The Shot-and-a-Beer Crowd

[fightthegoodfightnow]

The Shot-and-a-Beer Crowd
Virginia lawmakers want to have guns everywhere.
Friday, February 29, 2008; Page A18, Washington Post Editorial


ALTHOUGH they paid lip service to honoring the victims of last spring's massacre at Virginia Tech, state lawmakers in Richmond have been busy dishonoring their memory. The General Assembly, long in thrall to the gun lobby, has forged ahead with bills to make it easier to carry concealed weapons in cars, bars and restaurants. Never mind that police and relatives of the Virginia Tech victims oppose such legislation. In its wisdom, the legislature has decided that citizens will benefit from a proliferation of hidden weapons -- here, there and everywhere.

A pair of such bills has cleared both houses of the legislature. One would allow motorists to stash their guns in glove compartments even if they do not have permits allowing them to carry concealed weapons. That makes police officers particularly nervous; stopping a car can be dangerous enough without assuming there are unseen guns on board.

Another bill would scrap the state's ban on carrying concealed weapons in bars and in restaurants that serve liquor. The measure would make it a misdemeanor for the carrier of a hidden gun to drink while in a restaurant or bar, but in the real world, who would know? Sen. Emmett W. Hanger Jr. (R-Augusta), the bill's sponsor, argued that holders of concealed-carry permits have been screened and therefore can be trusted. But last we checked, the screening does not verify that they are all nonconfrontational when drinking, and it's chilling to think of what may happen if Mr. Hanger's confidence is misplaced. If nothing else, his bill will stamp Virginia indelibly as a state where hidden heat-packing while bar-hopping is fine and dandy. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) should veto the legislation.

That about says it all. I've changed my mind on this issue and agree with this editorial. In another post on another board, I said I think it depends on how much is food and how much is liquor. I don't think it matters.

[EricTeri]

1. If a cop isnt assuming there may be a weapon in a car

He's an idiot and frankly shouldn't be on the force. My rights are not subject to his stupidity.

As far as allowing concealed carry in a bar or restaurant, open carry is already allowed in those environments and without a permit. Why should permit holders be prohibited?

This editorial is written by someone who is counting on the readership to not have a clue about the laws in Virginia...kinda like you.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

2. Reality

You ask: 'As far as allowing concealed carry in a bar or restaurant, open carry is already allowed in those environments and without a permit. Why should permit holders be prohibited? "

I'd ask the opposite question, if someone can carry it openly why the need to have it concealed? Do you THINK there might be a reason they are required to OPENLY carry such guns?

Obviously, you are not aware that the same newspaper that wrote this editorial also carried a news story seven days ago stating 'open carry' is already permitted in Virginia. Of course it defies logic that they would print that story and then have you argue they are relying on their readership to 'not have a clue' about what was in their newspaper. Perhaps it's you who needs to get a clue rather than the Washington Post.

[sabre73]

57. I don't have a lot of time but

I will be happy to post later the reasons why one should carry concealed instead of "open carry".

Basically it boils down to this: Why would you advertise that you have a gun? It draws the wrong attention and can get you killed.

[sepulveda]

3. bingo

"Never mind that police and relatives of the Virginia Tech victims oppose such legislation"

here we go again. this cop certainly doesn't oppose such legislation

WA state allows carry on college campuses . i have no problem with it. it's people's right to do so.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

4. THIS COP?

Who are you talking about?

[sepulveda]

5. me

i get sick and tired of articles saying "the police don't support X" when what that really means is that they are either quoting some cop-o-crat police official (often have opposing views to the rank and file) or some other "representative person" who is in fact no such thing

this is similar to the myth that cops don't support concealed carry, which you frequently read in the media. what they mean is that IACP etc. don't. no surprise since they are primarily political appointees

[fightthegoodfightnow]

6. So You are Not a Police Officer in Virginia

Glad we cleared that up. Well......... I have no doubt that police do not all think alike. Thank goodness. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but you do not speak for Virginia's police officers.

Among those who HAVE come out and opposed the bill on record regarding the concealed weapons bill under consideration:
Virginia Hospitality and Travel Association
Virginia State Police
Many Restaurant Owners and Chains
Virginia Association of Police Chiefs


sources:
http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=600&sid=1347283
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=25&sid=229894
http://www.vachiefs.org/vacp/news/item/bill_on_concealed_guns_in_eateries_advances/

[sepulveda]

8. admin vs. rank and file - your links prove my point

your posts prove my point

"Curtis Coleburn, chief operating officer of the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Department, told the Militia and Police Committee that ***the administration*** opposes the legislation allowing concealed handguns in establishments that serve booze"

(highlights mine)


"The Virginia State Police oppose Jill Holtzman Vogel's bill allowing those without a permit to conceal a handgun inside a vehicle. They say law enforcement officers are better off being able to see any weapon stowed in a vehicle during a traffic stop."

who is 'they'. they don't say who in the org ? did they poll ALL OFFICERS or is this another example of an administrations position being used as proxy for the rank and file

NOWHERE IN YOUR LINKS IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE MAJORITY OF OFFICERS HAVE THE POSITION CLAIMED.

there is another mention that an org of CHIEFS OF POLICE opposes the legislation.

again ,not surprising


as noted, it's quotes from organizations such as IACP etc.

until i see evidence that the majority of officers feel the way that is claimed, i will remain agnostic.

i prefer evidence.

and i have yet to see any

i have learned to read media reports critically. don't read the headline. read the evidence presented. i see exactly ZERO

zero evidence.

i stand by my statement. i am not saying the majority approve of the legislation. i am saying no case has been made they oppose it, despite your (and the title's ) claims

[fightthegoodfightnow]

9. Silly

It's just silly to say the National Association of Police Chiefs do not represent police officers. I'll leave you to argue the rank and file do not support the chain of command.

[sepulveda]

14. you are laughably wrong. management holds the same views as LABOR ? fascinating

do the employees (ie labor) of most companies hold the same views as the CEO's and board of director's

quite frequently, no

here's a hint.

police chiefs are generally political appointees. frequently they are also cop-o-crats who have little street experience

regardless, do you think that labor always agrees with management?

fascinating

i guess we don't need unions, then.

an average line officer holds about as much in common with the chief of police, as some guy fighting in afghanistan does with george w bush or the chief of staff

i find it incredible that you accept the viewpoints of a political organization of top level managers as a proxy for the voice of labor

[fightthegoodfightnow]

16. When It Comes to Reducing Crime?

Yes.

[sepulveda]

19. demonstrably false

and your evidence is what?

you are being prejudiced.

you are ASSUMING that labor and management agree on this based on what evidence?

have you ever read any polls?

i have been in law enforcement for over 20 yrs. i have spoken to hundreds of officers on this topic. most support concealed carry

i have not read any national polls on whether police officers across the nation support it in the majority

but i know you haven't either

i DO know that my experience is that most (i've worked in three different states, all of which are blue states) DO support it

and i know that most official administrative positions do not.

the fact that you conflate the views of management with labor is surprising to me, on a supposedly progressive board.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

25. Prejudiced?

Give me a f*cking break. I disagree with you. Period.

I've offered citations and quotations by Virginia Police Officers. You haven't. I'm sure they all do not agree on the issue, but I'm sure all are committed to reducing crime.

Keep your management bias in check. If you do not support your management, I suppose that it is your issue and it's certainly not related to guns in Virginia.

I'll leave you to speak for ALL police officers in ALL states because you have been in law enforcement for 20 years in three blue states. Reality is you'll be hard pressed to find one police officers organization (union or otherwise) or heck even one officer who support the proposed legislation in Virginia.

[bossy22]

27. see post 26

[sepulveda]

35. post 26 proves my point

it's a survey of POLICE CHIEFS AND SHERIFFS

my point was that the viewpoints of the above are not necessarily the same, in fact are frequently CONTRARY to the viewpoints of line officers

iow, here's a shocker - labor often disagrees with management

shocking, huh?

cops are labor too.

the idea that cops automatically agree with the viewpoints of their administrators is ridiculous, but one that is quite common

and the media perpetuates that myth by quoting IACP , and other administration groups and then using that as a proxy for cops, and you fall right into their trap

[fightthegoodfightnow]

80. Here's a Surprise for You

Management and labor often agree.

Regardless of the industry, I believe it's in the best interest of each to serve their market or customers.

[sepulveda]

34. no

you judged before having evidence

thats prejudice.

it's not racial or sexist or anything. it just means you made a judgment sans/apriori of the facts

you have NOT offered ANY evidence that the majority of cops don't support the legislation

you have done exactly what i said you would - offer no evidence

i never said i spoke for all officers.

i specificallty said i spoke for me.

but i do know that the majority of officers i have spoken to on this (n=sevferal hundred) do support concealed carry

so until i see evidence that they don't i will continue to doubt your claim

i am not PREjudging.

you are .

when and if you have evidence, let me know. ill stand by

[fightthegoodfightnow]

38. Keep Your Bias in Check

My experience and personal knowledge of what police officers think where I live is no less valid than yours and if you have a point, you are not making it by accusing someone of having a bias while you claim not to have one.

Give me a break.

[sepulveda]

41. if you are conflating

the views of labor with those of management, you are injecting bias

[fightthegoodfightnow]

45. Well .... In Virginia, the Issue is Mute

It's a 'right to work' state making the distinction irrelevant as it relates to union issues.

But I'm going to go with the fact that both labor and management sign a contract, there is indeed agreement on issues and i would hope one of them would be, even if not in the contract, a desire to abate crime.

[sepulveda]

46. those are two different things

a desire to abate crime
non-support of CCW

imo, (note: imo) support of CCW is more consistent with a desire to abate crime than support of stricter gun control

regardless, my point was about the OPINIONS of labor and management differing

they often, if not usually do

[fightthegoodfightnow]

51. So Management and Unions Do Agree

..... when they sign a contract.

Got it.

[sepulveda]

55. correct

both sides make concessions. that's how compromise works

often, neither side is happy or in agreement with all or part of the contract. but they see it as the best they can get

[fightthegoodfightnow]

58. Just Wanted to Make Sure We Were in Agreement on That

:)

[jmg257]

15. They don't. Chiefs are typically & notoriously political appointees. Cops could care less about

what the "chain of command" thinks about gun rights.

All we care about the "chain of command" is that we have a REAL GOOD range sergeant who keeps us well armed and well trained. Just like when we were/are civilians. The best weapons, the best caliber, the best rounds. Alot of training, alot of range time - a lot of shooting. Luckily most of the cops I worked with were gun guys like me - THAT is who you wanted to ride with - someone you could count on. And we had a GREAT sergeant, who actually listened to guys like me about all this stuff.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

18. Oh ...... They Care All Right about Who is Chief

Just ask the line cop in DC walking a beat and they'll share with you their opinions.

PS - both support DC's gun laws.

[sepulveda]

22. really?

do you have evidence that the majority of DC cops support DC's gun ban?

i'd be surprised if they do, but i have an open mind if you can present it

i KNOW the vast majority of cops i have spoken to in three states most definitely do not support gun bans, or conceal bans

i also know that labor often disagrees with management, and frankly i find it offensive that you think that police chief's opinion are a proxy for line officers opinion

that is why wambaugh's books have always been so real. they show the constant friction between cops and cop-o-crat administrators

many liberals, i am sad to see, assume don't extend the same respect to labor vs. managment issues when it comes to cops that they do for other forms of labor.

kind of sad.

but i can tell you that the idea that cops march in lockstep with cop-o-crat administrators is laughable.

and i base that on 20 yrs experience

[fightthegoodfightnow]

33. I've Got 30 Years Experience Working with the Police in DC

.... on a variety of issues both in my personal and professional experience and I have yet to talk to one who opposes DC's gun laws (even including those who live in VA and MD).

I KNOW all of the cops I have talked to support DC's laws. If you spoken to others in DC who disagree, fine........ I'll keep an open mind, but I'd be surprised.

What's sad is the notion that you let the divide between labor and management be the battle you want to fight rather than what I would hope would be those who would do harm to both.

[sepulveda]

37. and my experience is starkyl different

i have been a firearms instructor for cops for years, and a cop for over 20. i also have firefighter experience

i don't know what your position is, but i am confident that the hundreds of cops i have spoken to about concealed carry who support it (remember, i am a firearms instructor so have trained thousands of cops in my agency and others, as well as gone to training classes in same and gotten opinion from officers across the nation).

the divide between labor and management is real.

that';s why we have unions.

to advocate for OUR pov.

i can tell you that i find it offensive and denying reality to assume that cops think that concealed carry (on the whole) does them harm

i know most cops i have spoken to support concealed carry

i also know you have presented no evidence to support the theory that they don't

you made the claim. let's see some evidence

[fightthegoodfightnow]

42. Offensive?

Whatever.

You have yet to offer one police officers organization or union in Virginia that supports the proposed Virginia legislation. Not one.

I have offered several organizations, including those of law enforcement, who oppose the legislation.

[sepulveda]

48. you have yet to offer

any evidence that the majority of line officers oppose the legislation

that was my point

chiefs, sheriff's, and their proxies are not THE COPS

they are a small,and frequently nonrepresentative subset

[fightthegoodfightnow]

49. Just a Fact

You have yet to offer one police officers organization or union in Virginia that supports the proposed Virginia legislation. Not one.

I have offered several organizations, including those of law enforcement, who oppose the legislation.

[sepulveda]

53. correct

because i didn't CLAIM they opposed the legislation

i said i saw no evidence that they supported it

entirely different thing

i specifically said i was agnostic on whether they did or din't UNTIL i saw evidence.

which has yet to surface

[bossy22]

23. I know a capital police officer

who is in favor of gun restrictions but thinks the law goes too far

[bossy22]

26. here is a link

http://www.aphf.org/surveyresults.pdf

[fightthegoodfightnow]

28. Crashes

Not sure why....... but the link crashed my browser. Tried to go to the main org which worked, but couldn't find the page

[bossy22]

29. hmm worked fine for me

go to the parent site www.aphf.org and click on the link to surveys on your left...try that

[fightthegoodfightnow]

39. Must Be Browser Incapability

No 'survey' link on the left.

[krispos42]

66. Here's the relevent part...

18th Annual National Survey Results of Police Chiefs & Sheriffs

FIREARMS
3. Should any law-abiding citizen be able to purchase a firearm for sport or self-defense? Yes=92.4%
4. Within the past year, has your agency been called upon to arrest anyone who has made a false statement on an application to purchase a firearm? No=93.2%
5. Should anyone (such as a convicted felon) in violation of state or federal firearm possessionlaws, be prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney and, if convicted, receive a maximum prison term? Yes=89%
6. Do you maintain that criminals currently are able to obtain basically any type of firearm by illegal means? Yes=94.9%
7. Has your department made changes in radio equipment or frequency to ensure effective communication with federal, state and nearby local agencies? Yes=61.4%
8. Will a national concealed handgun permit reduce rates of violent crime as recent studies in some states have already reflected? Yes=59.9%

Of course, their views on drugs don't make any sense, unless they're worried about losing federal anti-drug funding or something.

DRUGS
19. Should marijuana be legalized in the United States for those who have a legitimate medical need for the drug? No=61.8%
20. Have you seen an increase in the abuse of OxyContin and other Schedule II Narcotics in your community? Yes=67.5%
21. Has the national war on drugs, which has been going on for more than 15 years, been successful in reducing the use of illegal drugs? No=82%
22. Do you think the decriminalization of “soft drugs” would allow more resources for violent and
property crime management? No=69.2%

[fightthegoodfightnow]

78. Stats

What I find remarkable and I am grateful for is the fact that almost 7% of police agencies in America have arrested someone for making a false statement on a gun application. That's ALOT of criminals and guns out of the streets of America.

