View Full Version : Guns To Be Allowed In Arizona Bars
Anyone remember this discussion here prior to this ruling? If they still can't drink, is it really an issue?
Guns Allowed in Arizona Bars Starting Wednesday
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
PHOENIX — Bartender Randy Shields was serving British brews and Arizona ambers as usual at Shady's bar in east Phoenix when he saw a customer walk in with a hunting knife strapped to his hip.
A disturbing image flashed through his mind — "that knife sliding between my ribs."
The customer willingly turned over the knife while he was in the bar, but Shields still worries about a new Arizona law that goes into effect Wednesday that will allow guns into Arizona bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.
Under the law, backed by the National Rifle Association, the 138,350 people with concealed-weapons permits in Arizona will be allowed to bring their guns into bars and restaurants that haven't posted signs banning them.
Those carrying the weapons aren't allowed to drink alcohol.
The new law has Shields and other bar owners and workers wondering: What's going to happen when guns are allowed in an atmosphere filled with booze and people with impaired judgment?
"Somebody can pull the trigger, then a bullet comes out, and people get hurt and killed," said Brad Henrich, owner of Shady's, a popular neighborhood bar that sees occasional minor scuffles. "The idea of anyone coming in with guns in a place that serves alcohol just seems ludicrous."
An 8 1/2-by-11-inch sign that says "No Firearms Allowed" and shows a red slash over a gun now hangs next to Henrich's liquor license. If a bar owner does not post such a state-approved sign, people with concealed weapons are allowed in with their guns.
There is no way to track how many of Arizona's 5,800 bars and restaurants that serve alcohol have posted such signs. The Arizona Department of Liquor Licensing and Control has signs available for download on its Web site and doesn't track that figure.
The department has provided 1,300 signs to bar and restaurant owners who went to the department in person or asked to have signs mailed to them.
A similar law took effect in July in Tennessee, with the same reaction from many bar owners who posted signs banning firearms. The NRA says 41 states now allow guns in businesses that serve alcohol.
"I hate to have to put them up," Mark DeSimone, owner of the Hidden House Cocktail Lounge in central Phoenix, said of the signs. "It looks scary. It looks to somebody like, should I go in this place because they obviously have a problem with people bringing weapons in."
DeSimone has signs banning guns next to his liquor license and outside the bar.
He said every bar owner should be concerned about the possible consequences of allowing anyone into a bar with a gun.
"You don't want people to even have a stick," he said. "When I take steak knives out (for customers), I look for the ones that don't have pointy ends."
Taking a gun into a bar banning the weapons would be a misdemeanor punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a fine of up to $500.
But the law includes a partial legal defense. A person would be exempt if the sign banning guns had fallen down, the person wasn't an Arizona resident, or the notice was first posted less than a month earlier.
J.P. Nelson, director of the NRA's western region, said people with concealed-weapons permits have the right to protect themselves by bringing guns into bars and restaurants.
"Bad things happen in bars and restaurants," Nelson said. "People want to carry a gun and if the facility owner doesn't have a problem with it, there shouldn't be a problem. If a person starts drinking and gets in a shootout and kills someone, of course they're subject to criminal prosecution."
Marc Peagler, owner of the Silver Spur Saloon Restaurant in Cave Creek outside Phoenix, said he will allow people with concealed weapons permits to carry in his business, and Silver Spur will be safer because of it.
"It's a deterrent," he said. "In the criminal element, there is some logic that says when people look at a place that they might want to rob, the ones that have big signs up that say 'We do not permit firearms' would be the first target.
"They know there's not going to be anybody in there that can stop them," he said.
Arizonans are also allowed to openly carry guns — on a belt or holster, for example. Those people still won't be allowed in bars or restaurants serving alcohol under the new law if they're armed.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,557503,00.html
Yes I think it is a bad idea, I always will, whether the person is drinking or not. Yes I realize I will get my @ss chewed out on this site for saying so. Yes I work in the industry. Yes I support the 2nd Amendment. Yes I think that it is up to the property owner though, and not the government to make these decisions.
Feel free to fire away!
Much ado about nothing.
