 convictions and convert to per 100k based on 1999 pop.)

That's a 17.9% ratio (arrest to conviction).

The arrest rate for TX CHL holders from that same time period is 473 per 100,000. The conviction rate for CHL holders in that same period is 294 per 100,000.

That's a 62% ratio (arrest to conviction). Seems like more CHL holders are convicted as compared to the non-CHL general public.


http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm

Of course the DPS doesn't provide data for original charge v lesser charge, but what makes you think there's that much a difference?

7.1.2 The total population of Texas has an arrest rate for violent crime that is 5.3 times higher
than Texas CHL holders, based upon data from 1996 - 1999.
7.1.3 The population of Texas that are 21 years old or older has an arrest rate for violent crime
that is 5.6 times higher than Texas CHL holders, based upon data from 1996 - 1999.
7.1.4 The population of Texas that are males 21 years old or older has an arrest rate for violent
crime that is 7.9 times higher than male Texas CHL holders, based upon data from 1996 -
1999.
7.1.5 The population of Texas that are females 21 years old or older has an arrest rate for
violent crime that is 7.5 times higher than female Texas CHL holders, based upon data
from 1996 - 1999.

[Eleanors38]

131. Don't let good data get in the way of manufactured stereotype...

"Beating the rap." What an anemic fall back when your little rogues gallery of gun-toting Zombies & Zimbies gets, well, shot down.

Do you really favor culture war against tens of millions of people?

[Robb]

137. "Culture war", Wayne?

[Eleanors38]

140. Yep. Casual denigration doesn't hide anything.

[AlinPA]

89. I'm not proposing anything. My point is how the hell would you know if someone has a gun if it

is hidden? That's all. No proposal, no assumption, no agenda in the question. Supah-ninjahs - what??. Where is that implied in my short question?

[X_Digger]

97. The same way you 'know' if someone driving down the road has a license..

You can't directly detect it, therefore you look at how prevalent convictions of the two offenses are to get an idea of it's frequency.

[AlinPA]

98. Prevalent convictions...frequency..? Try this: 10 people drinking in a bar. One of them is hiding a

gun. Which one?

[Bazinga]

100. Easy, The criminal!

The one who's drinking and carrying is breaking the law.

Now, 10 guys are driving down the road, one of them doesn't have a license, how do you tell which one?

Point is, you can't see who is breaking the law unless they get caught. So unless you're suggesting some kind of implanted chip that sounds an alarm as soon as a person crosses the line, all we have to go on are conviction numbers.

[AlinPA]

102. Can't see what conviction numbers have to do with it it. Maybe frisking everyone at the bar?

Metal detectors used by servers?

[ellisonz]

146. Or how about not encouraging a culture of reckless gun toting?

Want to take your gun and socialize with your friends, okay, don't do it at a an establishment that serves alcohol.

[oneshooter]

147. I like the Texas approach to this problem

If a establishment makes more than 51% of it's money on the sale of alcohol that is consumed on premise then they are REQUIRED to have a properly marked 51% sign, plainly visible, at the entrance.

If a CHL holder carries past that point he is in violation of the law and can/will be charged with felony possession of a firearm. If a non CHL holder is caught in violation then they can also be charged with felony possession. Both, upon being convicted, loose all of their firearms rights.

[ellisonz]

150. Did you read the OP article?

[Bazinga]

160. What about an olive garden, or a Texas roadhouse?

I'm not a frequent patron of local watering holes, and it has been said countless times on this very thread that carrying while intoxicated is illegal. I would even go so far as to say that carrying at a bar where the likelihood of an altercation is significantly elevated would be an exercise in recklessness.

I also agree with the premise of the op that a proprietor should have every right to choose with whom he will do business, and that coin has two sides.

All that considered, however, I don't see any reason why a responsible, law-abiding citizen with a concern for his personal safety and that of his family (and these aren't as rare as many here would have you think) should be required to compromise any level of security other than if it is the wish of the property owner. Is my safety somehow less important because others around me have chosen to have a glass of wine with their endless soup, salad, and breadsticks?

You may call concealed carry paranoid, inconsiderate, or a "culture of reckless gun touting" all you wish, but that will never be anything more or less than your opinion.

