Does anybody seriously think this is a good idea?
Until today it was illegal, if you had a concealed carry permit, to bring your gun into a restaurant, nightclub, hotel, shopping mall, museum or bar.
One of the law’s supporters, state senator Bill Seitz, explained “An undischarged concealed weapon never hurt anybody in history. And using a gun in not allowed under this bill. All we’re saying is they can have a piece of equipment on their body.” And he quoted “a nice, middle-aged couple” who told him “It irked them to no end that when they went out to dinner that they had to leave their weapons in the car even though they didn’t drink. They didn’t like the idea of leaving their gun in the car where it easily could have been stolen by a real criminal.”
Yes, that is a provision of the new law: if you’re carrying a gun in a bar, you’re not allowed to drink. Theoretically you’re the group’s Designated Gunslinger. Of course, since nobody knows that you’re carrying a concealed weapon, there’s really nothing stopping you from drinking as much as you’d like.
And technically you can’t order drinks in a restaurant if you’re carrying, but even the law’s supporters conceded that this isn’t likely to be adhered to or enforced.
Another provision is that businesses can put up signs prohibiting guns in their establishments — but this is entirely unenforceable (how to you eject somebody carrying a gun if he doesn’t want to leave?), and puts businesses in a no-win situation.
Of course, there’s also the matter of the proposed federal law that would force states to honor other states’ carry permits: would this mean Ohio residents with permits would be allowed to carry their guns into bars anywhere in the United States? A court could rule that way.
Two thoughts. First, for Ohio state senator Bill Seitz, he should look up the term “pistol-whipped”, to learn just how many people have been injured by undischarged firearms.
Second, this is a very disguised gift to the insurance industry. They will be able to weasel out of paying many claims caused by drunken firearm enthusiasts, because they were in violation of the law at the time of the accident… (and, I’m fairly sure drunken firearm entusiasts account for a majority of accidental firearm injuries.)
On the plus side, it should be possible to tell if the law is a bad idea fairly quickly.
And, girls in bars will be able to use the line “is that your gun, or are you just happy to see me?” again.
Regardless of which side of gun control you are on, if I’m allowed to carry a concealed weapon in my car or in a grocery store, then I should be allowed to take it to a bar.
“Yes, that is a provision of the new law: if you’re carrying a gun in a bar, you’re not allowed to drink. Theoretically you’re the group’s Designated Gunslinger. Of course, since nobody knows that you’re carrying a concealed weapon, there’s really nothing stopping you from drinking as much as you’d like. If we have to worry about people”
True, and before this law, nobody knew if someone was carrying a concealed weapon then either. So what makes you think they would obey the ban previously if they are going to break the new law by drinking while carrying?
If there is a fear that people will all of a sudden start shooting other patrons because of this law, then ban bars. There are plenty of other weapons (knives, anyone?) that can be used in a fit of drunken rage.
Whoops, scratch the last incomplete sentence from the story quote. I tried my hand at including italics and well, it kind of worked…
We, uh, did try to make bars illegal, and it actually increased the level of gun violence.
If you REALLY want it to stick, you make implied consent a requirement of the carry permit, the way it is with a driver’s license. Failure of or to take a breathalyzer or blood test for alcohol while carrying results in forfeiture of the weapon(s) being carried at the time, plus forfeiture of the carry permit. This won’t do anything for first offenses, but should cut down on repeats…
Just sayin’, there isn’t a whole lot of sense to the argument that carrying a concealed weapon is legal, going to a bar is legal if at the proper age, but both at the same time is illegal.
And the funny thing is, this write-up concentrates on bars, so I think it’s safe to assume that according to some, this is a “bad” idea because there is booze involved. And yet, the original ban applied to museums and shopping malls. So when the ban was enacted, it would appear lawmakers were not even looking at it from the standpoint of alcohol availability, but more likely where large groups of the public may be in one area. I can’t say I’ve ever heard anyone say “Let’s go down to the Nature Museum and slam down a few drinks!”.
Just sayin’, there isn’t a whole lot of sense to the argument that carrying a concealed weapon is legal, going to a bar is legal if at the proper age, but both at the same time is illegal.
Drinking large quantities of alcohol is legal, and driving a car is legal, yet the combination is illegal.
I wasn’t trying to imply that in every case, if A is legal and B is legal, then the combination should be legal, though I guess I can see how you arrived at that. However, I’m sure you can see how the comparison isn’t even remotely close. In your example, the guilty individual has already arrived at the point of performing a task (driving a car) that requires full capabilities to be able to do so without risking other lives while under the influence of alcohol. With the Ohio law as it stood previously, the individual is legally carrying a gun and walks into a bar, and suddenly, he’s committed a crime. Now, to make it a valid comparison, if the Ohio senator was trying to repeal a law that said it’s illegal to fire a weapon while under the influence, then it would be in the same light as trying to repeal drinking while driving.