My favorite question is " Will a national concealed handgun permit reduce rates of violent crime as recent studies in some states have already reflected? Yes=59.9%'

No bias in that question is there and even with the bias, 4 out of 10 cops say no.

[bossy22]

93. the enforcement of the brady bill

is horrendous. the NAssau county Police department specifically wrote a letter to my gun store asking them to please stop reporting these violations because in so many words "they weren't going to be investigated anyway"
i hope your sarcastic about the 7%......if you look at how many violations there were in the last 15 years (about 1.6 million) and about only 200 of those cases were every prosecuted- its sick in my mind. do you know if you like on FF 4473 is punishable by up to 5 years in a federal prison- so lets start enforcing this. Make criminals think twice about walking into a gun store and "trying their luck"

btw yes i believe there is a bias in that question- but i believe almost all polling questions are pull polls and hae a bias.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

96. WOW

That's pretty amazing. They actually sent them away!?!?! Good grief. That's horrific and certainly not within the spirit of the law. Quite frankly, I can't help but wonder if that is a reflection of their own bias or maybe a 'low priority' for their staffing.... either way....... it's bad.

As you point out, something doesn't add up regarding those stats. If 7% say they are reporting and there have only been 200 cases prosecuted, something doesn't add up. I'm presuming you are referring to 200 federal cases.... perhaps state cases are higher. Let's hope.

I agree about the bias of polls and only wanted to point out this one certainly had it's own perspective.

[bossy22]

109. who knows

why they choose not to enforce it- my belief is that its so low on their priority list that it is not even seen as a problem. I should write a letter to the commissioner about this but ive been busy lately with school work and studying for my DATs. One day ill write a letter.

[benEzra]

125. It's Federal law, not state law.

I'm presuming you are referring to 200 federal cases.... perhaps state cases are higher.

It's Federal law, not state law. So it would have to be prosecuted in Federal court. I guess busting FFL's for using state and city abbreviations on Form 4473's is a higher priority than, you know, prosecuting criminals who try to buy guns...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

130. Stupid

You write: 'I guess busting FFL's for using state and city abbreviations on Form 4473's is a higher priority than, you know, prosecuting criminals who try to buy guns..."

If that were the case, I would imagine there would be a lot more than 200 cases. But of course, that's really not the case, is it

[sepulveda]

32. which supports my point

the media often uses surveys and opinions of POLICE ADMINISTRATORS as proxy for opinions of labor

that link is for chiefs and sheriffs, not cops. cop-o-crats

this is at a minimum sloppy. and is frankly, a lie

that so many people accept this uncritically is pretty sad.

question the media. READ. don't just assume facts not evidence

[rgbecker]

222. Subject: Survey doesn't address issue of post.

Chief's apparently think (6 vs 4) that concealed weapons (on a national level) will reduce crime but in this survey do not opine on whether to support concealing of weapons in cars or restaurants.

Personally, I'm on the planning board here in town, and I have reason to believe one of the members is carrying to our meetings, and frankly, after the incident in Kirkwood, Mo., I'm nervous. Should I just get myself a bigger gun and set it on the table so everyone knows where they stand?

[EricTeri]

223. Would recommend against that

Since it could easily be construed as brandishing - I know I would certainly file charges were you to pull that crap at a meeting I attended. Guns are not toys or political props.

If one of your members is legally carrying, there's not a thing you can do about it. If he is illegally carrying, then address it through legal means. What happened in Kirkwood did NOT involve someone legally carrying a concealed firearm and was not caused by the gun.

If you're nervous about the general public being armed, maybe you should reconsider some of the planning board's activities. Try to remember, the people do not answer to you - YOU are answerable to the people.

[rgbecker]

230. Brandishing? I'm interested in hearing more about that.

If the argument for carrying, concealed or otherwise, is to prevent crime, then how does Brandishing fit in, and why would an advocate for carrying have a problem with me having a weapon, but no problem with my fellow board member packing heat? Will we all need to get the permits to carry to even out the playing field?

As for answering to the people, my experience on the board tells me there are usually people on both sides of every issue, and I would hope the determining factor isn't who shows up with the most guns. In our town, it has been up to the voters, who put us in office, and vote the bylaws. My concern isn't the threat that my fellow board member, who I often disagree with, will blow me away if I don't vote his side, but rather that in the heat of a discussion he should lose his ability to control his anger. Already he has made odd off hand remarks about hand grenades, and showing calling cards showing sniper rifles he is somehow involved in marketing. Fortunately on this forum we don't have to worry about who has what fire power so personally I feel much more free to speak my piece.

[EricTeri]

232. I dont have a problem with you having a weapon

I have a serious issue with you placing one on the table in a threatening manner.

If you're concerned about your fellow man losing his temper and shooting you, you're guilty of projection. You are assuming he would react the way YOU might. Do not assume others have problems controlling their anger.

CCW holders are quite likely the most stable members of society. Ask him what he had to do to obtain that permit, you may be surprised.

If you're scared by his marketing materials, seek professional assistance.

It sounds to me like you're simply afraid of guns. Frankly sir, thats really not my problem, or his - but yours.

The fact that you believe that pulling a gun in a threatening manner is even a remotely acceptable response to your fear about someone legally carrying a concealed weapon disturbs me greatly. The fact that you're a member of local government and holds this belief tells me you are wholly unfit for office. You are advocating a lethal threat response to nothing more than your own unjustified and unsupported fear.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

258. Fear

Right......... because we should NEVER consider what someone might do with their gun.

Good grief.

Is that really your position?

You write: 'Ask him what he had to do to obtain that permit, you may be surprised.'

What ......... you mean like having a concealed weapons license isn't even require in at least two states?

Anyone who thinks an elected official should not fear political assassination by someone who clearly disagrees with him, who clearly has a gun, who has a history of anger and who clearly has a gun in his presence should be worried less about that politicians mental health but their own.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

236. Amen

You write: 'As for answering to the people, my experience on the board tells me there are usually people on both sides of every issue, and I would hope the determining factor isn't who shows up with the most guns. '

AMEN !!!

Thank you.

Your fears are legitimate when someone makes crazy ludicrous off hand remarks about grenades and his inability to control his temper. Sounds like he is perfect candidate for the gun industry.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

[EricTeri]

239. Nowhere did he say the man made crazy offhand remarks

or anything about his inability to control his temper. he did mention that the person has a weapons related business, which certainly would make discussion of his product a perfectly legitimate conversation.

What makes ME wonder is how people can go through life being so afraid of an inanimate object. You come off as a raving anti-gun lunatic FTGFN

[fightthegoodfightnow]

241. Off Hand?

You write: 'What makes ME wonder is how people can go through life being so afraid of an inanimate object."

You give that some thought for a while. "An inanimate object" that does no harm? Is that why you have a gun? Because it does no harm? Are you really so naive as to think someone should not have respect for the harm a gun can do? Not even the National Rifle Association takes that position.

You write: ' You come off as a raving anti-gun lunatic.'

And you come across as a gun lunatic.

Feel better?

[rgbecker]

304. Actually, I thought I mentioned he once indicated he wished he could throw a grenade.

But I'm disappointed that you think I'm afraid of guns as my Army buddies were all impressed with my marksmanship back in the 60's and although my collection of rifles probably wouldn't start to compare with yours, they are all clean and neat and fire relatively accurately. Truth is, its the concealing business I'm concerned with as I don't know what I'm dealing with if the thing is concealed.

Now back to the brandishing thing, which I don't know anything about. Could I wear a pistol in my belt or in a holster. I mean, if I'm interested in stopping crime, (Which I am, especially during planning board meetings) wouldn't a little show of force keep people in their seats? What's the rule on that? Is brandishing the pointing and waving around of the weapon or as I originally suggested, just setting a gun out on the table? Just wondering.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

314. You Have No Reason to Explain Yourself

You come here with a legitimate concern about not only your safety but the safety of others.

I would say you are a responsible gun owner.

Too bad others can't see that nor do they share your concerns.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

315. Introduce Legislation........

......... requiring all those who enter public buildings to leave their guns outside of public buildings and then have him arrested if he doesn't comply with the law.

[rgbecker]

303. Now I'm really interested and will let you know what I find out.

First I'll have to determine if he actually has a gun or was it just some of fantasy off the cuff remark. I think his quote was,"You'd be surprised to see what I have in my pocket." Then will check with police to see if he has a permit and what it takes to get a permit in Massachusetts.

[iverglas]

307. not likely you can find out

As I understand it, most places don't release info about who has permits, or whether someone has a permit. Fairly reasonably. (If only to avoid creating targets for break-ins.)

But if someone said something like that to me, I'd inform the police so that they could do their own investigation to determine whether he actually was carrying a firearm, and if so, whether he had a permit.

Of course, everybody around here will tell you that no one who has a permit carries his/her firearm in his/her pocket. That's a fantasy of the 'fraidy cat crowd. Real pistol packers don't tote 'em in trousers, they haul 'em in holsters.

So if he said that, he must either (a) not have had a gun or (b) not have had a permit!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

235. Following the Law is Good Advice But........

You write: 'If one of your members is legally carrying, there's not a thing you can do about it.'

Not completely correct. The law should be changed and advocating change is exactly what you should do.

The notion that guns should be allowed in a forum of elected officials is ......... crazy.

You write: 'If you're nervous about the general public being armed, maybe you should reconsider some of the planning board's activities. Try to remember, the people do not answer to you - YOU are answerable to the people.

Huh?' What exactly does that mean? Who said otherwise. The only reason I can think you would say that is because you are trying to imply that you somehow think a gun is the tools of enforcement for the 'will of the people'.

Here's a better suggestion, if he is nervous for the PUBLIC's SAFETY about the public being armed, then do something about it.

It's not only your duty, it's your elected responsibility.

[EricTeri]

237. Wrong

It is NEVER your responsibility as an elected official to attempt to suppress the rights of the people.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

238. Keep Telling Yourself That

Anyone who implies there is nothing an elected official can do about public safety IS suppressing their civil rights.

[Name removed]

240. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

242. The Man Fears for His Life

..... and you write: 'If one of your members is legally carrying, there's not a thing you can do about it.'

Not completely correct. The law should be changed and advocating change is exactly what he should do.

[Name removed]

244. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

245. Let Me Repeat

Anyone who implies there is nothing an elected official can do about public safety IS suppressing their civil rights.

Glad you acknowledge NOW there is SOMETHING he can do.

[EricTeri]

246. He wasnt talking about PUBLIC safety

He was talking about his personal fears. There is a HUGE difference.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

247. To You

Seems you forget, by virtue of the fact that is elected, his fears ARE those of the public.

He *represents* the fears of the people.

Oh....... and let me add, you claimed originally there is nothing he could do about it if no laws are broken.

[EricTeri]

249. Bullshit

The fear as expressed was a personal fear of one specific individual at the meetings. His paranoia does not represent the fears of the people anymore than Marion Barry's crack habit and penchant for whores represented the typical behavior of a DC resident...

Unless of course you're saying your city is mostly made up of whoring crack smokers.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

251. Nonsense

Right............ because a fear of guns is so unfounded and illogical not to mention the fear of political assassination in this country of elected officials is so unfounded and illogical.

Why exactly did Barry have so more security guards?

Oh, never mind.

I much rather hear you say the word bullshit than actually have a conversation rooted in logic.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

248. And Just To Make Sure I Understand Something

Do you think that an elected officials fear of assassination in an open forum is NOT something involving public safety?

[Name removed]

250. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

252. Right......

........... and no one should, certainly not an elected official, should ever have a fear of a concealed weapon from a crazy nut looney.

Got it.


:crazy:








.

[EricTeri]

254. If the person is demonstrably crazy

Then i would say yes, you should be concerned about what he might do. If he has been adjudicated mentally defective, he should be locked up.

On the other hand, an elected official certainly should NOT be afraid of another elected official who he merely SUSPECTS has a concealed firearm, especially if that concealed firearm is legally carried.

You keep trying to twist this into something it isn't.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

256. Got It --------

.......... a gun has never been used to do harm in a situation during moments of 'temporary insanity' by someone enraged with anger.

Are you a big supporter of the 'twinkie defense'?

[iverglas]

305. interesting point

Try to remember, the people do not answer to you - YOU are answerable to the people.

Via the ballot box, might you agree?

So whither cometh this odd bit of advice you've proffered? --

If you're nervous about the general public being armed, maybe you should reconsider some of the planning board's activities.

If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that a member of a properly constituted municipal authority (either directly elected or appointed by elected representatives, I dunno), in a liberal democracy, should be careful what s/he does in that capacity, lest the general public shoot him/her?

Very odd.

It doesn't seem to be the "general public" that is likely to be problematic, in terms of presenting a threat to such an individual.

It would seem that if any such threat exists, it would be from one or more individual members of the general public.

And I find it simply bizarre that anyone would consider it reasonable to suggest that a member of a properly constituted public body in a liberal democracy "reconsider" what s/he is doing in that capacity because s/he perceives a potential threat from such an individual. Simply bizarre. No complication about it.

I wonder what Harvey Milk and George Moscone were doing that they should have "reconsidered". John Kennedy? Abraham Lincoln?

Damn. If I were a member of a municipal planning board and somebody said to me directly "If you're nervous about the general public being armed, maybe you should reconsider some of the planning board's activities", I'd report the statement to the police. Even if the statement itself could not be construed as a direct threat, I'd think anyone who made it to me might want watching.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

234. Exactly

Many, not all, gun owners use their guns or the fear of having a gun as a tool of fear and intimidation not unlike the terrorists who actually use guns to murder.

It's a one sided conversation that does nothing to level the playing field as they claim.

[jmg257]

43. Tell ya what - YOU ask him. Last I read about the chiefs there they were QUITE confused over

exactly how effective the DC bans were, and where all the guns came from (even though they had such an "effective ban). If I remember right, the new acting Chief Lanier had this to say:

Give Us Back Our Gun Law
By Cathy Lanier and Vincent Schiraldi
Thursday, March 15, 2007

As lawyers in guarded courtrooms debate whether it is a good idea to preserve tough gun control in the District of Columbia
...
"In 1995 the District already had one of the nation's toughest gun control laws, forbidding handgun possession in the home. This is the provision the appeals court recently overturned. But handguns still flowed easily into the District from neighboring states, fueling black-market sales and hampering the effectiveness of the city's in-home ban.

In 1995 and 1997 laws enacted in, respectively, Virginia and Maryland prohibited citizens from purchasing more than one gun per month, dramatically reducing illegal gun sales as supply was choked off. The number of handguns coming into the District from those states fell immediately after the laws were passed. Before Virginia passed its law, it was the No. 1 supplier of guns seized in crimes in the District. Once Virginia's law took effect, Maryland became the largest source of guns seized in D.C. crimes. In the year after Maryland passed its one-gun-a-month law, the number of Maryland guns seized in the District dropped from 20 to zero.

These bans on multiple gun sales in neighboring states choked off black-market sales, while the D.C. ban on guns in the home reduced the ability of youths to borrow guns from family and friends, The result? The number of juveniles charged with homicide in the District fell 86 percent from 1995 to 2006."

************

BUT Chief, the 2006 National Report, citing FBI and other data sources, demonstrated that the rate of ALL juvenile violent crime arrests had consistently decreased since 1994 - just like all crime rates, NOT JUST DCs because of imagined postive results of do-nothing gun laws.