[ellisonz]

161. Is there some rule that says one cannot become intoxicated at the Olive Garden while gun toting? n/t

[Bazinga]

162. Yes there is. It is against the law.

I'm not sure how you are having such difficulty accepting that it is illegal to carry while intoxicated.

It doesn't matter if one is drunk at a bar, at an Olive Garden, or sitting at home on their couch, if you are intoxicated you can't carry a gun. Similarly it should not matter if one is sober at home, at Olive Garden, or at a bar, you should be able to carry effective means of self-defense.

[ellisonz]

163. So clearly then we should set an arbitrary limit on where one can tote where alcohol is served?

Because that's logical. Tell me - what's the difference in terms of toting between the Olive Garden and an establishment that generates 52% of it's income from alcohol sales?

How about no fucking guns at the fucking Olive Garden

[Bazinga]

164. Why is no guns while intoxicated not enough?

Why do I have to compromise my safety because of someone else's beverage choice?

[ellisonz]

165. "Why do I have to compromise my safety because of someone else's beverage choice?"

NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO GO TO OLIVE GARDEN!?!?!!!?

[Bazinga]

166. Absolutely right.

But the only person who has the right to prevent me from going to Olive Garden is the proprietor. If he doesn't want to do business with me, that is his choice. But it is not up to you, other patrons, or over-zealous legislators to decide that, caps-lock key notwithstanding.

[ellisonz]

167. The Second Amendment does not afford a right to carry whatever gun, whenever, wherever you please.

That you are unable to enjoy your salad, breadsticks and chicken dish without your Glock does not mean you have a right to shoot it out with someone in a public space should you feel threatened.

[Bazinga]

168. Please define threatened.

I agree that concealed carry is not explicitly mentioned in the 2nd amendment or anywhere else in the constitution. It does, however, explicitly protect my right to "bear arms." I also strongly believe in a right to self-defense, whether it be specifically protected or not. And I refuse to forfeit that right simply by stepping into the public sphere.

[ellisonz]

169. Tough shit.

SCOTUS disagrees (and the Republicans at that) - you should probably stay away from schools and government buildings too less you forfeit your imagined right.

[Bazinga]

170. Well then I'll side with the Democrats,

and Pres. Obama who both recognize an individual right to bear arms (2012 Democratic Platform). Unless of course you are claiming that SCOTUS disagrees with a right to self-defense, in which case I don't know how to respond to something so obviously wrong.

My right to self-defense couldn't possibly be forfeited in a government building or a school, but government buildings are a perfect example of a transfer of responsibility from the individual to the government.
The court house requires that I disarm before I enter, thus inhibiting my potential to react to a life threatening situation. In return they provide metal detectors at the door to greatly reduce the risk of an incident, and they provide armed security to respond to a threat should it arise. I would like to see this be the case at elementary through high schools as well, but curIrently there is only voluntary disarmament and we can see how well that is working.

Twice now you have elected to ignore direct questions, so I'd like to give you another opportunity.
Why is no guns while intoxicated not enough?
And what is your definition of threatened (or in other words, what level of threat justifies the use of lethal force)?

Sorry this is so long, but I'd also like to add a quote from a man I admire greatly, Gordon B Hinckley. "Foul talk defiles the man who speaks it."

[ellisonz]

171. That doesn't mean what you think it does.

An "individual right to bear arms" does not equal right to carry any gun everywhere for whatever purpose.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Majority Opinion, Heller vs. DC

Customary

[Bazinga]

172. Fair enough.

We disagree on the extent to which the individual right to keep and bear arms should be regulated. Notice I am not arguing for the ability to carry in a government building or a school, only that those inside be provided security because they are disarmed. Neither am I arguing for business owners to be forced to accept armed patrons. And I am definitely not arguing for a right to carry shoulder launched surface to air missiles, only those weapons in "common use at the time." It would seem that my position is firmly aligned with the Heller decision.

So of the two of us, one is arguing for the ability of proprietors to choose with whom they will do business, and the other is arguing for an institutionalized limit on which customers are and are not allowed.

I'm beginning to think you only read the first couple lines of my posts, but in case you made it this far I'd like to repose my questions. Perhaps the third time really the charm.