The whole point of concealed carry is concealment. The restrictions generally include "restaurants that serve alcohol". Anyone wanna take a guess at how many CCW permit holders already carry in such establishments? Be willing to bet it's a pretty good percentage. If you do, just make sure you aren't drinking. If you can't control yourself enough to not drink, then maybe you shouldn't be carrying a firearm in the first place.
Yes I think it is a bad idea, I always will, whether the person is drinking or not. Yes I realize I will get my @ss chewed out on this site for saying so. Yes I work in the industry. Yes I support the 2nd Amendment. Yes I think that it is up to the property owner though, and not the government to make these decisions.
Feel free to fire away!
Don't be so hard on yourself. Based on a somewhat parallel thread here months ago, I suspect the feedback will be about 50/50.
I don't think it's so bad. We all must be accountable when acting within the law. It's inherently wrong to assume someone is a liability if they are legally carrying a firearm.
LockenLoad
09-29-09, 23:26
Yes I think it is a bad idea, I always will, whether the person is drinking or not. Yes I realize I will get my @ss chewed out on this site for saying so. Yes I work in the industry. Yes I support the 2nd Amendment. Yes I think that it is up to the property owner though, and not the government to make these decisions.
Feel free to fire away!
they can post no weapons allowed, so I guess the property owner can decide unless I am reading wrong and I agree with the decision to let people do it just as much as I agree the property owner can bann them if he so choses
The simple point those who oppose this are missing, is that criminals who seek to use force to achieve an end carry in side these places already and I guarantee you are the ones doing the most drinking.
And posting a feel good sign won't stop them either, infact it telegraphs to them that most all inside are probably unarmed.
Anyone remember this discussion here prior to this ruling? If they still can't drink, is it really an issue?
Guns Allowed in Arizona Bars Starting Wednesday
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
PHOENIX — Bartender Randy Shields was serving British brews and Arizona ambers as usual at Shady's bar in east Phoenix when he saw a customer walk in with a hunting knife strapped to his hip.
A disturbing image flashed through his mind — "that knife sliding between my ribs."
The customer willingly turned over the knife while he was in the bar, but Shields still worries about a new Arizona law that goes into effect Wednesday that will allow guns into Arizona bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.
Under the law, backed by the National Rifle Association, the 138,350 people with concealed-weapons permits in Arizona will be allowed to bring their guns into bars and restaurants that haven't posted signs banning them.
Those carrying the weapons aren't allowed to drink alcohol.
The new law has Shields and other bar owners and workers wondering: What's going to happen when guns are allowed in an atmosphere filled with booze and people with impaired judgment?
"Somebody can pull the trigger, then a bullet comes out, and people get hurt and killed," said Brad Henrich, owner of Shady's, a popular neighborhood bar that sees occasional minor scuffles. "The idea of anyone coming in with guns in a place that serves alcohol just seems ludicrous."
An 8 1/2-by-11-inch sign that says "No Firearms Allowed" and shows a red slash over a gun now hangs next to Henrich's liquor license. If a bar owner does not post such a state-approved sign, people with concealed weapons are allowed in with their guns.
There is no way to track how many of Arizona's 5,800 bars and restaurants that serve alcohol have posted such signs. The Arizona Department of Liquor Licensing and Control has signs available for download on its Web site and doesn't track that figure.
The department has provided 1,300 signs to bar and restaurant owners who went to the department in person or asked to have signs mailed to them.
A similar law took effect in July in Tennessee, with the same reaction from many bar owners who posted signs banning firearms. The NRA says 41 states now allow guns in businesses that serve alcohol.
"I hate to have to put them up," Mark DeSimone, owner of the Hidden House Cocktail Lounge in central Phoenix, said of the signs. "It looks scary. It looks to somebody like, should I go in this place because they obviously have a problem with people bringing weapons in."
DeSimone has signs banning guns next to his liquor license and outside the bar.
He said every bar owner should be concerned about the possible consequences of allowing anyone into a bar with a gun.
"You don't want people to even have a stick," he said. "When I take steak knives out (for customers), I look for the ones that don't have pointy ends."
Taking a gun into a bar banning the weapons would be a misdemeanor punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a fine of up to $500.