Hmmm...and for someone so fond of stats, it seems the Chief also conveniently forgot to mention that ALL crime rates were near their highest in 1995 (peaked in 1993) and were at their lowest in 2004, though they have risen about 3.5% the last 2 years. OF COURSE THE JUEVINILE CRIME RATES IN DC WERE DIFFERENT in 1995 vs. 2006 - EVREYONES WERE! With such critical data so easily available from the FBI Crime Reports, you think a Police Chief would know such things - IT'S HER JOB!

OK, so Lanier was still quite proud of the results from the DC gun control experiment: - in 2004, the murder rate in Washington DC was 55 percent higher than before the DC gun ban laws went into effect; Washington DC's overall homicide rate skyrocketed to eight times the national average; Murder rates, 25 years after DCs ban: Washington, DC: 46.4 per 100,000, the 2004 National average? 5.5 per 100,000. In 2006 they took roughly 2500 illegal guns off the street - I wonder how many CRIMINALS they took off?

BUTT!!!!!!! THEN there is this:

THE WASHINGTON TIMES November 17, 2006 District slayings usually with gun.
Outgoing Police Chief Ramsey... *We have tough gun laws, but most of our guns are coming from Virginia and Maryland* "

NOTE THE DATE - 4 months before Lanier's stupid comments about the positive effect of bans IN Maryland and Virginia, MA and VA were THE problem? And now they are not??? WTF? WHICH IS IT, Chief? Or is it just THE FACT THAT GUN LAWS DONT REDUCE CRIME?

How much are the antis paying her to lie to the people she works for, and to break her oath to defend and support the Constitution?

That is the problem with political appointees, they will say anything to look good, or make THEIR boss look good. (even if in direct conflict with facts). Most big-city Chiefs DON'T represent the rank and file - not by a looong shot.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

47. Facts Wrong

You write: 'n 2004, the murder rate in Washington DC was 55 percent higher than before the DC gun ban laws went into effect; '

Simply not true as has been shown numerous times on several boards. The murder rate TODAY is lower than the year before the legislation was ENACTED. That's a fact.

As for the guns coming from Virginia and Maryland, I have no doubt that is true.

[jmg257]

52. FBI facts. Take it up with them if YOU think they are wrong. The Chief is badly/sadly mistaken. nt

[sepulveda]

56. FBI

the FBI is NEVER WRONG

just ask them (cop bias against Fan Belt Inspectors showing here ) :)

i kid. i kid

[jmg257]

60. :) Could be they are - but then who else could we trust? I at least figure they are non-biased!

For STATS I mean! :)

[sepulveda]

72. those guys are 100% jolly rancher

SQUARE!!!

the running joke in law enforcement is that their primary recruiting pool is mormon accountants from Utah. or at least it was "pre 9/11"

iow, nice guys but very naive with no street smarts.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

81. Agendas

..........and Mormon accountants don't have agendas?

[sepulveda]

88. apart from being boring #'s nerds... not so much

[fightthegoodfightnow]

79. Non Biased?

Everyone has an agenda.

Buyer beware.

[sepulveda]

24. good post

i've seen a pretty fair cross section of cops since i've taught firearms and deadly force to cops, and have been one myself for 20 years

a fair percentage are "gun guys" and others could not care less about guns. they don't think about them any more than they think about their pens, vests, or flashlights. just a job tool.

but i can state from my experience (n= several hundred) cops overwhelmingly support concealed carry.

cop-o-crats (lieutenants and up) who are politicians moreso than cops - not so much, although there are certainly exceptions

many fail to understand that cops have the same labor vs. managment issues and disagreement as any working group does.

[jmg257]

61. Cheers. I taught firearms also...

but mostly to civilians here in NY going for their Pistol Permit, & more tactical stuff afterwards.

One of my highlights while working for that company - I did bodyguard work for Guiliani during a Columbus Day parade - before he became Mayor. One of his staff was a student of ours. No big deal, but it was quite interesting! His son was a little kid then - talk about a hand-full! :) Luckily I was on the job so I could carry in NYC.


Stay safe!

[sabre73]

64. My experience is just as yours.

I too am a firearms instructor for the government and I have had the honor of working with a few thousand agents who fall in line to support a society with CCW/ CHL citizens. In fact there has been a large movement of support for it at my old station that a lot of us became CCW instructors for the state of Texas and were offering our classes for next to nothing ($10.00 to rent class space) so people would not have to pay us on top of the hefty license fees.

We had some very good students.

Anyhow, I have to report to my station for my shift now so later! I Love working midnights!

[sabre73]

63. It may sound silly but it is true.

I know that it is a hard "pill" to swallow so to speak (it still blows my mind that is for sure) but in general, Admin does not represent staff. The rank of Chief is usually a political appointment and their position is for a public image more than it is for staff support. I have never been asked by any of my Chiefs throughout different departments/ agencies, what I thought about anything but they always seem to get on the news saying that "we" believe this or that....and it has never been correct as far as the field agents go.

[gorfle]

69. Hey FTGFN...

I think we'll all take the opinion of a cop on this situation over yours, 'kay?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

76. Speaking for "Everyone" Are You

And how exactly do you know my profession? Right....... you don't

But heh....... make all the ignorant and stupid statements you want.

[Name removed]

220. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

233. Right......

........... because you would just LOVE to make me the issue rather than guns.

Live with your anomousity toward me.

I hold none toward you.

Ready to talk about .............. guns?

[EricTeri]

261. Tried talking about guns

Tried talking about laws, tried talking logic, history and fact. You want to turn it into an endless series of hypothetical situations and absurdities which have precisely NOTHING to do with the OP, any question asked of you, or any actual responses you may have received.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

262. And Still Absolutely NOTHING about Guns

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

[sabre73]

59. Here here!

Never trust our (LEO's in general) Chief's public statements as they pertain to those of us in the field. They don't have a clue what we think or desire, let alone need.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

77. Accountability

With all due respect, I suspect it is the accountability of the police to the taxpaying public that gives the Police Chiefs and their public statements credibility. Either the support of Police Chiefs reflects the will of the cops or the will of the taxpaying public. I'll take the support of either.

[sabre73]

87. Well we agree on one point here

The Tax paying public is the support I would prefer. The problem is that a Chief has a political appointment. They are required to dance the dance of a marionette on the strings of their bosses (mayor, Governor, etc.)

They are not a reliable source when it comes to "What the line officers think and desire". We are the ones who ACTUALLY deal with the tax paying public not them. We are the ones who put our lives at risk every day not them.

I am not dismissing your opinion on the matter. I just want people to remember that a Chief gets his/ her position by telling people what they want to hear. Not by doing what is right.

This is not to say that there are not good chiefs out there who truly represent their troops in all things. I am just saying that is is not the norm and not by a long shot.

I know that it is a long shot in convincing people otherwise but it is my hope that the posts of all the LEO's here might contribute to a continued open mind for some.
Later!

:bounce:

[jmg257]

12. We were ALWAYS taught to expect the worse in a vehicle stop...It IS dangerous!

What this genius fails to realise is that crinminals DON'T CARE if it is illegal or not - they do it anyway - THEY ARE CRIMINALS!


All my sympathy to the victims and their families, but I still don't think their opinion is worth more then mine, or my right to self-defense.

[jmg257]

7. You are correct - it doesn't matter...The right to self-defense doesn't stop at the

restaurant door, the car door, or the bar door.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

11. Do Private Restaurants Have the Right to Ban You for Carrying a Gun?

Thoughts?

[sepulveda]

17. depends

generally speaking, yes.

some would argue that since they are public accomodations (which is why the civil rights act of 1964 applies to them and they can't distinguish between whites and blacks for instance), that they can't discriminate based on gun carry either, but i am not sure that would hold water.


it's the classic private property vs. civil rights argument

[fightthegoodfightnow]

20. Let Me Get This Right

When you say 'some' would argue, is that like 'code' for you'll take a volley at it.

Discrimination based on race is equivalent to your right to carry a gun concealed onto private property? Now I have heard everything. Talk about bad interpretation of Constitutional law.

PS - You have no First Amendment right to distribute literature at the mall.

[sepulveda]

30. study the case law. you are wrong

again, the case law like i said is rather broad...

--American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada v. City of Las Vegas, 333 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2003) (public pedestrian mall remains a public forum where first amendment protects leafleting even when city contracts with private entity that invests substantially in renovating the area and seeks to compete with private malls that do have the right to exclude leafletters).

i didn't say it was equivalent.

i said that places of public accomodation generally cannot discriminate based on people exercising their rights.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

36. WRONG

You are talking about a PUBLIC pedestrian mall .................. NOT a PRIVATE mall.

While I'm not familiar with the case or facts in that case, it sounds like the main issue is a labor dispute and not addresses the issue I raised.

Regardless, the right to distribute literature on a PRIVATE 'mall' property is and can be limited by POSTING a sign saying such distribution is not allowed. That's right..... a sign can limit or restrict that right.

[sepulveda]

40. you are correct

i just read the case. my bad. ill admit when i am wrong

specifically, the private mall can prohibit literature distribution as long as it is content neutral ban

my bad.

again, you are correct.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

44. No Problem

Thanks.

[sepulveda]

50. cheers

one of my biggest problems with internet discussions is some people's steadfast unwillingness to simpyl concede they were wrong on something

i feel that being wrong on something is GOOD (to an extent) :) because it means you learned something

that's important

[fightthegoodfightnow]

54. Agree.......

...... even if I suppose we disagree on when I'm wrong. :)

But like you, I try to fess up when I am wrong and I have done so numerous times on gun boards.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

21. Depends?

Depends on what?

[bossy22]

i say

yes, because they are private establishments

[bossy22]

31. i say

yes, because they are private establishments

[jmg257]

62. I think a restaurant/theater, etc. can fairly ask/post for patrons not to carry. IF I was to

go to such a place, I would probably carry anyway, since it would not be illegal, as long as I leave when asked - if they ever knew I was carrying to begin with.

However, as a general rule, I would not give such a place my business.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

68. By Posting that Sign

I'm pretty certain they don't want your business and I would argue that you were indeed breaking the law by trespassing on their property since consent to carry a firearm on their property was never given.......... just my opinion.

[krispos42]

71. It may be for legal protection in case something bad happens.

For example, let's say at a restraunt a guy busts in, robs the place, then decides he doesn't want any witnesses. Or maybe the cashier just wasn't sufficiently scared.

Anyway, robber starts shooting. Concealed carry permit holder, who had decided not to get involved over some money, draws and engages the robber when the shooting starts. He or she guns down the robber, but in the process wounds or kills a bystander.

Now, if the restraunt had the legal option to put up a sign saying "No guns allowed" and didn't, it is possible that the owner could be sued for not ensuring a gun-free area. By permitting concealed-carry on the premises, the restraunt was responsible for allowing the CCW person to have a gun and thus shoot the bystander.

However, if the restraunt did put up a "No guns allowed" sign, the restraunt avoids legal liability because the CCW holder was breaking the law, and if the owner had known the CCW holder was carrying, they would have asked them to leave.

Of course, if the sign was up and the CCW holder didn't have his or her gun as a result, the body count would most likely be much higher than an shot crook and a shot bystander.

This is just speculation on my part, but it would not surprise me in the least if that was the legal advice that was being given nowadays.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

75. Gun Disclosure

So the restaurant has to disclose their gun policy to protect themselves from gun liability, but the gun owner does not need to disclose his or her gun concealment. Talk about crazy

As for the last two sentences, I agree, it's all speculation.

[krispos42]

127. My point here was that...

... by doing what's legally correct, i.e., protecting themselves from potential liability, they may actually be making the problem worse.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

139. What Problem?

If you don't want to come onto private property that has a NO GUN policy, then don't.

It's your choice.

The problem isn't law abiding citizens.

It's those who break the law whether it is those who trespass with the intention of committing a violent gun crime or with the intention of knowingly breaking the law by trespassing with a concealed weapon on private property.

[krispos42]

195. That making places a "no gun" zone increases the body count

That because the owner, either from personal political views or legal liability issues, takes action that increases the potential for burglary, violent crime, or murder.

In other words, it's counterproductive. In attempting to make the place safer, it makes them more dangerous.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

200. Nonsense

Allowing guns and alcohol together increases accidents ..... a fact you seem so intent on denying. Talk about liability. Just ask the restaurant owners in states where guns are permitted in bars and restaurants.

I'll leave you to characterize a property owner who denies someone access to their private property because they do not want to assume that liability of that persons guns as 'taking action'.

If it is, it is action to PREVENT the likelihood of gun accidents or deaths on their property.

[krispos42]

202. My bad...

I forgot that this subthread was in the alcohol-serving restraunt thread!

I was speaking in generalities. :-)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

203. No Need to Apologize

I actually just did the same thing on another thread several hours ago.

Yikes. Can't keep these neighbors and restaurants straight. :)

[ac2007]

67. Yes

Yes, they do. They generally have to post an obvious sign indicating no firearms are permitted on the premises.

Virginia is an interesting case though because if the establishment serves alcohol, you must open carry. Which doesn't require a permit. In that case, they don't necessarily need to post the sign and can ask you to remove the firearm from the premises. It is within their right to do so.

The reason for the open carry requirement is so bartenders can identify patrons who are armed and limit their alcohol intake.

Please note it is NOT illegal to drink while carrying. It IS illegal to be impaired while carrying however. It is up to the person to determine that line. As a general rule, it is not a wise idea to drink while carrying a firearm since the determination of "impaired" will be left to the local LEO and it does not mean legally drunk. If the officer feels your one drink would have impaired your judgment in using said firearm, you're in a heap of trouble.

The worst a place could do is ask you to leave. However, in the three years I have open carried in Fairfax County I have never been asked to leave and never had any problems. Even when seated next to police officers.

By changing the law to permit permit holders to remain concealed in places that serve alcohol, those places would have to post signs to restrict firearms on the premises. The onus for remaining unimpaired while drinking does not disappear. Because without the signs, the restaurant/bar has no way to determine who is armed and ask them to leave. Please note that if such a sign is posted, it is ILLEGAL for a permit holder to carry onto those premises. The rights of the private property holder reign supreme in that case. In such a case, you must either disarm prior to entry or not patronize the business. I personally would do the latter.

Does this help you?

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

13. OK..................

Got it..... I'm a jackass and the Post sucks.

Your intellectual prowess is noted.

[Turbo Teg]

65. Unless you wrote

The article in the Washington post, then I wasn't calling you a jackass. As far as the post sucking, it doesn't. For me, it exposes how ignorant some people are, and it always amazes me for some reason. I can a good laugh out of it, so please, post more of thes stuff. I like bieng able to laugh at the sheeple whenever I can, and point out the flaws in their already weak arguements.

[Redneck Socialist]

70. Yeah, one can't hardly get a drink 'round these parts with getting in a gun fight

Heck the last three times I went to a bar I had the glass shot right out of my hand. Waste of a perfectly good beer if you ask me. Sump'in oughta be done about that.

My state alows ccw just about everywhere (bars included)and let me tell ya it's like six gun city here.











Ummmm, wait. No it's not.

Oddly enough, people with concealed carry permits don't go intigating gun battles everywhere they go.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

82. New Hampshire

There is a bill before your New Hampshire legislation that would drop the requirement to have a concealed weapons license

The Manchester paper reported it is opposed by the New Hampshire Police Association.

[Redneck Socialist]

95. Again?

I thought that died back in '04.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

97. Don't Think So

.

[Redneck Socialist]

98. Odd

The usual suspects (GONH, etc) don't have any info on that and a cursory search of the Useless Leader's website didn't turn anything up.