Why is "no guns while intoxicated" not enough? 
And what is your definition of threatened (or in other words, what level of threat justifies the use of lethal force)?

[ellisonz]

173. We don't disagree. One of us is giving the interpretation of the Constitution as declared by SCOTUS.

...and put into practice by a myriad of municipalities that do not issue concealed weapons permits and those who restrict their carrying to certain places (such as Illinois in this case). And the other is arguing a hypothetical.

If you believe the shit you're spewing so much, why don't you resist such tyranny?

Are you opposed on any institutional restriction on where you ought to be able to tote including places that derive the vast majority of their income from alcohol sales? You're only going to drink water when you go to the bar with your friends with your strap, right?

And yes, I do read your posts, much of it is your typical gun nut drivel and doesn't merit response.

[Bazinga]

175. What was hypothetical about my argument?

It is currently the case in all jurisdictions that allow citizens to carry weapons that private property owners may require guests/patrons to disarm while on their property. Can you think of a city where a business or home owner is required to allow weapons on their property?

If you were referring to my characterization of your argument, would not a law requiring certain businesses to be weapon-free constitute a limit on who may and may not be a customer there?

Hopefully you realize that claiming I should be "resisting tyranny" by opposing other restrictions on CCW instead of focusing on guns in bars and restaurants (and only in this thread at that) is almost perfectly analogous to the actual NRA talking point that since the vast majority of murders are committed with handguns, why bother with an assault weapons ban. Both arguments are specious and weak.

Personally I can't remember the last time I was in a bar, and I don't drink, so I can assure you that if I ever did go to a bar with my buddies I would most certainly only drink water, but since we're now talking hypotheticals, let's play this out.

Suppose I decide to be a DD for a group of friends. The bar disallows weapons so I leave mine locked in the car. During the course of the evening some other drunk idiot decides to get aggressive. By no fault of my own I get cornered in a bathroom or on my way to my car. I am not a particularly big guy, and I have zero fighting experience, so I know physical confrontation could only result in my severe bodily injury or death.

Would I be justified to threaten then use potentially lethal force? Absolutely! Would I be able to? Absolutely not.

Obviously the odds of this occurring are negligible. This probably has never and will never happen. But what if it did?

What if the law you support disarms someone who needs a weapon? "If it saves one life it will be worth it," right?

I believe in allowing adults to make decisions for themselves and holding them responsible for the misuse of that agency. Business owners get to decide whether or not their business will be weapon free, customers get to decide where they do business, everyone gets to decide what they eat and drink, those who decide to carry a weapon while drunk get prosecuted and lose all rights to further use of firearms, and those who misuse firearms go to jail for a long, long time.

I know you'll dismiss this whole post as an "NRA talking point" or "right-wing drivel," but since I have taken the time to respond to every concern you have raised, I would think it courteous for you to at very least respond to the two questions I have posed thrice already.

Why is "no guns while intoxicated" not enough?
And what is your definition of threatened (or in other words what level of threat justifies the use of lethal force)?

[ellisonz]

178. You didn't address my post at all.

I have noted repeatedly that there is no federal right to carry arms anywhere, that jurisdictions can make their own laws in this regard, which are completely constitutional and can logically address situations such as this one where the public safety interest of the state takes precedence over a right you don't actually possess but are rather granted by government. In our democracy, incorporated bodies can make such decisions so long as they are not ruled unconstitutional.

Look: I responded to your entire post with one paragraph without rambling hypotheticals.

It is currently the case in all jurisdictions that allow citizens to carry weapons that private property owners may require guests/patrons to disarm while on their property. Can you think of a city where a business or home owner is required to allow weapons on their property?

GOVERNMENT CAN REGULATE WHAT OCCURS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY: SEE THIS GUY: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023412370

Hopefully you realize that claiming I should be "resisting tyranny" by opposing other restrictions on CCW instead of focusing on guns in bars and restaurants (and only in this thread at that) is almost perfectly analogous to the actual NRA talking point that since the vast majority of murders are committed with handguns, why bother with an assault weapons ban. Both arguments are specious and weak.

Snake

Personally I can't remember the last time I was in a bar, and I don't drink, so I can assure you that if I ever did go to a bar with my buddies I would most certainly only drink water, but since we're now talking hypotheticals, let's play this out.