But the law includes a partial legal defense. A person would be exempt if the sign banning guns had fallen down, the person wasn't an Arizona resident, or the notice was first posted less than a month earlier.
J.P. Nelson, director of the NRA's western region, said people with concealed-weapons permits have the right to protect themselves by bringing guns into bars and restaurants.
"Bad things happen in bars and restaurants," Nelson said. "People want to carry a gun and if the facility owner doesn't have a problem with it, there shouldn't be a problem. If a person starts drinking and gets in a shootout and kills someone, of course they're subject to criminal prosecution."
Marc Peagler, owner of the Silver Spur Saloon Restaurant in Cave Creek outside Phoenix, said he will allow people with concealed weapons permits to carry in his business, and Silver Spur will be safer because of it.
"It's a deterrent," he said. "In the criminal element, there is some logic that says when people look at a place that they might want to rob, the ones that have big signs up that say 'We do not permit firearms' would be the first target.
"They know there's not going to be anybody in there that can stop them," he said.
Arizonans are also allowed to openly carry guns — on a belt or holster, for example. Those people still won't be allowed in bars or restaurants serving alcohol under the new law if they're armed.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,557503,00.html
That kind of Paranoia makes me sick.
A lot of businesses didn't want the law because they would have to post a sign that advertises their degenerate stance on self defense. Now we'll know which businesses are run by anti-American types.
I agree with TMMT and the other frustrating thing is it should NOT be left up to the property owners... CC if issued should be allowed everywhere that there is not an armed person present hired by the establishment (airport, etc.) to protect you. When you leave it up to the business owners you open them up to civil suits and then you let in the insurance companies to dictate who carries because if "you the business owner chose" to allow carry then you are open to civil suits and your insurance provider can and will raise or deny you coverage. In Texas if you obey the "no guns" signs you will be taking your gun on & off all day! Its ridiculous... if you are approved for carry then you should be allowed to carry and not throw in a bunch of nuisance legislation that undermines the purpose of concealed carry and penalizes the businesses that support it. IMHO
Being from AZ, I don't see a problem with it. Your responsibility is not suddenly negated by entering an establishment that serves alcohol. It should be no different than any other place you conceal. Be smart, obey the law. I have been to the Hidden House Lounge though, the people legally CC there are the least of that guy's problems...
I agree with TMMT and the other frustrating thing is it should NOT be left up to the property owners... CC if issued should be allowed everywhere that there is not an armed person present hired by the establishment (airport, etc.) to protect you. When you leave it up to the business owners you open them up to civil suits and then you let in the insurance companies to dictate who carries because if "you the business owner chose" to allow carry then you are open to civil suits and your insurance provider can and will raise or deny you coverage. In Texas if you obey the "no guns" signs you will be taking your gun on & off all day! Its ridiculous... if you are approved for carry then you should be allowed to carry and not throw in a bunch of nuisance legislation that undermines the purpose of concealed carry and penalizes the businesses that support it. IMHO
Very well put, sir.
I think the idea of going into a bar to hang out is not what this is about ?
its about places like Red Robin and me going in with my family they serve alcohol but not everyone is there to drink !!!!
I guess if a person with a permit is going into get drunk should get in trouble and have their permit pulled
to me they are breaking the law and will give honest permit owners a bad name in the long run ?
drinking and guns dont go together but again lots of family places serve alcohol
I just loved reading the wack jobs on azcentral and their lefty responses :) heeheheh sad sad responses
A good counterpoint:
I offer two words... Killeen, Texas.
What's the significance of Killeen, TX? Luby's restaurant, and the largest shooting massacre in American History until the events at University of Virginia. The shooting occurred on October 16, 1991 when George Jo Hennard drove his pickup truck through the front window of Luby's Cafeteria in broad daylight during lunch with the place packed with 80 patrons and shot and killed 23 people. None were armed, with the exception Suzanna Gratia Hupp... her firearm was in her car because Texas law at the time forbade the carrying of firearms in restaurants or bars... instead of possessing the ability to stop the shooter, she watched as both her parents were gunned down before her eyes.
http://www.werushdaily.com/blogs/rightshift/new-arizona-gun-law-and-leftie-stupidity
rifleman2000
09-30-09, 09:55
Yes I think it is a bad idea, I always will, whether the person is drinking or not. Yes I realize I will get my @ss chewed out on this site for saying so. Yes I work in the industry. Yes I support the 2nd Amendment. Yes I think that it is up to the property owner though, and not the government to make these decisions.