(shrug)

[virginia mountainman]

73. As I was telling you FTGF...

Good things are happening in Virginia...... :hippie:

Once the Anti's showed up and had their "lie in" and the news was so biased toward their side, the RTKBA folks literally ran them out of town, with nothing more than facts and shear numbers..

You should have seen it, it was a glorious sight...As they where having their lie in outside, for the press to see, we was inside, working the delegates, and senators, when one or two of them showed up to beg for their "pet" gun laws, at least 4 times the number of LOCAL Pro Gun folks was standing right their....With facts, and hard data in hand..


You should have heard them when state senators asked them some questions about the laws they where proposing!! One of the Anti's actually had the gall to respond to a State Senators question about laws in neighboring states with;

"I don't think that has any bearing here"...

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Talk about blasting themselves out of the water..When a state senator asks you a question, it is NOT, up to you to decide weather or not it is germain to the discussion at hand...YOU ANSWER.

Nice little comments like that where gold, to our cause. Not to mention the racket the collage students where making in the halls and offices, lots of loud rude talk was heard coming from the Anti-gun folks. We heard it, the State delegates and senators heard it....

When you go, to the house of delegates, to ask for support, IT HELPS TO BE PROFESSIONAL, not to be a gang of 17 year old kids....that are playing "grab ass" in the hallways

Anyway, the anti' whined an moaned, they even broke into song...LOL

You should have heard their rendition of "We shall overcome". They think they are fighting for "Civil rights" what buffoonery!!!

They where massively disrespectful to ANYONE who dared to disagree, than complained about how bad THEY where mistreated...what idiots.

Anyway, when their "pet" legislation failed to make it out of committee, all the out of state meddlers left, and we stayed..

We RTKBA folks, stayed, after all, we LIVE here. and in the mean time our legislators listened to us...SEVERAL PRO GUN bills have made it out of committee to their full votes, and PASSED...

Many are on their way to the Governors desk...

Ahhh, anit it nice when the legislature LISTENS to their constituents.

O, and thanks to any of the anti's that showed up, you child-like behavior helped us IMMENSELY.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

74. Right.........

We've seen the fruits of your 'professional' labor.

How ironic that you mock the gang of 17 year olds when you seem to forget that many of the victims in Blacksburg were .............. 17 year olds.

[bossy22]

83. when it comes to the victims

families i think many of them have been mislead by the pro-gun control lobby. It is one thing to fight for better background checks- that makes sense.....its another thing to start arguing about closing the gun show loophole and equating it to VT under a "could have" scenario.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

84. Closing the Gun Show Loophole

How would you close what you characterize as the gun show loophole?

[bossy22]

85. i meant to put quotations around the word

and what does your question have to do with what we were discussing?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

86. Hhumm.....

.......you brought it up......... good grief.

I just asked a question about something you said.

Why don't you tell us why you brought it up before you demand the same thing of me.

[bossy22]

89. because VM

mentioned the virginia legislature incident and that was a part of it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

90. Since YOU Brought It Up

How would you close what you characterize as the gun show loophole?

[bossy22]

92. i don't characterize it

as a gun show loophole...i just used what they said. I myself don't believe there is such thing as a gun show loophole- IIRC federal law applies everywhere

[virginia mountainman]

91. Heck FTGF

Can you name a SINGLE STREET in Blacksburg??? Or a single person, that live their (that has not been on the news)?

Can you tell me what is YOUR, favorite restaurant is their, and how to get to it from Peppers Ferry road, of heck, how getting to it from 460, or even 119?

How many Virginia Tech students, alumni, and VT board members do YOU know, for that matter, HOW MANY ARE YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY?


It is amazing that you try to speak with authority about them, but odds are, that you would be hard pressed to find Blacksburg on a map.

It is easy for me....I been around here all my life.


If those that went to the Lie in (<--gotta love that name ) felt so serious about their legislation, would it have pained them to at least stop smooching and playing grab ass with each other in the hallways of the Virginia Legislature?

Looks like the "protest easy guns" people pulled some buses up to the campus and asked if people "want to go protest something" Some where dressed nice, and acted professionally, but at least 50% of them where the stereotypical "hotheaded, know it all" types, that seemed to take great glee in LECTURING legislators.


Us poor "gun rights activists" had to drive our OWN CARS, and take off OUR jobs, to Richmond, and we STILL out numbered them at least 5 to 1.

Heck FTGF, why don't you come down to blackburg, I will teach you how to shoot, their is a public rifle and pistol range, just north of town, it would help to dispel some of these myths you seem to hold dear.

(On a serious note, I would be GLAD to take you out to the range, and let you fire any firearm in my collection, and even offer you up some free chow, on my dime, their is a awesome Japanese steak house, right off of old 460 in Blacksburg)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

99. See.........

....... this is what I'm talking about....... YOU think YOU know me so well......

Gosh... what litmus test should I take.

Let's see...... should I give you the name of my hall on campus I lived on for two years...... ok....... Barrister --forth floor. Streaking was fun then.
Should I tell you the name of the road of my fraternity when you could still drink at a frat house? Well it moved the second year I was there..... decades ago.
Oh golly..... how about that year at Fox Chase or was it Fox Hall? Lost my deposit for the hole in the wall.
My favorite restaurant.... golly.. it's no longer there...... it's been gone for decades.... middle earth thing..........sat on the floor in a cavern. LOL.
Should we talk about the Lyric ........prior to it being closed and then reopened....which was sooo much better than that theater that opened in the 70s in that strip mall only to be recently closed.
How about the donut store next door?
Heck, I was going there before the Bookstore opened and the new library built.
Shall I talk about my responsibilities when I worked at the Donaldson Center?
How about rafting on the New River?

Satisfied? Are you getting it now? Oh, never mind, who gives a shit what you think. You obviously don't know me at all so stop pretending you do. Oh yea..... and just to make sure you get the picture........... I lived there for some time after I graduated. Nice place with fond memories of the people...... guess I was fortunate enough not to meet you.

Oh.........but thanks for the invite........... I may take you up on it, if you could welcome me with something besides a gun. Personally, I'd be satisfied with an apology.

[virginia mountainman]

104. Well now, that is an improvement.

:hi: Actually, the welcome would be very friendly, followed by the vittles....the range comes last.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

108. Thanks

You write:

Can you name a SINGLE STREET in Blacksburg??? Or a single person, that live their (that has not been on the news)?
Can you tell me what is YOUR, favorite restaurant is their, and how to get to it from Peppers Ferry road, of heck, how getting to it from 460, or even 119?
How many Virginia Tech students, alumni, and VT board members do YOU know, for that matter, HOW MANY ARE YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY?
It is amazing that you try to speak with authority about them, but odds are, that you would be hard pressed to find Blacksburg on a map.

I take you at your word when you tell me your experiences and try to respect your beliefs even if I disagree. I would appreciate the same courtesy. I also appreciate that when you now write 'Well now, that is an improvement' .... you are actually acknowledging you are wrong regarding what you know about me and my relationship with Blacksburg, Virginia. Of course, the differences between rural Southwest Virginia and DC are huge.

As for the invitation to for vittles, I'll keep it in mind, although I quite frankly never have enough time down there. I have family just north of Blacksburg. The deer population was out of control down there last year making me wonder where all these gun owners in Southwest Virginia really are. Thanks for the invite, but we'd have to have a good drink and I'm not so sure we should be on the range after that. I might end up one of your moving targets......... :)

[gorfle]

171. Than you, VMM

Thanks for working so hard for our side!

[benEzra]

94. So if I (a NONDRINKER) wish to take my family out to get a steak,

I could accidentally commit a felony if I don't stand outside the door and ask for a menu first to make sure they don't serve alcohol?

Make it a crime to drink while carrying a gun if you want, but barring licensed CHL holders from restaurants with wine lists is downright fundamentalist, particularly if they are barred from consuming alcohol anyway.

In Florida, where I used to live, the rule was that CHL holders could carry in restaurants, but not at the bar. I'd be OK with that. But do you have ANY evidence that carry by lawful CHL holders at Steak and Ale has been any problem at all? If not, this goes back to what I mentioned last week, about gun-control proponents making it their top priority to place restrictions on the law-abiding and responsible instead of worrying about criminal misuse.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

100. Oh GOOD Grief

You do not have a constitutional right to bring your gun onto anyone's property.

[L1A1Rocker]

101. Oh Good Grief FTGF you said nothing about the post!

[Turbo Teg]

102. Your right, but that's only if the property owner...

Doesn't want you there, but if the bar or resterount doesn't care, than law shouldn't prevent you from taking your weapon with you. I fully believe that a buisness has the right to say that they don't want concealed carry on thier property. I do believe it should be easier to sue them if something happens to you that COULD have been prevented had you had your concealed weapon on you on said property though

[fightthegoodfightnow]

103. Ridiculous

You write: "I do believe it should be easier to sue them if something happens to you that COULD have been prevented had you had your concealed weapon on you on said property though'

Huh?

How about we sue the concealed weapon holder who doesn't prevent the crime or worse when they kill someone by mistake as 'collateral damage.'

Give me a break. But heh..... it's all about criminalizing those who break the law rather than those who own guns or don't............ NOT according to you....right?

You folks aren't happy until you CRIMINALIZE those who don't want to have guns on their property.

Pathetic line of reasoning.

[L1A1Rocker]

105. Careful with that "pathetic" name calling FTGF

You told on me for calling YOU pathetic. How pitifully.

[Turbo Teg]

106. Well

If someone doesn't want guns on thier property, that's fine, but I think they need to take a hieghtend sense of responsablity for your safety. Also, "collateral Damage" rarely ever happens so it's a moot point. Why would you sue the CCW holder for not preventing crime, the Police have deeper pockets. I just think it needs to be that if a buisness or establishment takes away your right to defend yourself, then that means that they are taking responsablity for your safety.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

110. Reality

You write: 'If someone doesn't want guns on thier property, that's fine, but I think they need to take a hieghtend sense of responsablity for your safety. '

No one is taking away ANYTHING from you. In fact, YOU have the CHOICE not to even be there. Give me a break.

Did it ever occur to you that it might be PRECISELY because they were thinking of your safety that they do not want guns on THEIR property?

Is ramming your guns down everyone's throats and demanding YOU have a right to bring on THEIR property really the battle you want to fight?

[Turbo Teg]

113. I'm not saying that a place can't ban guns.

Just that if they do, they need to be held to a higher degree of liablity. How is that putting anybody out, or "ramming my guns down everyones throat"? I'm all for personal choice on the matter. No, I don't believe that them banning guns has anything to do with my safety. In fact, it does the opposite, it puts me at greater risk. If they were thinking of my safety they would just let me carry and give me the chance to defend myself if need be.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

114. ILLOGICAL

You write: 'I'm not saying that a place can't ban guns. Just that if they do, they need to be held to a higher degree of liablity."

WHY? You are entering their PRIVATE property and NO ONE is forcing you to. It's your choice.

You say you are "all for personal choice". Well, why should anyone be 'held to a higher degree of liability' for your choice to come onto their property?

[Turbo Teg]

120. Not really.

Places get sued for un-safe conditions all the time. For example, you walk into a grocery store and slip on some water that spilled. You could possibly sue because of negligence because it should have been cleaned up or had a sign where it was wet. Why should this be any different? I made the choice to come in, does that make them immune to any type of lawsuit because I had the choice to come in or not? If you take away my right to protect myself on your property and something happens, you should be held liable.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

123. Crazy

You write: 'Places get sued for un-safe conditions all the time."

Good grief. With all due respect, are you really telling me that no one is safe without a gun on their property and that I have to have YOU on my private property and that i have to have YOUR gun on my private property while you are drinking to be acting responsible?

No wonder so many in this debate are characterized as being NUTS!!

Get off my property.
Stay off my property.
And don't bring your guns on my property.

Since when does the Constitution say I have to have YOU or YOUR guns on my private property.

You write: 'I made the choice to come in, does that make them immune to any type of lawsuit because I had the choice to come in or not? '

That's right: YOU IGNORED THE WARNING OF THE PROPERTY OWNER.

Let me get this right: If there was a sign that said on my private property: OWNER WILL SHOOT TRESPASSERS are you really saying the owner is CRIMINALLY responsible for the death? Give me a f*cking break. Right..... I didn't think so.. it's only signs you agree with that should be obeyed.

[Turbo Teg]

126. Are you not able

to comprehend what I'm saying? You are not making sense what so ever. Please quote were I said I wanted to force anybody to have guns on there property? What warning are you talking about ignoring? I know you are not suggesting putting a warning sign makes someone immune to negligence? Are you saying that if I post a sign on my property saying I will kill you if you trespass then I won't be held criminaly liable? Are you saying that if I post a sign on my house that says "I have loaded guns" and your kid comes over, finds it, and accidently shoots himself that I shouldn't be held liable for negligence? Your dead wrong if that's what you think, because that's not the way it works.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

128. Didn't Answer the Question Did You?

With all due respect, are you really telling me that no one is safe without a gun on their property and that I have to have YOU on my private property and that i have to have YOUR gun on my private property while you are drinking to be acting responsible?

[Turbo Teg]

133. Ummm

I'm not telling you anything. You don't HAVE to have anyone on your property. That's not the point. What are you talking about with the drinking? I answered your questions in another post. You should answer mine.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

135. Here

You write: 'You don't HAVE to have anyone on your property.'

And I sure as heck don't need you coming on to anyone's property, including their restaurant or bar, demanding the right to have a gun on THEIR property.

The only one breaking the law is someone who comes onto private property with a gun after being warned with a sign that says "NO GUNS PERMITTED". That's called trespassing.

Do you agree or disagree?

Once we agree on the facts of the questions, I'll be happy to consider your questions.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

129. Let's Put It Another Way For You

Here are two simple questions you can answer with a yes or no.

Are you really saying that someone is criminally negligent when they post a sign "No Guns Allowed on My Property" and someone ignores that sign and trespasses with a gun?
Are you really holding law abiding citizens who do not own or want guns criminally responsible for the crimes of others?

[Turbo Teg]

132. Ok, here are two simple answers.

"Are you really saying that someone is criminally negligent when they post a sign "No Guns Allowed on My Property" and someone ignores that sign and trespasses with a gun?"

My answer is this. If you own a buisness, and you post a "no guns allowed sign" and take no further action to make sure that nobody is armed (metal detectors,) and/or at least have an armed officer there to ensure the safety of the patrons, then you should be able to be held liable if someone gets injured/killed during the commission of a crime on said property, especially had the person had the means to protect himself if the sign was not posted. If you DO take appropriate measures to enforce your policy, then you would not be held liable.

"Are you really holding law abiding citizens who do not own or want guns criminally responsible for the crimes of others?"

No. I am not holding them responsable for the crimes of others. What they are bieng held responsable for is my safety when on their property. The same way they would be held responsable if I came into thier place of buisness and there damn roof fell on my head.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

136. NUTS

You write: My answer is this. If you own a buisness, and you post a "no guns allowed sign" and take no further action to make sure that nobody is armed (metal detectors,) and/or at least have an armed officer there to ensure the safety of the patrons, then you should be able to be held liable if someone gets injured/killed during the commission of a crime on said property, especially had the person had the means to protect himself if the sign was not posted."

What a crock of sh*t. Really. The only person BREAKING the law is the person with a gun. No one is forcing anyone to go on anyone's private property. With all due respect (refraining from what I really want to say), your THINKING is ....... nuts.

I asked: '"Are you really holding law abiding citizens who do not own or want guns criminally responsible for the crimes of others?"

You respond: 'No. I am not holding them responsable for the crimes of others. What they are bieng held responsable for is my safety when on their property.'