Then you don't really give a fuck do you, this all about the troll isn't it?

Suppose I decide to be a DD for a group of friends. The bar disallows weapons so I leave mine locked in the car. During the course of the evening some other drunk idiot decides to get aggressive. By no fault of my own I get cornered in a bathroom or on my way to my car. I am not a particularly big guy, and I have zero fighting experience, so I know physical confrontation could only result in my severe bodily injury or death.

Would I be justified to threaten then use potentially lethal force? Absolutely! Would I be able to? Absolutely not.

Obviously the odds of this occurring are negligible. This probably has never and will never happen. But what if it did?

What if the law you support disarms someone who needs a weapon? "If it saves one life it will be worth it," right?

^^^^^^^^^

HYPOTHETICAL!

I believe in allowing adults to make decisions for themselves and holding them responsible for the misuse of that agency. Business owners get to decide whether or not their business will be weapon free, customers get to decide where they do business, everyone gets to decide what they eat and drink, those who decide to carry a weapon while drunk get prosecuted and lose all rights to further use of firearms, and those who misuse firearms go to jail for a long, long time.

OOOHHH OHHH THAT MEAN TYRANNICAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT, THE HORROR, THE HORROR. So, in other words, you're a Libertarian, capital L.

I know you'll dismiss this whole post as an "NRA talking point" or "right-wing drivel," but since I have taken the time to respond to every concern you have raised, I would think it courteous for you to at very least respond to the two questions I have posed thrice already.

Why is "no guns while intoxicated" not enough?
And what is your definition of threatened (or in other words what level of threat justifies the use of lethal force)?

NEXT!

[Bazinga]

181. Nor you mine.

I started to type a response to address your latest wave of concerns, but as you have no desire to address the questions I have posed, which I believe to be honest and pertinent, and you continue to profane and insult, I have decided to spend my effort in more respectful and courteous conversations.

All the best.

[Travis_0004]

128. Nobody.

I would assume that most people with a valid CCW liscense will follow the law, and not carry and drink. If somebody has no intention on following the law, do you think they will see a sign that says 'no guns allowed', and just decide to go home. If they plan on breaking the law, they will still have a gun.

Perhaps we should launch a stop and frisk campaign since people can not be trusted.

[blueamy66]

138. alot of people

it's pretty obvious...grow up in Arizona...you learn

[ellisonz]

145. ^^^^

Win.

[tumtum]

30. It allows you to CC, as long as the owner doesn't ban firearms,

it doesn't allow you to drink while CC.

[rl6214]

73. It depends on whether IL concealed carry allows drinking while carrying

Texas does not but you may carry in an establishment that gets less than 50% income from alcohol.

[Erose999]

54. Its a social more that a restaurant is expected to cut a drunk off at a certain point and encourage

them to get a ride home. A similar approach should be expected towards gun carriers and alcohol as well. If they're packing heat they shouldn't be packing hooch.

[X_Digger]

55. And that is the law in states that allow concealed carry in restaurants.

Some states don't allow you to drink at all (my preference), some allow the same limit as driving.

[Skittles]

77. there are plenty of other places for gun humpers to go

and good riddance

[tumtum]

104. Sure there are.

But I go where I want to go and if it's legal for me to enter an establishment with my firearm concealed, then I will.

[Skittles]

111. sorry, I cannot help with your affliction

I suggest therapy

[tumtum]

123. Affliction in your eyes,

being responsible for my own safety in my eyes.

Therapy? Naw. I'm just hunky dory, but thanks for the concern.

[Skittles]

124. sorry, it's not me who is paranoid

I'm a night worker, a middle aged gal who routinely patronizes restaurants in the middle of the night in a metroplex - who is the paranoid one here? Done with you - SICK of gun humpers.

[tumtum]

125. It sounds like you're paranoid of people with firearms.

[ellisonz]

149. Not this shit again

[tumtum]

153. Nobody's forcing you to read it.

Don't like it, don't read it.
But I'm going to continue to post despite your disapproval.

[Hoyt]

157. Paranoid? You guys can't venture out without a gun strapped to your body.

That is paranoia and the type anxiety that might have a toter draw down on a kid at Chuck E Cheese who pops a paper bag behind them.