Feel free to fire away!
I carry a gun to protect myself and my family. Why should I give up that right to patronize a business in a responsible manner? You say you support the 2nd Amendment, but not allowing citizens to carry guns freely is not in keeping with the 2nd Amendment.
MarshallDodge
09-30-09, 10:32
I like the law and how it is written.
The establishment still has the ability to block people from carrying on the premises which I feel they should have the right to do. If you are carrying a firearm then you can complain to the management, leave your gun in your vehicle, or go down the street to a establishment that allows carrying.
If they lose enough business or get a serious amount of flak then they will probably change their policy.
rifleman2000
09-30-09, 10:36
I like the law and how it is written.
The establishment still has the ability to block people from carrying on the premises which I feel they should have the right to do. If you are carrying a firearm then you can complain to the management, leave your gun in your vehicle, or go down the street to a establishment that allows carrying.
If they lose enough business or get a serious amount of flak then they will probably change their policy.
Problem is that the establishment is not blocking people from carrying, it is still the government. Reference that if the sign is up, carrying in the establishment is a midemeanor. A crime.
For example, in Virginia I can carry my weapon in an establishment that posts "no weapons". It is not a crime, just a violation of that private policy.
LockenLoad
09-30-09, 11:29
Problem is that the establishment is not blocking people from carrying, it is still the government. Reference that if the sign is up, carrying in the establishment is a misdemeanor. A crime.
For example, in Virginia I can carry my weapon in an establishment that posts "no weapons". It is not a crime, just a violation of that private policy.
and they can tell you to leave it is there property, the government is not blocking in the Arizona case, they are letting property owners and ccw people decide, we have two conflicting rights here, your 2nd amendment right to bear arms, and property rights, not trying to fight here but if I tell you, no weapons in my business our property you should comply or move on.
John_Wayne777
09-30-09, 11:38
Anyone who has a problem with Arizona's reform of the law ought to take the time to look at Virginia's bizarre and absurd history in this area.
Arizona is doing the intelligent thing.
Laws that prohibit people with a CCW permit from carrying their legally owned, legally carried firearm in a certain area do precisely jack squat to stop criminals from carrying guns into those places. Hyperbole about drunken shootouts is nothing more than propaganda pushed by anti-gunners and hysterical ninnies who ignore all hard data we have on how those with permits behave. It's no different than the hue and cry that happened when concealed carry laws were made shall-issue. Blood was supposed to run in the streets as people started killing each other over fender benders or because somebody said something nasty about their momma.
It shows a fundamental error in judgment. We do not, in fact, live in a nation filled with homicidal psychopaths whose violent tendencies are frustrated only by the fact that they don't have ready access to a firearm...despite what moronic liberals would have everyone believe. Since the protestations of the anti-gunners and would be nannies proved to be so far off the mark it's safe to say that their fears about guns in restaurants are similarly misplaced. After all, we trust the very same people to leave the restaurant in sufficient control of their faculties to control several thousand pounds of angry steel without killing anybody...but God forbid that they be in possession of something that launches 124 grain projectiles! Horror! Uproar!
It's yet another manifestation of "Guns are icky!!" syndrome that infects our society like a plague. They are inanimate objects...tools. Nothing more. Laws that prohibit a permit holder from carrying into an establishment that serves alcohol for on-premises consumption are not the sole barrier preventing an epidemic of drunken gunfights started by irresponsible jackasses with guns. They are a pain in the ass that stops tee-totalers like me, who never touch a DROP of alcohol, from having access to a reasonable means of self defense in a restaurant. That is ALL those laws accomplish.
rifleman2000
09-30-09, 13:37
and they can tell you to leave it is there property, the government is not blocking in the Arizona case, they are letting property owners and ccw people decide, we have two conflicting rights here, your 2nd amendment right to bear arms, and property rights, not trying to fight here but if I tell you, no weapons in my business our property you should comply or move on.