The only person breaking the law is the person with the gun by trespassing. I'm sure you can sue them since it was THEIR actions that caused the unsafe situation...... not the law abiding property owner.

[EricTeri]

137. You really dont have any idea how much you just fucked your own argument here do you? N/T

[fightthegoodfightnow]

138. Whatever

.
When you have something to say.... you just go right ahead and say it. Until then, your post has all the significance and importance of the space above..

[Turbo Teg]

140. You just can't grasp things I guess.

Anyhow, you shouldn't really have a problem with this. Considering you think putting up a sign will keep the bad people with guns out, nothing should ever happen to anybody on the owners property. They'd never be sued for negligence because no one will ever get hurt, right?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

142. Let's Help You

Ok............ let's try this another way.

Someone enters your house with a gun on your private property after you post a sign and you kill or permanently injure them with your gun, are you really telling me the family has a legitimate financial claim against the property owner?

Nonsense

Please don't say that is different from the scenerio I mentioned other than perhaps you have a CHOICE....that's right a CHOICE...... to enter their restaurant knowing they do not want guns there.

[Turbo Teg]

143. Why would

A person breaking into my home have any right to sue me? Do you even understand what I'm saying, because I don't think you do.

Answer some questions for me.

1) Do you think that putting up a "no guns sign" will keep people with guns out? If yes, explain why.

2) Do you think that because people have a choice of to be in an establishment or not, that gives the property owner immunity to any type of negligence that happens on there property?

3) Would you hold a bartender liable after over serving a patron even after the person is obviously heavily in-toxicated and can barely walk, and the person ended up dieing or getting into a car accident? What about a gun dealer who sells a gun to a guy that's drunk even though he passes a background check and he kills himself with it?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

144. Not Unlike My Question

You ask: "Why would a person breaking into my home have any right to sue me?"

Didn't read what I wrote. His family is suing you. But regardless, you make my point and I would respond by saying:

Why would someone who is NOT breaking the law be responsible for the actions of someone who does?

You ask: '1) Do you think that putting up a "no guns sign" will keep people with guns out? "

I have no idea, but I would suspect that someone might reconsider going into a bar or restaurant with a gun under such a situation. Even if they did not, using your logic it is giving YOU the choice to take that into consideration when YOU decide on whether or not YOUR safety is at risk.

You write: '2) Do you think that because people have a choice of to be in an establishment or not, that gives the property owner immunity to any type of negligence that happens on there property?"

Well, first of all, it would have to be a CRIMINAL or NEGLIGENT ........ and here is the big word ACTION they took. There is no 'action' here other than giving you a choice to enter or not. Ever heard of "Buyer Beware"?

You ask: 'Would you hold a bartender liable after over serving a patron even after the person is obviously heavily in-toxicated and can barely walk, and the person ended up dieing or getting into a car accident? What about a gun dealer who sells a gun to a guy that's drunk even though he passes a background check and he kills himself with it?"

Of course not, but in your situation the bartender did something AGAINST the law that was criminal and negligent.

[Turbo Teg]

149. Ok. Now...

"You ask: "Why would a person breaking into my home have any right to sue me?"

Didn't read what I wrote. His family is suing you. But regardless, you make my point and I would respond by saying:

Why would someone who is NOT breaking the law be responsible for the actions of someone who does?"

Because my actions were within the law at this point, and there would have been no negligence present. A buisness that wants to ban guns on the premises should put other security measures in place, or should be held more liable for negligence should something occur. I also believe there is a difference between having a no guns policy at work ( buisness, and such) vs. a no guns policy at home. Kinda like you can't discriminate against a persons race at work or at a shopping store, but you can at home with no legal recourse.


You ask: '1) Do you think that putting up a "no guns sign" will keep people with guns out? "

"I have no idea, but I would suspect that someone might reconsider going into a bar or restaurant with a gun under such a situation. Even if they did not, using your logic it is giving YOU the choice to take that into consideration when YOU decide on whether or not YOUR safety is at risk."

Who do you think would reconsider, the law abiding CCW holder, or the criminal?

"You ask: 'Would you hold a bartender liable after over serving a patron even after the person is obviously heavily in-toxicated and can barely walk, and the person ended up dieing or getting into a car accident? What about a gun dealer who sells a gun to a guy that's drunk even though he passes a background check and he kills himself with it?"

Of course not, but in your situation the bartender did something AGAINST the law that was criminal and negligent. "


Of course not you wouldn't hold them liable? Your right it is against the law for a bartender to do that, but if it wasn't?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

150. Reality

You write: 'Because my actions were within the law at this point, and there would have been no negligence present."

Not unlike the restaurant owner who puts up a sign saying "NO GUNS ALLOWED". He has broken no law either, has he?

You ask: 'Who do you think would reconsider, the law abiding CCW holder, or the criminal?"

Doesn't matter.

You ask: 'Your right it is against the law for a bartender to do that, but if it wasn't?"

It's against the law to serve liquor to someone intoxicated.
It's against the law to trespass on someone's property when clearly they do not want you or your guns.

Suggesting there is a situation that would legally permit a bartender to give a drunk a drink (not to mention never going to happen) and comparing it to what is potentially a very real situation is just silly.

[Turbo Teg]

151. Response

"You write: 'Because my actions were within the law at this point, and there would have been no negligence present."

Not unlike the restaurant owner who puts up a sign saying "NO GUNS ALLOWED". He has broken no law either, has he?"

Your right, he has broken no law, but he has potentially caused un-safe conditions by banning guns on his property and not taken appropiatte actions to look after the security of his customers, thust, possibly liable.


"You ask: 'Who do you think would reconsider, the law abiding CCW holder, or the criminal?"

Doesn't matter. "

Yes it does.

"It's against the law to serve liquor to someone intoxicated.
It's against the law to trespass on someone's property when clearly they do not want you or your guns."

Trespassing is illegal weather you have guns or not. Moot point.


Suggesting there is a situation that would legally permit a bartender to give a drunk a drink (not to mention never going to happen) and comparing it to what is potentially a very real situation is just silly.


It wasn't always illegal for a bartender to serve an already intoxicated person. What I was trying to say was that if it WAS NOT Illegal, would you hold the bartender to any sense of liablity.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

156. More on the Issue

You write: 'Your right, he has broken no law, but he has potentially caused un-safe conditions by banning guns on his property and not taken appropiatte actions to look after the security of his customers, thust, possibly liable."

So you think alcohol doesn't increase the risk of gun violence in a bar? If that were true, I would question why you didn't give that man a gun when he was drunk.

You write "Trespassing is illegal weather you have guns or not. Moot point."

It is precisely because you are bringing a gun when you were instructed not to enter with one that you are trespassing.

You write: 'It wasn't always illegal for a bartender to serve an already intoxicated person. What I was trying to say was that if it WAS NOT Illegal, would you hold the bartender to any sense of liablity."

State rulings on the issue varied prior to most states having DRAM laws making such a situation illegal in virtual ALL states. Perhaps you make a valid point, but what makes it mute is the fact that such laws EXIST precisely because it was unsafe. No one is safer by having a drunk 'protect' anyone when they can't even stand up straight.

[Turbo Teg]

173. I don't feel like posting a title.

"You write: 'Your right, he has broken no law, but he has potentially caused un-safe conditions by banning guns on his property and not taken appropiatte actions to look after the security of his customers, thust, possibly liable."

So you think alcohol doesn't increase the risk of gun violence in a bar? If that were true, I would question why you didn't give that man a gun when he was drunk."

I don't know weather alchohol increases gun violence, but I would doubt that people with CCWs are going to go to bars and get into gun fights. Even if they were more likely to get into a gun fight in a bar, nothings stopping them from going to thier car, getting a gun and comming back. Also, your assuming that everyone who goes to a bar is going to get drunk. Not everyone who goes to a bar gets drunk. I wasn't the person who denied the sale (although I would have) but we did because the guy was drunk, and that would have been negligent. I can almost guarantee you that had he had just A beer (singular, 1 beer) which would have put him under the legal limit, he would have been able to purchase a firearm as he would not have been acting like a drunk and probably wouldn't reek of alchohol, and we wouldn't have known.

All this bar talk is making me thirsty so I will be going to the bar in a minute. Do you have yahoo messanger or something. It would be way easier argueing with you on there LOL. Anyhow, I don't even know how we got on the subject of bringing guns into bars anyway. I guess I'll argue with you when I get back. Later.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

175. Guns

I asked 'So you think alcohol doesn't increase the risk of gun violence in a bar? If that were true, I would question why you didn't give that man a gun when he was drunk."

You respond: "I don't know weather alchohol increases gun violence, but I would doubt that people with CCWs are going to go to bars and get into gun fights."

That's not the situation I asked about. Let's break it down: Do you think alcohol impairs someone's judgment?

You state: 'Do you have yahoo messanger or something. It would be way easier argueing with you on there LOL. Anyhow, I don't even know how we got on the subject of bringing guns into bars anyway. I guess I'll argue with you when I get back. Later."

Fair enough. Night. I do not do IM's well...... I had a bad virus experience years ago and have refrained ever since. Thanks for the quality of the conversation even if we disagree.

[Turbo Teg]

181. I can agree to disagree. Catch you tommorow.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

182. Night.........and Thanks.

.

[EricTeri]

221. You wrote:

"Why would someone who is NOT breaking the law be responsible for the actions of someone who does?"

VERY good question. That is the core of the issue most of us have with gun control. Why should I, as a law abiding citizen who is not breaking the law, be responsible for the actions of those who do? Why should the law abiding gun owner be treated like a criminal?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

257. Simple

They are not 'being treated like a criminal'.

That would require them to be convicted and sentenced.

[benEzra]

107. You're the one who would deny the owner the choice to allow carry or not.

You do not have a constitutional right to bring your gun onto anyone's property.

I didn't argue that I did. I'm not saying that a property owner shouldn't be able to post their business as a no-carry zone; they are free to do that even if the state does not ban carry in restaurants. That's not the issue.

What you are saying is that a property owner shouldn't even have the option of allowing authorized individuals to carry in their restaurant by choosing not to post it as a no-carry zone. You would make CHL's null and void in ALL restaurants that have a wine list, regardless of the owners' views. Which makes it a bit ironic that you are hiding behind the "my property, my rules" argument, because proprietor's choice is what I support and you deny in this particular case.

The law you advocate would deny the property owner the right to set her/his own carry policy for her/his own restaurant, by simply banning lawful carry across the board unless the restaurant gives up its wine list and pretends all its customers are Baptist teetotalers.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

111. Interesting Argument

But I'm not buying it. The difference is the consumer should have a clear understanding of what environment they are coming into. If the state required a sign posting the policy of the owner, I would perhaps support it.

Of course, you seem to disagree with Turbo so I would be interested in hearing his or her perspective on your point of view.

[SteveM]

112. "If the state required a sign posting the policy of the owner..."

Why should an owner be required by government to post such a sign? To make you feel better? You really wouldn't know who has a gun on them, sign or no.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

115. Ridiculous

You ask: 'Why should an owner be required by government to post such a sign? To make you feel better? You really wouldn't know who has a gun on them, sign or no"

Why should you be 'required' to go onto THEIR property? Short answer is you are not!!!! If you do not want to come onto PRIVATE property knowing it is THEIR policy not to tolerate concealed weapons, why are THEY responsible for YOUR choice?

You've heard of the sign: "BEWARE OF DOG"? Not much different. You want to go onto private property and not follow the instructions of the property owner, then my suggestion is you consider getting a good lawyer.

[SteveM]

117. Profoundly ridiculous: doesn't even make sense.

No where was any mention of "requiring" anyone to go onto "THEIR" or anyone else's property. Non-issue.

Rather than dealing with lawyers, why don't you just ask the proprietor what his/her policy is regarding: guns, smoking, loud flatulence, warm beer, big-bottomed women, tattoos, etc. The proprietor of a business may or may not post a sign (if that makes you feel better), but if I have a question, I'll ask.

I really can't make sense of your argument. I will say this: advertising a site as "Gun-Free Zone" is an advertisement for some wacko mass-murderer. Even Dylan Klebold opposed CCW in Colorado when it was up for debate. I guess we don't have to wonder why.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

118. ILLOGICAL

You want to go on PRIVATE property, do so at YOUR risk.

Get it now?

[HiDemGunOwner]

145. Incorrect

"You want to go on PRIVATE property, do so at YOUR risk."

As an "invitee" into a business establishment, you do not enter at your own risk. There are a myriad of safety issues the proprietor needs to address in order to avoid the liability associated with an unsafe condition that results in harm or injury to the invitee. If a business choses to create a "gun free zone" and in doing so disarms a citizen that could otherwise carry a concealed weapon, and that now disarmed citizen becomes the victim of violence while in that business/gun free zone, then the owner of the business should be held liable for any injuries/damages that results because the business caused the unsafe condition i.e., created a situation where someone wasn't able to defend themselves as they would have been able to do if not at that particular business.

The standard used for determining if the owner is liable for injuries incurred is that he/she "knew or should have known" of the hazard or condition that led to the injury/accident. I think it would be difficult for the business (restaurant/bar/mall) to argue that they didn't, or couldn't have know, that the possibility of an incidence of armed violence might happen. Especially if they armed them self or had any other protections (alarms, guards) in place. Once that threshold was established, the owner could indeed be could liable. It would certainly make for an interesting case.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

146. Huh?

It is PRECISELY because the owner does NOT want your guns on his property while you are drinking that he is being PRO-ACTIVE about the safety of others.

Anyone who disregards his sign is criminally trespassing and breaking the law.

You write: 'I think it would be difficult for the business (restaurant/bar/mall) to argue that they didn't, or couldn't have know, that the possibility of an incidence of armed violence might happen."

Might happen? Well, if that is the standard, then INCREASING the number of guns is CERTAIN to increase the risk of someone using a gun. See, this is a central point I just don't get with gun advocates. Why do you think having MORE guns reduces gun violence? Does having MORE cars reduce car accidents? Of course not.

[HiDemGunOwner]

153. Incorrect, again

"See, this is a central point I just don't get with gun advocates. Why do you think having MORE guns reduces gun violence? Does having MORE cars reduce car accidents? Of course not."

Really? Most states that have loosened concealed carry restrictions have realized a reduction in crime of all sorts, including gun crime.

"Might happen? Well, if that is the standard, then INCREASING the number of guns is CERTAIN to increase the risk of someone using a gun."

Nope...wrong again. See above. How many shootings break out in bars in Vermont? What about restaurants in Florida? How many CCW holders have been involved in unprovoked gun battles? I haven't heard of any, but assuming such behavior would draw the attention of authorities and result in revocation of a CCW, I would bet (any amount you choose) that it's minuscule to none.

This argument is about not allowing legally armed citizens to protect themselves in the manner they feel is most effective. Denying them that right, as the business owners who want to restrict lawful concealed carry do, should increase the responsibilities of that business owner for the safety of the invitees. As private property owners you may indeed restrict firearms, but you cannot escape the responsibilities of providing a safe environment, and the increased liability if you fail to do so. Increasing premise liability requirements are the norm, and it might be possible to formulate a legal argument that depriving a citizen the means to protect themselves by diarming them makes the business owner liable for any damages that occur should something bad happen. It is interesting to note that as a business owner you probably have more responsibility to protect your invitees than the police do to protect citizens in general. It will be interesting to see what happens when a shooting victim of one of these gun free zones turns out to be a CCW holder who was denied the ability to carry and initiates a law suit against the business owners. Might set some very interesting precedents.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

154. Incorrect Again

You write: 'Really? Most states that have loosened concealed carry restrictions have realized a reduction in crime of all sorts, including gun crime."