[tumtum]

158. You're funny.

NOT

[hack89]

6. Sounds reasonable - it is all about choice. nt

[Dash87]

7. I didn't know Ben Kingsley had a brother

[Jim__]

9. "It is illegal to drink and drive, and it should be illegal to drink and carry a gun."

Does anyone disagree with that?

[hack89]

11. It is illegal to be drunk and to drive. In many states it is illegal to be drunk and to carry a gun.

it is perfectly legal to drink and drive as long as your blood alcohol level is below legal limits.

It should be perfectly legal to to drink and carry a gun as long as your blood alcohol level is below legal limits.

[blueamy66]

139. You are incorrect.

It is NOT perfectly legal to drink and drive as long as your BAC in below legal limits. If you are impaired to the SLIGHTEST degree, you can get a DUI.

Learn the law.

[X_Digger]

21. No, and it would still be illegal to do so in IL after this change. n/t

[lark]

39. Only a total gun crazy would disagree,

and one with no shred of common sense.

[Eleanors38]

135. Thanks for acknowledging I am not a "total gun crazy."

[marble falls]

10. As a gun owner and restaurant worker, this guy makes a very clear and to me obvious point:

alcohol and firearms to not mix, period. In possession of a firearm while being under the influence should be as regulated as driving under the influence.

[hack89]

12. In many states it is a crime to use a gun while intoxicated.

such laws should be universal.

[marble falls]

15. I agree totaly. I'd go a step further: being arrested drunk with a firearm should lose one's right..

to own firearms.

[hack89]

18. Just like a drunk driver should permanently lose their license. nt

[marble falls]

24. A person with more than two or three DUIs should lose his license at least until the drinking stops.

Doncha think?

Because the requirements to drive are significantly more stringent that those to own firearms I believe the sanctions on any arrest with a firearm while intoxicated need to be as tough as DUI and in play sooner: on the first time it happens.

[hack89]

32. No. One DUI is all that is necessary to kill an innocent person

why gamble with people's lives like that?

[marble falls]

35. I'll drink to that.

[Lee-Lee]

92. You generally do

It certainly will lead to revocation of a carry permit here in NC, and if convicted of even a misdemeanor that could carry a jail term over a year under Federal alw you can no longer own guns.

[Eleanors38]

132. Thanks for a common sense approach.

[hack89]

13. I wonder how many customers leave his place just under the legal limit but still impaired?

I have seen the effect alcohol can have on the judgment and disposition of guests.

As they walk out of the door with car keys in hand.

I bet he would scream bloody murder if they lowered the legal limit.

[marble falls]

136. Am I the 'he' of which you speak? I cut my customers off at two drinks in one hour and keep....

their water glasses full. Screw management.

[mgardener]

14. never thought about this

There should be a law against carrying a gun while meeting the legal definition of "under the influence". I know the DUI laws vary from state to state, but they should a least be the same.

I think you are being a responsible owner. I hope people in your area support your decision.

[ManiacJoe]

80. Are you saying that your state does not alread have that law?

[obama2terms]

17. Alcohol and guns are a toxic mix

About 4 years ago some people were trying to get guns in bars here in Tn. Ironically one of the sponsors of the bill was caught driving while intoxicated with a gun in his car. My neighborhood bar is owned by an extremely nice republican family, heck they even voted for Romney last year! And they were mortified with the idea of allowing guns in their bar. Alcohol ( especially liquor) can turn a nice person into the scariest meanest person you've ever seen. I remember a particular incident when I was 16. My twin brother and I were at a friend's party, and one guy there got TRASHED on whisky and jagermeister. Things were going fine until a guy we had just met that night at the party made a joke about how crazy the drunk guy acts when he's drunk. That's all it took, the guy who was really drunk went to a closet and pulled out a gun ( which he said was loaded) and pointed it at random people in the room. ( including me, and I didn't even know the guy!) Some people were screaming and some people snuck out the door. He kept on trying to aim at the guy who made the joke but I guess he was too drunk to have the proper coordination to do so. Finally someone got up, roughed the drunk guy up a bit until he gave up the gun. After that my brother and I got up and ran like hell. I got out of there so fast that I left my shoes there! I later found out that the guy who pointed the gun at us was actually an o.k. guy and a friend wanted me to meet him while he was sober. Of course I declined, and I told my friend he's lucky I didn't press charges! Now looking back at it, I regret not pressing charges.

