Judge blocks law allowing guns in bars

[larrymeyer]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091123/..._guns_bars_odd

Judge blocks law allowing guns in bars


Mon Nov 23, 2:00 pm ET
NASHVILLE, Tennessee (Reuters) – A judge on Friday blocked a Tennessee law that allowed people to bring handguns into restaurants and bars.

The law that took effect in July allowed handgun owners with permits to pack their pistols in places serving alcohol, providing the establishments made more than half their profits from food.

Nashville Judge Claudia Bonnyman said the law was "fraught with ambiguity" and ruled in favor of a suit brought by restaurant owners who argued gun owners would not be able to determine if an establishment met the criteria.

"We will have vigilantes shooting up bars all over," said Randy Rayburn, the owner of three upscale cafes, who led opponents of the law.

Supporters were considering a possible appeal, or new legislation.

[Boots_DE]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091123/..._guns_bars_odd... "We will have vigilantes shooting up bars all over," said Randy Rayburn, the owner of three upscale cafes, who led opponents of the law. ....

Hmmm... We certainly don't do that here in Delaware!

[t1m0thy]

another activist judge ignoring statistics and legislating from the bench.

[ehidle]

another activist judge ignoring statistics and legislating from the bench.

I actually think that is a good thing. I agree that the criterion is ambiguous at best and places an undue burden on restaurant owners to constantly monitor their financial performance, and possibly have to change the status of their establishment frequently.

It also opens up the restaurant owners to more impositions by the State, because there would no doubt be yet another bureaucracy created to monitor which restaurants must allow carry and which ones may not. (just look at the smoking ban in PA restaurants - same type of deal)

The law was stupid as it was written. It is an unconstitutional infringement to prohibit carry anywhere, so the correct thing to do is to challenge and overturn any statutory prohibition on carry anywhere.

eta: there is also the issue that we should never, EVER have laws "allowing" things. Laws should only exist to PROHIBIT things. Once we get accustomed to laws that "allow", then we may as well just pack up our shit and go home and let the statists run our lives.

[mojo]

I actually think that is a good thing. I agree that the criterion is ambiguous at best and places an undue burden on restaurant owners to constantly monitor their financial performance, and possibly have to change the status of their establishment frequently.

It also opens up the restaurant owners to more impositions by the State, because there would no doubt be yet another bureaucracy created to monitor which restaurants must allow carry and which ones may not. (just look at the smoking ban in PA restaurants - same type of deal)

The law was stupid as it was written. It is an unconstitutional infringement to prohibit carry anywhere, so the correct thing to do is to challenge and overturn any statutory prohibition on carry anywhere.

eta: there is also the issue that we should never, EVER have laws "allowing" things. Laws should only exist to PROHIBIT things. Once we get accustomed to laws that "allow", then we may as well just pack up our shit and go home and let the statists run our lives.

I agree. The law should have been struck down. A new law should be passed allowing people to carry in any place that serves alcohol.

[ehidle]

I agree. The law should have been struck down. A new law should be passed allowing people to carry in any place that serves alcohol.

Why should it even be important whether the place serves alcohol. People have the right to keep and bear arms in any place, period. The constitution does not say "to keep and bear arms in a manner deemed suitable by big brother."

[unloved]

Why should it even be important whether the place serves alcohol.

It shouldn't, but people are brainwashed. We don't see it much here at PAFOA because we have no restrictions on carry in establishments that serve alcohol, or consuming alcohol while carrying. It's not a problem, and it's been that way long enough that people really don't even think about it.

Anyone who's interested in watching people act like hysterical ninnies can visit a non state specific forum and start a thread about carrying in bars, or even better, having a beer (let alone 2 or 3) while armed. DC.com, and THR.org are fun. You'll get people falling all over themselves in their haste to proclaim that "Guns and alcohol don't mix!" and "You shouldn't do stupid things, in stupid places, with stupid people!" You'll get lots of people who are apparently alcoholics, and simply cannot understand, or accept that other people are perfectly capable of drinking in a responsible manner. Then there are those who have partaken of the MADD Kool Aid and will blather about how impairment starts with the first drink. They seem to believe that an otherwise responsible adult will be transformed into a wild eyed maniac by one sip of an adult beverage.

I recently had a thread I started on another forum locked, because (according to the moderator that I had to PM for an explanation) "drinking while armed is illegal almost everywhere, and we can't condone discussion of illegal behavior." Excuse me? No, it isn't. He went on to indirectly call me an irresponsible idiot for daring to suggest that there's nothing immoral about having a couple beers or glasses of wine with a meal while carrying.

These are people who are members of firearms forums! They'll talk for hours about how they believe in personal responsibility and liberty. Mention alcohol and they get their panties all twisted. I think most of them have watched Roadhouse a few too many times.

[LittleRedToyota]

Anyone who's interested in watching people act like hysterical ninnies can visit a non state specific forum and start a thread about carrying in bars, or even better, having a beer (let alone 2 or 3) while armed. DC.com, and THR.org are fun. You'll get people falling all over themselves in their haste to proclaim that "Guns and alcohol don't mix!" and "You shouldn't do stupid things, in stupid places, with stupid people!" You'll get lots of people who are apparently alcoholics, and simply cannot understand, or accept that other people are perfectly capable of drinking in a responsible manner. Then there are those who have partaken of the MADD Kool Aid and will blather about how impairment starts with the first drink. They seem to believe that an otherwise responsible adult will be transformed into a wild eyed maniac by one sip of an adult beverage.

yep. back when i didn't know any better and posted a fair amount on glocktalk, the same thing happened there.

with that issue and with not requiring training before issuing carry licenses/permits.

you'd think the world would end if people could get carry licenses/permits without training and/or could carry in a bar.

i used to point out that PA (among other states) has not had issues, but that empirical evidence would just be ignored and instead the "blah, blah, blah" argument would win the day.

the human mind is a terrible thing to waste.

[fingers80002]

It shouldn't, but people are brainwashed. We don't see it much here at PAFOA because we have no restrictions on carry in establishments that serve alcohol, or consuming alcohol while carrying. It's not a problem, and it's been that way long enough that people really don't even think about it.

Anyone who's interested in watching people act like hysterical ninnies can visit a non state specific forum and start a thread about carrying in bars, or even better, having a beer (let alone 2 or 3) while armed. DC.com, and THR.org are fun. You'll get people falling all over themselves in their haste to proclaim that "Guns and alcohol don't mix!" and "You shouldn't do stupid things, in stupid places, with stupid people!" You'll get lots of people who are apparently alcoholics, and simply cannot understand, or accept that other people are perfectly capable of drinking in a responsible manner. Then there are those who have partaken of the MADD Kool Aid and will blather about how impairment starts with the first drink. They seem to believe that an otherwise responsible adult will be transformed into a wild eyed maniac by one sip of an adult beverage.

I recently had a thread I started on another forum locked, because (according to the moderator that I had to PM for an explanation) "drinking while armed is illegal almost everywhere, and we can't condone discussion of illegal behavior." Excuse me? No, it isn't. He went on to indirectly call me an irresponsible idiot for daring to suggest that there's nothing immoral about having a couple beers or glasses of wine with a meal while carrying.

These are people who are members of firearms forums! They'll talk for hours about how they believe in personal responsibility and liberty. Mention alcohol and they get their panties all twisted. I think most of them have watched Roadhouse a few too many times.

Same thing goes on here.

[unloved]

Same thing goes on here.

Yeah, but it's not nearly as bad. We have enough rational members to override the emotional hand wringers. We also adhere to a fairly high standard of proof.
Bullshit information and "It's just wrong!" arguments generally aren't tolerated.