Wrong. Even assuming that is true, there are a number of factors that go into crime and the notion it is all or even any is attributed to concealed weapons is ludicrous.

You write: 'How many shootings break out in bars in Vermont? What about restaurants in Florida? How many CCW holders have been involved in unprovoked gun battles?"

I have no idea, but I'm really missing your point. Increasing guns certainly increases the probability of gun accidents and gun crime.

You write: 'This argument is about not allowing legally armed citizens to protect themselves in the manner they feel is most effective. Denying them that right, as the business owners who want to restrict lawful concealed carry do, should increase the responsibilities of that business owner for the safety of the invitees."

Crazy. Simply crazy logic. It is their property. It is YOUR choice to come on to their property and they are NOT inviting you do so with a gun. Criminalizing law abiding citizens for not wanting guns on THEIR property is just SILLY. No one is forcing you to go on their property, are they? In fact, that sign is INCREASING your knowledge of what the situation is there and by so doing, you can make a personal assessment and an informed decision on whether or not your safety is at risk.

No laws are being broken by someone having NO GUNS posted on their private property.

As for liability (not to mention risk), I believe a bar is increasing their liability by having guns on the premise (not to mention their insurance) when guns are allowed. Just ask the NRA who opposes any legislation that allows guns in places where alcohol is served. Just ask the insurance companies. Just ask the restaurant owners. The ultimate choice about what is on someone's private property should be up to the individual owner.

Oh..........and let me add.......... giving the state the power to decide for the property owner whether or not you should be required to have a gun is not unlike giving them the power to take your guns away.

[HiDemGunOwner]

174. How many times do you have to be incorrect before actually reading something?

"I have no idea, but I'm really missing your point. Increasing guns certainly increases the probability of gun accidents and gun crime."

I have to agree with the "I have no idea" part.

"No laws are being broken by someone having NO GUNS posted on their private property."

Never said there was.

"You write: 'Really? Most states that have loosened concealed carry restrictions have realized a reduction in crime of all sorts, including gun crime."

"Wrong. Even assuming that is true, there are a number of factors that go into crime and the notion it is all or even any is attributed to concealed weapons is ludicrous."

I never said it was the sole reason, just one of the factors.

Your comment about the NRA opposing any legislation that allows guns where alcohol is served is false. Get your "facts" straight. http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=3443

And for the last time (hopefully) since you cannot seem to grasp the simple concept that any legislation of this sort would simply allow the resturant owner instead of the State to decide if concealed carry would be allowed.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

176. NRA

Sorry for the confusion about the NRA.... I was referring to the National Restaurant Association.

I have no problem with the restaurant owner deciding in states that permit guns. I take exception to your claim that it would increase their liability if they elected not to permit guns. That's just crazy.

The National Restaurant Association and the insurance carriers of restaurants who allow guns disagree.

And for the last time, do you think that when you give the state the authority to hold someone criminally liable for NOT having a gun when a crime happens, you are also giving them the power to DENY you a gun?

[HiDemGunOwner]

183. Do you actually read my posts?

"And for the last time, do you think that when you give the state the authority to hold someone criminally liable for NOT having a gun when a crime happens, you are also giving them the power to DENY you a gun?"

I never suggested that someone (I assume you are referring to a owner that disallows firearms in his establishment, so correct me if I am incorrect) be "criminally " liable. I was speaking about civil liability as it pertains to the requirement for businesses to maintain a safe environment for their invitees and the interesting, if yet unproven, legal argument that depriving a CCW holder from carrying his weapon into an establishment would raise the standard of responsibility for safety in the event that CCW was injured as a result of a violent act that he might otherwise have prevented if not deprived of his firearm.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

185. Liability

Did it ever occur to you that drinking impairs judgment and that just might create an unsafe situation if a gun present?

Do you think someone who even has one drink is a better shooter than when he has had none?

Do you think that someone might accidently have collateral damage when he attempts to use a gun when drinking?

Do you think that someone is able to assess the reality of any situation better when they drink?

For all these reasons, restaurant insurance premiums and RISK are lower when guns are not legally allowed.

Their liability is REDUCED when guns are not allowed.

[HiDemGunOwner]

187. I never made the argument that drinking doesn't impair judgement.

Where did you get that? Pulling inflammatory accusations out of thin air doesn't make you look credible.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

189. You Mean LIke

........ asserting out of the blue that someone's liability for not allowing guns increases by the actions of others who either choose to come on the premise or who choose to ignore the restrictions imposed on them ?

[HiDemGunOwner]

191. Do you like to listen to the sound of your fingers typing?

I NEVER advocated ignoring posted signs. What is your problem? My comments were not "out of the blue" as the premise of increased liability was mentioned by another poster. ANd don't take this wrong, but what the hell are you trying to say?
"asserting out of the blue that someone's liability for not allowing guns increases by the actions of others who either choose to come on the premise or who choose to ignore the restrictions imposed on them ?"

[fightthegoodfightnow]

199. What is YOUR Problem?

You write: 'I NEVER advocated ignoring posted signs. What is your problem?"

MY problem? Sounds like YOU have a problem.

Let's be clear: I understand perfectly that you have NEVER advocated ignoring a posted sign. That was never in dispute. What I take issue is that the person who owns the property should be held liable for the actions of someone who does.

Allowing a gun on the property or not allowing a gun on the property is irrelevant to the discussion of anyone other than the criminal being responsible for his or her actions. Some have argued that to deny someone the 'right' to carry a gun on their property increases the risk of endangerment.. I have argued just the opposite.... that allowing guns in a bar or restaurant is more likely to increase accidents, shootings and harm. As evidence, I offer the support of the National Restaurant Association (Exhibit A), who has more of an interest in restaurants/bars than you. They, like most restaurant/bar owners, not unlike most Americans, know that the combination of guns and alcohol are not good (Exhibit B - Dick Cheney's one beer hunting trip).

Let's see if you can elevate the conversation a bit. Give it a try.

[HiDemGunOwner]

204. Elevate the conversation??

A request from you asking to "elevate the conversation a bit" is laughable at best based on your history of argumentative and illogical posts. I have repeatedly tried to "elevate" as you say, the conversation by attempting to bring you back on point and to insist that you accurately represent my opinions in your reply posts. Respect begets respect. Give it a try.

I checked out the "real NRA" and could find nary a reference to firearms or guns on their site. If you would like to provide a link to validate the comments about their position on the subject at hand, please feel free to do so. Otherwise I will reserve judgment about your comments until a verifiable source can be found.

If you are indeed serious about "elevating" the conversation, I am more than happy to oblige. Shall we start now?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

207. The National Restaurant Association

Following state chapters reporting:

ARIZONA
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0426guns-veto26.html
Added Don Isaacson of the Arizona Restaurant Association, "We believe the state is safer today with the governor's veto."

TENNESSEE
http://www.coltcco.com/?p=194
We’ve found that the Tennessee Restaurant Association is fighting us on the so-called “Carry in Bars bill”, HB702 (PDF link to the bill). Gene Kennedy, of Legally Armed spoke to them earlier this week, and they said they’d fight the bill “tooth and nail”. It’s on their legislative agenda, along with opposing lowering the BAC and other stuf'

VIRGINIA
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=8534
The Restaurant Association of Virginia, which opposes the guns-in-bars bill, gets no peace of mind thinking about serving up brew to clients who may be packing heat in a purse or suit coat. Nor are the business owners much reassured that the bill has been amended to apply only in restaurants or bars where alcohol sales don't exceed 30 percent of the total. As a restaurant association attorney noted: ``It's not about dining with your gun. Its about drinking with your gun.''


FLORIDA
(Although more related to guns in the workplace)
http://www.flra.com/legislative#legislative3


PS - The National Restaurant Association is organized by a confederation of state associations where most gun legislation is enacted. The national NRA has opposed any legislation that allows guns in bars and restaurants. If and when I can find a newsletter regarding the issue, I will send to you. There has never been one single NRA State Association that has done anything other than oppose any legislation permitting guns in bars or restaurants. Not one.

[HiDemGunOwner]

210. Thanks. I'll review the links as soon as I can n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

279. Can't Wait

.................. still waiting...............................

[HiDemGunOwner]

217. Disarming potential invitees is relevant

"I understand perfectly that you have NEVER advocated ignoring a posted sign. That was never in dispute. What I take issue is that the person who owns the property should be held liable for the actions of someone who does. Allowing a gun on the property or not allowing a gun on the property is irrelevant to the discussion of anyone other than the criminal being responsible for his or her actions."

Interesting position regarding the concept that the criminal should be responsible for their actions, since it seems on previous posts you leaned more toward the "guns kill" mentality versus the "criminal who uses the gun kills" mindset, but maybe I misinterpreted some of those posts. However, the problem, from a premise liability standpoint, is that the business owner is responsible for the patron's/invitee's safety. If the owner posted a sign that said no guns, then patrons who heeded it and entered could argue (successfully I believe) that in doing so, they had a reasonable expectation that the owner enforced that rule with measures that a reasonable person in similar circumstances would have. Since in all of the hypothetical discussed thus far we haven't specified what actions the business owner took in order to ensure that facility was indeed "gun free" we'll discuss that aspect, in light of what other facilities that prohibit guns do, in just a moment. Presuming that the business owner didn't actively screen newly arriving patrons for weapons, one might argue negligence on that owners part because he didn't take reasonable measures to ensure compliance with his "sign." An analogy might be made to a business that posts a "No Food or Drink" sign but does not enforce it. An invitee comes into the store with a drink and subsequently spills it while shopping but doesn't notify the owner. A third party (someone unrelated to the invitee that spilled the drink or the owner) ends up slipping on the spilled drink and injuring himself. The owner is liable for that third person's injuries. That scenario is a real one so please do not try to dismiss it as unlikely or implausible.

Now back to the firearm scenario: So an invitee who has a CCW heeds the sign and secures his weapon before entering the business. Complying with the posted instructions and not otherwise being barred entry, he is an invitee in all sense of the legal definition. He enters based on the belief that that owner has ensured compliance and therefore has a reasonable expectation that the business is gun free. However, there is no active screening similar to other places that prohibit weapons such as court houses, airports, etc., If and when someone (a criminal) brings a gun into the business because the owner did not actively screen arriving patrons, and that disarmed CCW holder get injured, it is possible that he (the injured CCW holder) may have standing to bring forth a claim against the owner. Has it happened? Not yet. Is it possible? Based on circumstances similar to the above and some of the judgments I have seen in other premise liability cases, I believe it is entirely possible. After all, who thought someone would be able to sue a restaurant for selling hot coffee?

So, despite your assertions to the contrary, the fact that the business disarmed someone as a condition of entrance is neither irrelevant or without potential risks to the business owner.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

243. Reality

You write: 'the fact that the business disarmed someone as a condition of entrance is neither irrelevant or without potential risks to the business owner.'

And WHOSE choice is it to enter what you claim is SOOOOOOOOOOO dangerous?

Even assuming your entire argument is true (and it's not), the benefits of not having guns FAR out weight what you claim is significant liability for NOT allowing them. Alcohol and guns do not mix well.

Exhibit A: Insurance premiums for restaurants in states that allow guns in bars and restaurants.

[HiDemGunOwner]

264. Whos' reality?

"And WHOSE choice is it to enter what you claim is SOOOOOOOOOOO dangerous?"

It matters not why someone chose to enter a business. Only that they did. That creates an obligation of the owner to ensure a safe environment. Oh, and by the way, I suppose the caps and the multiple "o's" were yet another attempt to keep this conversation "elevated?"

"Even assuming your entire argument is true (and it's not), the benefits of not having guns FAR out weight what you claim is significant liability for NOT allowing them."

Your opinions are not facts and so far, I have seen nothing about insurance premiums being increased for those businesses that may allow firearms. Your "Exhibit A" if far from conclusive.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

271. Reality Indeed

You write: 'It matters not why someone chose to enter a business. Only that they did.'

So I should ignore those disclaimers when I assume risk when riding a roller coaster?

Not.

Your opinions are not facts and so far, I have seen nothing from you about a single chapter of the National Restaurant Association supporting admitting guns into a bar as a way to reduce their liability. The reality is they universally oppose such attempts because it would INCREASE their liability.

[HiDemGunOwner]

274. Assuming known risks on your roller coaster is not

analogous to either the hypotheticals or general premise liability theory. In the roller coaster, should you suffer an injury due to the known gravitational forces, you would not be able to initiate an action becuse you assumed the known risks. If that roller coaster flew off th rails and your were injured, you would have standing for a suit.

Your statments about the "real NRA" and any increased costs based on assumed increased liability expousure are still unsubstantiated. References please.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

277. Huh?

Known gravitation force?

Is that like knowing a bullet is likely to come out of a gun?

As for the National Restaurant Association, I have posted those links and you have yet to respond to a single link I made. Not one.

I can't wait for you to find one state association of the National Restaurant Association that supports allowing guns into a bar or restaurant as a way to reduce their liability.

[HiDemGunOwner]

281. Your analogy lacks applicability

and again demonstrates your apparent lack of understanding. Go read it again if you misuderstand it.

I never said that the "real NRA" supported the idea of allowing firearms. You said it didn't and as of yet have failed to provide any factual basis for your stated opinions.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

284. Reality........... and still no response from you since yesterday

Following state chapters reporting:

ARIZONA
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/...
Added Don Isaacson of the Arizona Restaurant Association, "We believe the state is safer today with the governor's veto."

TENNESSEE
http://www.coltcco.com/?p=194
We’ve found that the Tennessee Restaurant Association is fighting us on the so-called “Carry in Bars bill”, HB702 (PDF link to the bill). Gene Kennedy, of Legally Armed spoke to them earlier this week, and they said they’d fight the bill “tooth and nail”. It’s on their legislative agenda, along with opposing lowering the BAC and other stuf'

VIRGINIA
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=8534
The Restaurant Association of Virginia, which opposes the guns-in-bars bill, gets no peace of mind thinking about serving up brew to clients who may be packing heat in a purse or suit coat. Nor are the business owners much reassured that the bill has been amended to apply only in restaurants or bars where alcohol sales don't exceed 30 percent of the total. As a restaurant association attorney noted: ``It's not about dining with your gun. Its about drinking with your gun.''


FLORIDA
(Although more related to guns in the workplace)
http://www.flra.com/legislative#legislative3


PS - The National Restaurant Association is organized by a confederation of state associations where most gun legislation is enacted. The national NRA has opposed any legislation that allows guns in bars and restaurants. If and when I can find a newsletter regarding the issue, I will send to you. There has never been one single NRA State Association that has done anything other than oppose any legislation permitting guns in bars or restaurants. Not one.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

287. Still Waiting

I can't wait for you to find one state association of the National Restaurant Association that supports allowing guns into a bar or restaurant as a way to reduce their liability.

[HiDemGunOwner]

290. I won't be looking for that info...you're the one that made the as of now, baseless claims.

Let's see you back up your claims with facts. Still waiting.....

And, as much as I love this exchange, I have to leave as I fly out to that entirely fact-devoid endevour to create questions for a national board exam.....enjoy the rest of your weekend.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

291. Not to Worry

It doesn't exist.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

297. Still Waiting

I can't wait for you to find one state association of the National Restaurant Association that supports allowing guns into a bar or restaurant as a way to reduce their liability.

Heck, YESTERDAY, I posted links from state associations...........at I might add your request............that opposed allowing guns in restaurants and bars ......... and you have yet to respond.

But heh........... it comes as no surprise you are unwilling to back up your own statements.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

298. Me Think the Man Doth Protest Too Much

Anything on the 'national board exam' related to guns? Didn't think so.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

148. Illogical

You write: 'As an "invitee" into a business establishment, you do not enter at your own risk.'