[Go Vols]

56. They have allowed guns in bars here in Tenn. for over 4 years

and you can't drink while in a bar and in possession of a gun.
I have yet to see anything on TV or in print that someone with a CC permit in a bar shot a gun.

[Robb]

58. No, they tend to shoot people in the parking lot.

This took like 5 seconds to find: http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/jul/15/intense-testimony/?print=1

[Go Vols]

61. Yep,not in a bar

I couldn't find anything in a bar either.

Katheryn would later testify in court that upon pulling into the parking lot she noticed Schwerin, who went by the nickname “Dutch,” kneeling in front of her husband’s Hummer, “pulling parts off the car and chunking them to the side.”

Moving into the parking lot and opening the rear passenger door of the Hummer in an attempt to shield himself, Coleman took his cell phone from its hip holster and dialed 911. Receiving no answer, he retrieved a Wilson Compact .45 caliber handgun from the Hummer’s center console and walked back to where Schwerin was waiting.

http://www.memphismagazine.com/Memphis-Magazine/September-2012/A-Killing-in-Cordova/



Sounds like they were both a little crazy.I don't think the man should have been killed for tearing the other guys truck up.

This happened before the guns in bars law went into effect,so I'm not sure where you are headed with this.

[X_Digger]

64. And nothing about concealed carry, either.

I think Robb just googled 'TN bar shooting' and regurgitated it into a post, as though it's apropos.

[Robb]

66. Harry Ray Coleman held a concealed carry permit.

He admitted to having had a few drinks. He shot an unarmed guy in a parking lot, with his concealed carry firearm, over a parking dispute.

I can't imagine how it could be more relevant. But please, continue.

[X_Digger]

67. Funny, the article you posted doesn't seem to support that..

Feel free to present something that does.

[Robb]

68. He's one of the convicted CCW murderers at the link in my signature line.

And there's a great website you should check out for searching stuff!

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2013/mar/11/tennessee-house-approves-bill-making-handgun/?print=1

In fact, the push by gun advocates for closing public access to permit holders’ identities began in early 2009 when real estate investor Harry Ray Coleman was publicly identified as a permit holder when he shot Robert Schwerin Jr. to death during an argument outside a Cordova restaurant.

Coleman was convicted 18 months later of second-degree murder and sentenced to 18 years in prison. Gun advocates objected to the publicly searchable Tennessee permit-holder database still maintained on The Commercial Appeal’s website, which included Coleman.

Within three months of the Schwerin slaying, three other shooting deaths occurred in Shelby County that police said were committed by men with Tennessee handgun-carry permits, including the slayings of part-time model Lisa Davis, 29, and of Micah Pate, 26. Bartlett Police said that evidence in Davis’ death pointed to Austin Agee, who killed himself as police were closing in on him. Pate’s husband, Thomas Pate, pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of second-degree murder.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/jul/16/coleman-guilty-Cordova-parking-lot-shooting/

Coleman, who had a handgun carry permit, said he shot Schwerin in defense of himself and of his wife.

[X_Digger]

69. Thanks for actual relevant info. n/t

[obama2terms]

105. It's still a stupid idea

People do things when they are drunk that they would NEVER do sober. It's just bad and asking for problems! I was aware of the, you can't drink and carry a gun in a bar rule, but here's my question: If you have it in your pocket, don't tell anyone, and order drinks, then how in the hell will the bartender know weather you are carrying or not? They can't search you, so what now? It's such a stupid policy even the republican family that owns the bar in my neighborhood don't want it. And there the "Obama's gunna take my guns away" type. Despite the law, if they knew someone coming into the bar was carrying they would be politely asked to take it home and come back, or to leave.
I did find some incidents from various states involving guns in bars that have happened over thepast few years:
http://cjonline.com/news/local/2009-10-31/man_shoots_gun_into_air_at_bar

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20087648-504083.html ( this one is rather bizarre)

http://www.hurherald.com/cgi-bin/db_scripts/articles?Action=user_view&db=hurheral_articles&id=51397

http://www.wpxi.com/news/news/local/1-shot-killed-inside-north-fayette-bar-customer-ta/nWnrJ/ ( more recent story)

[Go Vols]

107. I think this goes on

in more places than you think,and not just in the last few years.