Carrying a gun with a carry permit is legal, and so is flying in a commercial airliner across the country.
Carrying a gun is legal with a carry permit. Wearing a mask is legal. Going into a bank is legal…
Voting for the candidate of your choice is legal in one state. Voting for the candidate of your choice is legal in the other 49 states, too. But if you try to do both at the same time…
Driving 20 mph in a school zone is legal. Entering the schoolyard is legal. But if you do both at the same time…
This is fun.
Not a good idea, but it doesn’t seem to matter.
Here in Arizona, a few years ago, a similar bill was passed. Contrary to all the stories that come out of the state, the law did not result in a resurgence of gunfights.
Yet.
If it was going to happen, it would have happened by now.
I still think it’s a bad idea, despite the empirical outcome.
Well, if no one else, Rep. Giffords agrees with you.
My Pa remembers a time when it was illegal to have a beer in a bar!
It makes little sense for it to be illegal to carry an otherwise legal item in a bar. But it makes even less sense in the context of the other listed areas. If the logic behind permitting concealed carry is that a person might need the gun for self protection, surely the places listed are among those where you’d be most likely to need said gun; you’re an owner of a store at a mall or a nightclub and you have to take the day’s receipts to the bank after closing, and fear that carrying large amounts of cash will make you a target.
Swordsmith, you’re explaining why a store owner might need a gun, not why a customer would.
If you’re the owner of a business that does a lot of cash business, you don’t want a concealed weapon permit. You want an open carry. You don’t want the bad guys to wonder if you’re packing, you want them to know you are.
Perhaps the logical way to look at this would be “where are there a lot of fistfights, that might escalate to gunplay if tempers flare and weapons are available?” That would lead me to bars, sporting events, mall parking lots between, say, Halloween and New Year’s, and on the highways, especially where merging is supposed to occur.
Of course, most of the gun violence in the news near where I live is either A) gang-related or B) shootouts with the police. I don’t think changing the rules on carry permits changes that much.
OTOH, I can’t keep a gun in my place of residence (I live in an apartment) or carry it with me on my way to work (I ride the bus). That kind of defeats the purpose of letting me carry it elsewhere.
Gun crimes drop at Virginia bars and restaurants
Virginia’s bars and restaurants did not turn into shooting galleries as some had feared during the first year of a new state law that allows patrons with permits to carry concealed guns into alcohol-serving businesses, a Richmond Times-Dispatch analysis found.
The number of major crimes involving firearms at bars and restaurants statewide declined 5.2 percent from July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011, compared with the fiscal year before the law went into effect, according to crime data compiled by Virginia State Police at the newspaper’s request.
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/news/2011/aug/14/tdmain01-gun-crime-drops-at-virginia-bars-and-rest-ar-1237278/
Inquiring minds might ask… was there any corresponding drop in patronage of bars during that timeframe? Drinking in bars is a fairly expensive hobby, and thus might be expected to drop during an economic downturn. So your impressive “5% drop in gun violence” statistic might be less impressive if bar patronage during the same timeframe dropped 10%.
Not that I disagree with your premise (which I am assuming to be “the people who commit gun crimes don’t have carry permits in the first place”) but statistics depend on context, and without the context, are essentially meaningless. I’m also in favor of responsible gun ownership, but I’m guessing that I would define “responsible” a little stricter than you would in this context.
No study of this nature can control every factor that may influence the amount of gun violence, but I would hardly call a 5% drop “meaningless”. One could just as easily argue that a bad economy would cause an increase in patronage – more free time, higher depression = heavier drinking, etc. And I’m not sure how your definition of “responsible” fits into the argument. The discussion centered around whether or not legally-carrying patrons should be allowed to carry into a bar GIVEN that it’s already legal to carry a concealed weapon in Ohio.
I still have yet to hear a valid reason of why this is not a “good idea”. As far as I can tell, the arguments are actually a couple assumptions:
A. Alcohol is going to cause a normally stable person to become a gun shooting maniac against other innocent patrons.
B. People who are carrying are going to ignore the no drinking portion of the law.
Now, if you believe A to be true, you probably think the movie Roadhouse is a true depiction of most bars. If you think B is true and yet you think those same people would honor the law if it banned weapons in the first place, well, that makes no sense at all.