Do you think that someone is inviting someone to come in with their gun when they have a sign that says "You Cannot Bring a Gun Into This Establishment"?

There was NO INVITATION to bring your gun onto his property when the sign clearly says otherwise.

[HiDemGunOwner]

155. I didn't advocate ingnoring any posted signs

I was simply suggesting that disarming your invitee may lead to greater liability exposure.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

158. Liability

As oppose to allowing someone to drink and use a gun on property?

If you were a restaurant owner, your insurance company would disagree.

Just ask them.

[HiDemGunOwner]

165. Actually insurance companies look at facts to determine risks

and the associated costs of insuring against perceived risks and the facts would tend to support concealed carry as those individuals are proven time and time again to be the most law abiding and therefore, arguably, lower risks. There are establishments that do allow concealed carry in resturants that serve alcohol, and if insurance companies were so keen on not allowing it, I am sure that they would have raised those establishment's premiums or cancelled their insurance. But that hasn't happened.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

168. Exactly

..... and they have and they do.

That's why insurance premiums are higher for restaurants in states that allow guns in bars and restaurants.

That's also one of many reasons the National Restaurant Association (who I consider the 'real' NRA) opposes allowing guns in bars and restaurants.

They don't want their premium ...... or as you say...... risk to go up.

[HiDemGunOwner]

184. I am unfamilar with the "real" NRA

But you'll have to pardon the fact that I'll have to check on that myself as opposed to believing you about their position.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

152. Do You Think ....

...... the property owner should be able to legally shoot anyone who trespasses on his property carrying a gun when the property owner clearly says "NO GUNS"?

Clearly, there is NO invitation to come into any establishment if there is a sign that says "NO GUNS ALLOWED".

[HiDemGunOwner]

157. Should anyone be able to shoot someone for simply trespassing?

And ONCE AGAIN, I NEVER ADVOCATED IGNORING SIGNS EXPRESSING THE BUSINESS OWNER'S DESIRE TO EXCLUDE GUNS FROM HIS BUSINESS. I'm hoping the caps will make that point clear since you haven't caught on to that yet.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

159. Got It --------

And yet you want to hold some liable for someone else's breaking the law.

Got it.

[HiDemGunOwner]

162. Obviously you don't

But that's not really surprising....

[fightthegoodfightnow]

164. What's Not Surprising Is You Don't Get It

What part of my statement when I ask 'you want to hold some liable for someone else's breaking the law' is not true?

[HiDemGunOwner]

167. what 's not surprising is that you don't get it....

How many times do I have to repeat myself? Are you a little slow? Let me say it again: I NEVER ADVOCATED BREAKING THE LAW. I NEVER ADVOCATED FOR IGNORING A POSTED SIGN. I NEVER ADVOCATED TRYING TO CARRY WHERE YOU WERE NOT ALLOWED.

Got it? Since I never suggested breaking the law the question you pose to me is not germaine to any comments I have made.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

170. OH GOOD GRIEF

You have stated that someone is INVITING someone into their business when nothing could be further from the truth when they have a sign that reads "YOU ARE NOT WELCOMED, INVITED OR PERMITTED TO HAVE A GUN ON MY PROPERTY."

Get it?

They are NOT invited as YOU claim they are?

Get it.

Let me repeat and be clear:

THERE IS NO F*CKING INVITATION.

The notion that they should face increased liability for that is ludicrous, particularly when having a gun in a bar increases the probability that someone's judgment will be impaired and others will be put at risk.

[HiDemGunOwner]

177. THERE IS A F*CKING INVITATION

If you are so dense as to not grasp the concept, then admit it. I will be happy to explain it in more simple terms. Heck, I can even put it in CAPS if that will make it easier for you.

Let me repeat and be clear:

A business that opens its doors "invites" the customers in and becomes responsible, to varying degrees, for their safety while they are on his premises. THey may restrict firearms, but the invitation and associated liability still exists.

Since you seem to be having problems with complex (that's sarcasm) legal theory, I'll leave it there. After all, baby steps might be in order for your comprehension benefit.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

179. OK........

This is going no where.

There is NO invitation and in fact, they are not welcomed.

If you cannot grasp that simple concept, then try taking them up on what you claim is an invitation and see if you are not arrested for trespassing.

[HiDemGunOwner]

186. You are right!

This is going no where...thanks to your apparent inability to either read or comprehend simple concepts. Just for fun, why don't you go back and actually read some of the posts. Maybe you'll get it. You'll forgive me if I don't, however, hold my breath.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

188. Glad You Agree with Me on This Going No Where

I'll leave you to the insults. I don't have any personal animosity toward you, but would ask you to take your own advice.

[HiDemGunOwner]

192. Insults?

An assessment of your comprehension ability based on your responses is not an insult, it's my opinion. Don't like it? Read slower or better, either one is OK by me.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

198. Here's a News Flash

I disagree with your opinion and can do so without the need to call you stupid.

[HiDemGunOwner]

205. Interesting position.

The tone and demeanor of your posts routinely demonstrate disrespect for others who disagree with you. It is disingenous of you to seemingly take offense when someone uses the similar tactics on you. Again, respect begets respect. Give it a try.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

212. Nothing Related to Guns

.

[HiDemGunOwner]

219. Very mature way to "elevate" the discussion n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

226. Nothing Related to Guns .............

.
Again.

[HiDemGunOwner]

265. Actually there was.

It was a sad commentary about how militant anti-gun folks cannot argue a point on merits and facts without resorting to childish, immature name calling and misdirection. Sad, actually.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

267. Right........

Not a single anti-gun folk can argue a point based on merit or facts without resorting to .............. gosh......... what did you say............ childish, immature name calling and misdirection.

Keep at it. You're good at it. Unable to respond to any specific post regarding any position on guns, you just want characterize anyone who has an opinion you oppose regarding guns as being ...... 'sad'.

Let me remind you: I hold no personal animosity toward you and hope you can once again return to the topic of ............................ gosh....................... GUNS.

[HiDemGunOwner]

272. Your lack of reading skills seems to be showing again

If you thought I was talking about "all" militant anti-gun folks. Certainly my post never said "all" and I am sure there are some that can carry on a concise and reaasonable debate. You're just not one of those. Sorry, sometimes the truth hurts.

And I have no personal animosity against you. I don't know you. I only know how you act on this board when someone disagrees with you and your behavior is, IMHO, childish, immature and not indicative of someone truely interested in a factual debate on the issues. So, if you are truely interested in "elevating" the conversation, as you mentioned in one of your earlier posts, I would suggest some introspection, because if that's truely your goal, you seem to be missing it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

273. There You Go Again

I'm sure you really think I cannot read, but it really only goes to show what you know.

You just go right ahead and characterize my 'behavior' as being 'childish, immature and not indicative of someone truely interested in a factual debate on the issues'.

I have no doubt it REALLY is the best you can do.

Once again, you fail to mention or present a single argument supporting your opposition to any position I have made regarding my position on guns.

Not one.

[HiDemGunOwner]

275. Apparently you cannot count either....n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

278. Got It --------

You think you are good at insults too.

Grow up.

If and when you ready to talk about guns, please let me know.

[HiDemGunOwner]

282. Those weren't insults, just my observations

Grow up indeed. It would be nice if you heeded your own advice.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

286. And Still

.............absolutely nothing about guns.

[HiDemGunOwner]

288. Again, very mature. You learn "quickly" I see n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

289. And Again

........... nothing about guns.

Nothing.

Grow up.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

160. And Yet You DId Not Address My Central Point

Clearly, there is NO INVITATION to come into any establishment if there is a sign that says "NO GUNS ALLOWED".

Should I put that in caps?

Nah. I'll do it in red.

Just consider it.

The invitation, as you claim, doesn't exist.

[HiDemGunOwner]

161. Should I put it in caps??

As a business, if you open your doors and "invite" customers in, there is indeed an invitation and the inherent liabilities associated with that invitation. If the business does not want to allow firearms, so be it. I never suggested that one should ingnore the signs and try to enter with a firearm. However, if you choose to enter without a firearm that you would normally carry anywhere else, but didn't because of the signage/prohibition, then there is the specter of responsibility on the business owners part to provide a level of safety.

Got it? Maybe I should put it in caps?

Nah.

Just read the posts.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

163. Invitation

Do you think a sign that says YOU ARE NOT INVITED, WELCOMED OR PERMITTED TO BRING A GUN ON MY PROPERTY"' might make it clear that there is NO INVITATION?

[HiDemGunOwner]

169. Do you always have such difficulty understanding simple concepts?

As a business owner, you "invite" potential customers into your property. You may restrict them from carrying firearms, but the general invitation remains valid.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

172. I'm NOT INVITING ANYONE WHEN I SAY YOU ARE NOT WELCOMED TO BRING YOUR GUN

You are TRESPASSING.

Good grief.

If you have a sign that says you are NOT welcomed to come in with a gun, you are NOT inviting them as you so ridiculously claim.

Bar and restaurant owners are permitted to have any set of rules and conduct the law permits. They can have a two drink minimum. They can have a dress code.

If you don't like their rules, you are not only not invited, you are not welcomed and you are certainly within the law.

Not only that, the restaurants insurance carrier feels the same way as evidenced by the reduced premiums that owner faces.

[HiDemGunOwner]

178. Read my other posts

Your continued assertions that I somehow advocated that people ignore posted signs about firearms is making you look far less intellignet than you probably are.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

180. NONSENSE

I am saying that your suggestion that someone is INVITED when they are NOT is ludicrous.

Just because a business is open for business doesn't mean that EVERYONE is invited or even welcomed.

A business is legally allowed to EXCLUDE anyone not in a protected class. Heck, it doesn't even have to be posted on a sign. It can be given to them on a piece of paper to read. It can be told to them by a door man. The method is irrelevant, although there is a reasonable expectation that the person clearly understands the rule, which most courts have upheld is best done by a sign.

That means they are NOT welcomed and if they attempt to come in they will be arrested.

I'll leave you to conclude that somehow is an invitation.

It's not.

[HiDemGunOwner]

190. One more time for the super dense

While a business may exclude individuals based on whatever criteria they choose outside the protected classes you allude to, in general, an open ddor to a business is construed to be an invitation to enter. However, assuming that you are not prevented from entering, either by verbal instructions or posted ones, the invitee (that's the customer) falls under the "protection" of the business owner.

Go back an read my previous posts if you are still unclear about my position.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

197. Do Not Enter

I'm going to refrain from the insults and merely quote you and respond with what I hope is a little more dignity and respect than you have offered me, although I admit it is a very tough calling.

You write: 'While a business may exclude individuals based on whatever criteria they choose outside the protected classes you allude to, in general, an open ddor to a business is construed to be an invitation to enter."

Do you think when the sign reads "DO NOT ENTER" there is as you claim an "invitation to enter"?

Let's hope your response is a simple yes or no, but I suppose a simple response is asking for too much.

[HiDemGunOwner]

206. Depending on where it's posted and the context of the location

there is no simple answer.
Is the sign located on an interior door leading to, say a kitchen or back office of a business? Or is it located on the primary entrance to said business? Is there any other message or instructions on the sign?

But, assuming: it is located on the exterior of a primary or common entrance of a business and contains no other wording or instructions, I would say no, there is no invitation.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

209. Finally

We are in agreement.

That's right. There is NO invitation.

And what was the argument you gave for why denying someone entrance into an establishment might open them up to civil liability in case someone actually got hurt with a gun from a trespasser?

Wasn't it that all people were 'invited'?

Wasn't it you who said: 'THERE IS A F*CKING INVITATION.'

[HiDemGunOwner]

215. Yep, I said there was an invitation

And it's true...as a business your customers are termed "invitees" according to the law. The term is used because to premise of a brick and morter business is that you "invite" those individuals into your place of business in order to do business. And while a business may restrict the invitees within the confines of the law, the remaining individuals he "allows" are, that's right, invitees. If you have a problem with the concept I suggest further reading on your part, I am getting tired of repeating myself to you.

As far as explaining, again, my thoughts on the concept of liability, I suggest you go back and read my previous posts if you are still confused about my position.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

224. WOW

I think you got it.

































.
Now let's bring this full circle and once again acknowledge those who are not 'allowed' are not invited. Thank you.

[HiDemGunOwner]

266. I never said that someone not allowed in was an invitee

Your inability to comprehend or understand my multiple attempt to explain it only make your current statements of "I think you got it" all the more telling of either your bias negatively impacting your mental capabilites to understand the written word, or your deliberate refusal to actually try to understand what someone else tries to explain to you. Just another sad example. If you still need clarification on my position, go read my previous posts.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

269. Oh..... I Got Your Clarification

Those who are not 'allowed' are not invited.

[HiDemGunOwner]

276. See, I told you baby steps might be useful...n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

213. Do You Think.........

.......... that if you let a government decide who can bring a gun on your private property against your wishes without fear of liability, you are also giving them the right to decide if you can have guns at all on private property?

[HiDemGunOwner]

216. Once again, you seem to misunderstand the question

No one has suggested, nor would the Bill being discussed, force a business owner to allow someone onto their property against their wishes. It would simply allow the business owner to make that decision.

The liability issue is a separate, but related, discussion based on current application of premise liability law and how it might apply in the various situations previously described.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

227. The Bar Would Increase

............ liability for the entire industry in that state causing insurance premiums to go up for ALL without regard to their 'choice'.

[HiDemGunOwner]

268. Statements without a factual basis are just your opinion n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

270. Nah.........

............ just a fact.

Look at the premiums for restaurants in those states or heck...... ask the National Restaurant Association.

Above all, they live in a world you do not.

[HiDemGunOwner]

280. I tried to look up the info on the "real NRA's" website

It had nothing about it.....what world are you talking about? One based on facts? And I don't live in that world? Gee, let me see what litmus test I should use?

The fact that I hold an advanced degree in a hard science?

What about my clinical research? Not fact based, I guess, although the editors of the journal might disagree with you.

The fact that I am preparing to fly out of town to participate in the creation of test question for a national board exam for licensing of medical professionals?

You know nothing about me or what "world" I live in.

Another pathetic, childish, and immature response. At least you're consistent.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

283. Well ....... Now that You Have Had Time to Respond

.........and didn't. Let me remind you that you once said you would read the post originally made yesterday in which you said you would respond to but never did (despite dozens of subsequent posts). So let me repost for you:

Following state chapters reporting:

ARIZONA
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/...
Added Don Isaacson of the Arizona Restaurant Association, "We believe the state is safer today with the governor's veto."

TENNESSEE
http://www.coltcco.com/?p=194
We’ve found that the Tennessee Restaurant Association is fighting us on the so-called “Carry in Bars bill”, HB702 (PDF link to the bill). Gene Kennedy, of Legally Armed spoke to them earlier this week, and they said they’d fight the bill “tooth and nail”. It’s on their legislative agenda, along with opposing lowering the BAC and other stuf'

VIRGINIA
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=8534
The Restaurant Association of Virginia, which opposes the guns-in-bars bill, gets no peace of mind thinking about serving up brew to clients who may be packing heat in a purse or suit coat. Nor are the business owners much reassured that the bill has been amended to apply only in restaurants or bars where alcohol sales don't exceed 30 percent of the total. As a restaurant association attorney noted: ``It's not about dining with your gun. Its about drinking with your gun.''


FLORIDA
(Although more related to guns in the workplace)
http://www.flra.com/legislative#legislative3


PS - The National Restaurant Association is organized by a confederation of state associations where most gun legislation is enacted. The national NRA has opposed any legislation that allows guns in bars and restaurants. If and when I can find a newsletter regarding the issue, I will send to you. There has never been one single NRA State Association that has done anything other than oppose any legislation permitting guns in bars or restaurants. Not one.