If you have it in your pocket, don't tell anyone, and order drinks, then how in the hell will the bartender know weather you are carrying or not?

[obama2terms]

130. That it does

I could have spent hours copying and pasting links to stories about this happening.

[ileus]

19. you can't drink if CCin.

No problems here in Virginia with this law.

[X_Digger]

23. Or TX. n/t

[tumtum]

31. Or AZ.

[spin]

34. Or FL.

[aikoaiko]

57. Or in GA

[RebelOne]

62. Guns are allowed in bars in Georgia, but from the law I have read,

but no concealed carry.

http://thebigslice.org/new-georgia-law-to-allow-guns-in-churches-and-bars/

[AlinPA]

75. If it's concealed, who the hell would know?

[truebluegreen]

129. Like most other laws on the books, it wouldn't be enforced

until obviously broken.

Better to foster a no-tolerance stance in the general public.

[DAngelo136]

33. Here's what's funny;

In many states, if you own a strip club you can't serve alcohol with nude women dancing. I don't get it; have a gun, get all the alcohol you can stand, but see a naked woman, you can't have ANY alcohol? No wonder Texas wants to regulate vaginas; they're so dangerous

[tumtum]

36. How many times does this have to be said?

It's illegal to be drinking while carrying a firearm.

[AlinPA]

91. In all states?

[Lee-Lee]

94. I every state I am aware of

You cannot CCW with any alcohol in your system.

[Eleanors38]

133. Shh. Stereotypes, narratives & doctrine are being manufactured.

[aikoaiko]

53. Carrying in a bar or restaurant doesn't require drinking in that bar.

But Keefer is free to do what he wants.

[ileus]

81. Odd how some don't seem to grasp that fact.

I carry in every restaurant but so far have failed to drink, in fact I fail to drink at anytime for that matter.

[freshwest]

63. The voice of experience versus those who have a pathological need to force themselves on others.

[Jack Rabbit]

70. I'll drink to this man

(puts gun on the table)

[rl6214]

71. With a Texas CCL you cannot drink and carry.

If IL allows this they are stupid.

As a private business owner he has the right to bar guns from his business.

[Skittles]

76. OMG COMMON SENSE

something gun humpers seriously lack

[oneshooter]

148. A pleasant non insulting attitude, something you seriously lack. n/t

[Skittles]

152. see,that's what cracks me up

targeting, stalking and murdering an unarmed teenager can be explained away BUT DON'T OFFEND THE GUN HUMPERS!!!!

[oneshooter]

174. Then tell me what personal insults have been posted from the pro gun side.

I doubt that you will answer this, but I am trying to have a conversation,

[etherealtruth]

78. It is illegal to drink and drive, and it should be illegal to drink and carry a gun.

[Lee-Lee]

93. Umm it is

I am amazed at the number of people who go around advocating changes to firearm laws who are woefully ignorant of what the existing laws are.

[etherealtruth]

95. How fun

Then you have no issue with this restauranteur, that is good!

[Lee-Lee]

99. Well no

Because I eat in places that serve alcohol, yet I don't consume any alcohol, many times a week.

[GreenStormCloud]

142. In every state that I know of, that IS the law.

You are advocating for laws that already are already on the books.

[etherealtruth]

144. I cut and pasted a line from the article in agreement

A private business may decide how they wish to conduct their business .... as long as it does not violate anyone's civil rights.

I am hoping no one tries to equate not wanting gun toters in their establishment to not serving folk based on race, ethnicity, religious or sexual preference. There is no equivalency.

[Lee-Lee]

79. So let me get this straight

It is already against the law to drink when you carry, in every state allows CCW including IL under its new law.

So a person who would drink while carrying is already demonstrating they will not follow the law or respect it. In fact that kind of person who already shows they are inclined to not respect the law will likely carry without a permit anyway. If you won't follow a law about something as simple as drinking and carrying are you inclined to spend hundreds of dollars and several days of your time getting a permit?

But he thinks because posts a sign that says "don't carry here", the person who already would be breaking the law by drinking and carrying, who has shown they don't care about the law or rules, will suddenly respect his wishes and the law?

Yeah Bud, your sign has them rethinking their entire attitude and respect for the rule of law. Sure it does.

All his stance is doing is getting publicity and accolades from fools who don't use logical thought and retain an irrational fear of CCW. The kind of person who would drink while carrying is the kind who would ignore the sign anyway. Only a fool would think the sign changes anything.

[rdharma]

103. "Only a fool would think the sign changes anything."

And only a fool would believe me if I told you I was a petite Asian woman who was a former LEO arguing for guns in bars!

[Lee-Lee]

114. Geeze, my own e stalker

But seriously, if a person already has enough disregard for the law that they would drink while carrying, would the sign ever deter them,

The only ones who will turn around are the ones who respect the law and wouldn't be drinking anyway, just coming in to eat a meal.

[rdharma]

120. Are we talking about the "effectiveness" of the sign.

Or the paranoid "need" of gun huggers to carry in a bar?

[Niceguy1]

110. if I was carrying concealed

And wanted to eat there, I would. And no one would know. Alas I don't and fail to understand the du obsession with those who legally do.

Enougj for now, time to catch up with the numerous zimmerman speeding ticket threads lol

[malaise]

85. The right to life must be the #1 priority

Love it -a wise man

[brewens]

90. Commie bastard probably doesn't allow smoking either! What fun is a firearm without

alcohol and tobacco?

[cui bono]

108. and it should be illegal to drink and carry a gun

That it should.

[B Calm]

112. There you go, someone using common sense for a change.

[Humanist_Activist]

113. I don't understand the usefulness of CCWs, now don't get me wrong...

I generally don't care about gun ownership, just find people's compulsive need to carry them around with them, all the time, to be stupid and careless.

Not to mention that, at least in my area, good luck going ANYWHERE but the shooting range and stay within the law. In Missouri, its considered a civil infraction if you violate clearly marked signs banning concealed weapons, or any firearms(outside of police and other law enforcement), and you see these signs absolutely everywhere, grocery stores, gas stations, banks, department stores, most employers, most businesses, obviously all government buildings, restaurants, bars, etc. The only places I imagine that allow them are probably some gun shops(though not all, I've seen a few gun shops/pawn shops with the signs up) and shooting ranges, and that's about it, frankly I don't know why people would want to even go through all the stuff you have to go through to get a CCW and then basically not be able to carry the gun anywhere.

[CrispyQ]

116. "It is illegal to drink and drive, and it should be illegal to drink and carry a gun."

I totally agree with this.

[GreenStormCloud]

143. Already is illegal in all states that I know of. N/T

[Hoyt]

151. Like most yahoos who walk into a bar aren't going to drink. Be real.

[X_Digger]

154. Perhaps *you* can't walk into a restaurant without drinking; some of us have more self-control.

But I can see that if you hold yourself up as the standard, that might affect your opinion of others' self-control.

[GreenStormCloud]

155. Most will, but the designated driver won't.

And many folks who go to restaurants will only eat. I am always armed when we go out to eat, and I don't drink at all.

[tumtum]

159. I have no problem walking into a bar carrying concealed and not drinking.

I don't drink, I'll usually grab a table, order some food and a soft drink, watch some TV and enjoy time with friends.

[heaven05]

117. glad

for his common sense. Human beings+liquor+disagreement+stupidity=tragedy and grief. Again.geez

[Deep13]

126. plus, guns are hard to cook properly. nt

[tumtum]

134. Not if you use a pressure cooker.

[GreenStormCloud]

156. Here in Texas one sees this sign quite a bit:

I think it is funny. It makes those who are afraid of guns think that guns are banned on the property, while those of us with CHLs know that we are licensed so we go on in, with our concealed handguns. Everybody's happy.

Texas has a specific signage law. The no-guns sign must meet some VERY specific requirements or it does not have the force of law. An ordinary (non-conforming) no-guns sign is nothing more than a polite request by the management. If you are caught with a concealed handgun, they can only ask you to leave. If you refuse to leave then you can be charged with trespassing.

One sometimes sees this sign:


Have a good day.

[Kolesar]

176. You forgot to use the "room full of easy targets" 2A quip...eom