[HiDemGunOwner]

292. Yep, haven't had much spare time

since I was trying to keep up with all of your wonderfully mature, fact-based statements and prepare to go out of town.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

293. Cut and Run

Cut and run......well....... I can't say I'm not surprised

If and when I can believe a word you say, I will give your response, whenever it comes, to my original post made yesterday, after you've made dozens of posts since then and promised to reply yet never did, the deliberation it deserves.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

166. Safety

You write: 'However, if you choose to enter without a firearm that you would normally carry anywhere else, but didn't because of the signage/prohibition, then there is the specter of responsibility on the business owners part to provide a level of safety."

Having a gun does nothing to insure anyone's safety. In fact, their principle purpose as far as 'safety' goes is to kill, maim and hurt. The increased risk associated with having guns while people's judgment is impaired with alcohol is a RISK to the owner and does nothing to insure anyone's safety.

To argue that someone is safer with a drink in one hand and a gun in the other is ludicrous.

From personal experience, I was at a party in someone's house where a co-worker's spouse got drunk and started flinging his gun (even jokingly) at someone he was having a heated debate with (it wasn't me). Do you think there was an increased risk of an accident? You bet. His wife gave the gun to someone else (bad move in my opinion, but I'm hoping it was someone licensed and trained in gun safety). She was and remains a strong NRA supporter, but when it comes to her personal safety on her property, she made the right decision for her and her guests.

[HiDemGunOwner]

194. Nothing ensures safety

And not once did I ever advocate for drinking while armed. Once again, it would behoove you to actually read my posts if you want to intelligently debate an issue.

I have personal experience with the use of a firearm in a defensive situation, and it did indeed protect the individual from the bad guy. So your anecdotal experience of a bad experience at a private party in no way is "evidence" relevant to the population of CCW holders everywhere. Oh, and it was at a function where alcohol was served, and no, he wasn't drinking.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

196. Exactly

You write: 'Nothing ensures safety."

Good point. That is exactly why I disagree with those on this board who insist that someone should face civil liability for denying someone the ability to bring a gun on their private property.

A gun most certainly does not insure safety.

[HiDemGunOwner]

208. Neither does NOT having a gun

I am not suggesting that a business owner incur some sort of liability for simply refusing to allow an otherwise legal CCW holder from coming into his/her establishment. However, if that business owner chooses to take that action, then IF a situation occurred where the presence of a weapon could have protected that CCW holder, and that CCW holder incurred injuries, THEN conceivably the business owner could be subject to some liability under the theory that he didn't provide a safe environment for the invitees and simultaneously deprived that CCW holder from being able to protect himself in the manner he otherwise would have been able to.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

211. Ok

You write: 'I am not suggesting that a business owner incur some sort of liability for simply refusing to allow an otherwise legal CCW holder from coming into his/her establishment. '

Well thanks for that clarification because it certainly wasn't clear in the thread.

You write: 'However, if that business owner chooses to take that action, then IF a situation occurred where the presence of a weapon could have protected that CCW holder, and that CCW holder incurred injuries, THEN conceivably the business owner could be subject to some liability under the theory that he didn't provide a safe environment for the invitees and simultaneously deprived that CCW holder from being able to protect himself in the manner he otherwise would have been able to."

Nonsense. The fact that one party ignore the rule of the property owner and indeed broke the law while the other didn't makes only the person who did responsible.

Please do tell me again what makes for a safer environment when someone is drinking and has a gun? Do you think the fact that they allowed guns on their premise might create some liability for them?

[HiDemGunOwner]

218. OK - reply

"Nonsense. The fact that one party ignore the rule of the property owner and indeed broke the law while the other didn't makes only the person who did responsible."

Your (and I mean this with no disrespect) ignorance of premise liability issues is showing. Business owners everywhere have been held responsible for the actions of both invitees and, as you call those that disregard posted signage, trespassers. That you somehow think it magically won't apply in such a hypothetical as you suggest is amazingly naive and illogical.

"Please do tell me again what makes for a safer environment when someone is drinking and has a gun?"

First, for someone wishing to "elevate" the conversation, I would humbly suggest that the tone of this question, especially in light of my repeated attempts to clarify any misunderstanding you may have had about my position on this, certainly doesn't convey that desire very well. But for the sake of "elevating" the conversation despite any obvious attempt on your part to adhere to your own suggestion, I will say again: I never advocated drinking while armed.

"Do you think the fact that they allowed guns on their premise might create some liability for them?"

It might. But, as previously detailed, so might disarming them.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

225. Well.........Let's Stick to What We Agree On

Having guns in a restaurant or bar will increase the liability of that restaurant or bar.

[HiDemGunOwner]

285. Nice spin on the statements, and technically correct

But you attempt to frame the statement in the manner you did shows what immature tactics you use to debate. Keep up the consistent work....

[fightthegoodfightnow]

295. Your Statement that Guns Might Increase Liability

... is on record.

Live with it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

116. Talk About Hypocrisy

The gun lobby wants you to believe that government has no right to restrict gun ownership on YOUR private property while DEMANDING that you have a right to enter SOMEONE else's private property with YOUR gun.

Give me a break.

If there is a freedom to own a gun on private property, then certainly there is a freedom to NOT have a gun on YOUR private property.

Such is the hypocrisy of the gun lobby.

[SteveM]

119. Well, in the interest of local control, this issue isn't big in Texas...

Down here, gun-rights advocates and property-rights advocates understand the conflict of rights. The issue is whether or not the law can restrict carrying guns on public property. (The center of activism on this issue is at Texas State University in San Marcos.) There may be a resolution to the 2A/private property question as it applies to public accommodations, but as of now I don't see it.

Normally, I think property rights in Texas have been blown up to mythical proportions, but even a liberal gun-controller can take comfort in this most sacred (and conservative) of rights in Texas. Ironic.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

121. Property Rights are Blown Up to Mythical Proportions?

So you have no problem with the government having an interest in your property?

:sarcasm:

Right. LOL.

[Turbo Teg]

124. Really,

The issue is the government forcing a person to disarm when entering private property, not people with private property bieng forced to let armed people in.

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[benEzra]

134. Again, the Virginia statute currently does not permit restaurant owners to ALLOW carry

unless they get rid of their wine list and cater exclusively to Baptist teetotalers.

IMHO, it should be up to the restaurant owner, and this legislation would allow that. Don't want carry, post a no-carry sign. Restaurant owners would still be free to bar guns from their property if they choose; that's not the issue here.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

141. What is the Issue

If a private citizen who owns and operates a restaurant doesn't want guns on his property, he should not be forced to allow anyone on his property, particularly someone he doesn't even know, with a gun.

You write: 'Restaurant owners would still be free to bar guns from their property if they choose; that's not the issue here.'

Then what is the issue?

Holding anyone other then the criminals who trespassed responsible for their crimes is simply not right.

Let me put it in a way the gun advocates might understand: If you come into your house unlawfully with a gun and gets killed by you, you should not be held financially responsible from their family for their family members death your property because of their unlawful action. Certainly you would agree with that?

[selador]

214. One should distinguish

One should distinguish between private property that is a place of public accomodation - restaurants, motels, etc. and those that aren't - private residences, etc.

Places of public accomodation have much stricter rules about what they can discriminate about, limit, etc.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

228. Gun Owners

........ have never been a protected class in any public accommodation law.

Have they?

[Name removed]

229. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

231. Oh GIve Me a BREAK

The notion that gun owners are or should warrant protected class status on par with race, sex or religion is ludicrous and absurd. It'll never happen because we are talking about GUNS not people.

You write: 'Weapons ownership is no different than any other protected right.'

Get a clue - There is NOT one single jurisdiction that has ever made weapons ownership a protected class in any civil rights legislation.

US v. Heller is most certainly NOT going to rule that gun owners are a protected class. They most certainly do NOT enact legislation. They rule on it.

All you have done is re-enforce the notion that so many gun advocates are simply ........... nuts.

[selador]

294. misunderstood

I wasn't implying that consideration is given to gun owners as a protected class.

The issue is not "gun owners", as a class, also. It's that the ACT of carrying a gun, if viewed as an exercise of a civil right should be given the same consideration that another act (such as freedom of speech) is given in a place of public accomodation.

That is not yet the case, but hopefully with a decision in DC v. Heller that respects the civil right of bearing arms, this may be the case once further case law is established pursuant to DC v. Heller.

A place of public accomodation could not prohibit, for example, somebody wearing a cross.

Similarly, I would hope that those who were exercising their civil rights in carrying a gun would be similarly protected from arbitrary civil rights discrimination.

But i was not implying for a second that this is currently the law (or interpretation thereof).

[fightthegoodfightnow]

296. You're Right

It's not the law today and I would doubt that Heller would make it such a law.

[selador]

299. i would prefer to say

that i hope heller will help us work towards understanding the right to carry is a civil right just like any other right protected by the bill of rights.

i am definitely not predicting this will happen.

but hope is the thing with feathers, and i'm quite well plumed :)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

300. I Believe the Court

........... will send it back to the lower court and significantly reduce the scope of the conversation rather than expand it as you think.

[selador]

301. i'm making no predictions here

i'm simply hopin'.

i've been following some of the legal briefs being filed, and reading a lot of analysis on it, but i have no prediction as to the outcome.

i am sure this will be a hot topic here though, no matter what the outcome.

LET THE WILD RUMPUS BEGIN! :)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

253. Fear and Intimidation

You write: 'If they decide the way most seem to think they are, it would behoove you to stop being so aggressively and ignorantly anti-gun.'

How so? Please do tell me. Regardless, I'm not allowed to speak out in this country about guns because of a SCOTUS decision?

Not content with the fear and intimidation you think doesn't exist with your gun, you now want to resort to it based on a SCOTUS decision.

Your impotent arguments have no such power over me.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

255. My Opinion

You write: 'If they decide the way most seem to think they are, it would behoove you to stop being so aggressively and ignorantly anti-gun.'

Please do tell me how 'most think they are' going to rule?

Seems to me that anytime you have the federal government and the District government agreeing on ANYTHING, there is a good chance the merits of their opinion will be heard.

Personally, I'm betting (and it's just a bet), the case will be significantly narrowed in scope and returned to the lower court for review. But again, that's just my opinion and I make no claim to speak for others like you.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

263. Just as I Thought

Still can't respond to my post

You write: 'If they decide the way most seem to think they are, it would behoove you to stop being so aggressively and ignorantly anti-gun.'

How so? Please do tell me. Regardless, I'm not allowed to speak out in this country about guns because of a SCOTUS decision?

Not content with the fear and intimidation you think doesn't exist with your gun, you now want to resort to it based on a SCOTUS decision.

Your impotent arguments have no such power over me.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

147. More on the Issue

You write: 'Restaurant owners would still be free to bar guns from their property if they choose; that's not the issue here.'

Others on this board disagree with you. In fact, some on this board think the restaurant owner should be criminally responsible for the violent crime that happens in his restaurant because someone eating in that restaurant does not have a weapon to 'defend' themselves with. I disagree.

No one is forcing anyone to eat in that restaurant.

[ac2007]

193. Liability

The issue is if a restaurant owner explicitly states "No firearms" on their property, they are making a tacit acknowledgment of your right to have a gun and in turn, summarily denying your right to protect yourself. As a result, they are accepting liability for your safety on their property. Should a criminal come onto that property and shoot you while disarmed, should the property owner be held liable for your injuries since they knowingly forced you to disarm when you could demonstrate an ability to defend yourself otherwise?

States are beginning to look at this as a change in the law. No one is forcing a gun owner to patronize a place but at the same time, if the property owner feels their rights trump yours, should they not be responsible for the harm that comes as a result?

Nothing in the bill would have forced restaurant owners to allow guns where they didn't want them. Virginia law would not change that. If the owner posted a sign saying "No guns" and you carried one onto the property, you are breaking the law. It is a crime to do in VA, carried openly or concealed.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

201. Crazy

You write: 'No one is forcing a gun owner to patronize a place but at the same time, if the property owner feels their rights trump yours, should they not be responsible for the harm that comes as a result?'

So now you have a RIGHT to go on someone's PRIVATE property with your gun. You give the government that right and you most certainly give them the right to take your guns away. The notion that the government can decide who has guns on private property is absurd.

It's hard to refrain from characterizing the gun lobby as anything other than CRAZY.

[Turbo Teg]

122. I agree with Benezra

Just that I think they should be held more liable should something happen on thier property.

[Hoosier lawyer]

259. Nothing will happen

There are plenty of states where people can carry in bars and nothing of any note happens. You probably know that already. You may have also noticed in your travels that almost every restaurant serves alcohol, even down to some fast food joints. And BTW you don't have to drink just because the bar/restaurant sells booze.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

260. Huh?

Insurance premiums for restaurants that serve alcohol and allow guns, either voluntarily or through the inaction of their state legislature, pay higher insurance premiums.

Perhaps you didn't know that.

After all, we are talking about increased risk of something actually happening rather than 'not happening' as you claim so often is the case.

[Hoosier lawyer]

302. Insurance companies are "for profit" business

I may be mistaken but I do believe that Insurance companies are in business to make a profit. I don't put much weight in a public policy discussion on what the insurance companies charge people. As an example, I take public transportation everyday, but own a car and pay INS based on some insurance chart somewhere. My actual driving record (flawless) and habits have little to do with my rate. Following your logic, if I pay more for my car parked in the garage than somebody in another town who drives daily, then my parked car is actually a greater risk than than their rolling one...because the INS companies say so.

I don't intend to get into one of the insult fests you seem to get into around here, but to my main point, almost all grown up eateries serve alcohol and even many fast food places sell beer. I don't think it makes much practical sense to have the state tell the same people who are entrusted to carry a deadly weapon, that they can't be trusted to have a burrito because Chipotle sells beer.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

306. Reality

Insurance premiums for restaurants that serve alcohol and allow guns, either voluntarily or through the inaction of their state legislature, pay higher insurance premiums. It's just a fact. They assess risks and put a price on it.

And while I am sure you honestly think an insurance company considers whether someone can be 'trusted' to have a burrito and a beer in Chipotle while caring a firearm, I'm just as confident that 'trust' has nothing to do with it.

[Hoosier lawyer]

308. are you kidding

I really do not think you believe the things you type. I have observed enough of your posts for long enough to form that opinion, or in the alternative, I would have to think that you are not very smart. Since I don't like to think that anyone is dumb I will assume that you are mostly making fun of Anti types. If so, it is somewhat funny.

[L1A1Rocker]

312. I too have laughed at many of those posts

but I think he is serious.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

313. Intelligence

I have no idea how intelligent you are based on four or five posts. I do know your post had nothing of substance to say about guns or my statement that insurance premiums for restaurants that serve alcohol and allow guns, either voluntarily or through the inaction of their state legislature, pay higher insurance premiums. It's just a fact. They assess risks and put a price on it.

And while I am sure you honestly think an insurance company considers whether someone can be 'trusted' to have a burrito and a beer in Chipotle while caring a firearm, I'm just as confident that 'trust' has nothing to do with it.

Now, if and when you have something to say about guns, you just come right on back and join in on the debate.

[L1A1Rocker]

311. You've made that claim twice now. Please source it.

I've never before herd of it and I seriously doubt it. Please source it.

[L1A1Rocker]

310. You sir

are 100% correct.

[L1A1Rocker]

309. Please source that.

That is the first I've EVER herd of it. Source it please.