I agree completely. It is a property right. If I do not move on I am trespassing. But I cannot be arrested for carrying the weapon. See the difference?
rifleman2000
09-30-09, 13:40
Anyone who has a problem with Arizona's reform of the law ought to take the time to look at Virginia's bizarre and absurd history in this area.
Not sure what this means.
My point is that in Virginia, a business is free to put up a no firearms sign, and it is a policy. I can be asked to leave and eventually be trespassing, but I cannot be arrested for having that firearm there. Virginia's issue is that I cannot legally conceal my firearm where they serve alcohol, and I agree that makes no sense.
In Arizona, a business owner can put up a sign and you will be arrested for bringing a firearm there.
John_Wayne777
09-30-09, 13:46
Not sure what this means.
That:
I cannot legally conceal my firearm where they serve alcohol, and I agree that makes no sense.
...and the stupidity that has resulted from that legal requirement.
As for Arizona prosecuting people for violating the no guns signs...that's crap, in my opinion. If you catch somebody with the gun, tell them to leave. If they don't, then charge them with trespass. That's a sufficient legal remedy, in my opinion.
I agree with TMMT and the other frustrating thing is it should NOT be left up to the property owners... CC if issued should be allowed everywhere that there is not an armed person present hired by the establishment (airport, etc.) to protect you. When you leave it up to the business owners you open them up to civil suits and then you let in the insurance companies to dictate who carries because if "you the business owner chose" to allow carry then you are open to civil suits and your insurance provider can and will raise or deny you coverage. In Texas if you obey the "no guns" signs you will be taking your gun on & off all day! Its ridiculous... if you are approved for carry then you should be allowed to carry and not throw in a bunch of nuisance legislation that undermines the purpose of concealed carry and penalizes the businesses that support it. IMHO
I agree with your sentiment but if the property owners choose not to allow guns then don't patronize their establishment. They are the property owners and should be able to dictate what happens on their property the same way you do at your house. If you don't like it then leave... same thing goes for smoking in restaurants, etc. We should limit the amount of government intrusion in business in my opinion.
rifleman2000
09-30-09, 13:51
That:
...and the stupidity that has resulted from that legal requirement.
As for Arizona prosecuting people for violating the no guns signs...that's crap, in my opinion. If you catch somebody with the gun, tell them to leave. If they don't, then charge them with trespass. That's a sufficient legal remedy, in my opinion.
Arizona law makes that a misdemeanor. That is my main complaint.
I, as an AZ resident, couldn't care less about this law.
I've been carrying in alcohol serving restaraunts for 15 years or so. I even have a beer or two with my dinner.
I don't object to people who feel they shouldn't mix a single ounce of beer with carrying. Each person should know his own limitations.
This law or these stupid signs isn't going to change a thing I do.
John_Wayne777
09-30-09, 14:05
Arizona law makes that a misdemeanor. That is my main complaint.
It's certainly a legitimate complaint. My view was more on the side of it being nice to see that the state is deciding to decriminalize something that it's stupid to have made criminal in the first place.
Now Arizona gun owners need to band together and boycott any establishments stupid enough to put up the signs...and be noisy about it.
rifleman2000
09-30-09, 14:13
It's certainly a legitimate complaint. My view was more on the side of it being nice to see that the state is deciding to decriminalize something that it's stupid to have made criminal in the first place.
Now Arizona gun owners need to band together and boycott any establishments stupid enough to put up the signs...and be noisy about it.
Agreed.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-30-09, 14:55
I agree with your sentiment but if the property owners choose not to allow guns then don't patronize their establishment. They are the property owners and should be able to dictate what happens on their property the same way you do at your house. If you don't like it then leave... same thing goes for smoking in restaurants, etc. We should limit the amount of government intrusion in business in my opinion.
House is different than a public establishment, if we are talking bars and restuarants.
To me, property rights vs my right to self-defense is a win for self-defense. I understand property owners wanting complete control, but when you are open to the public all kinds of stuff is no longer in your control.
If I want to bring my 'black friend' with me to the bar, I should be able to just like if I wanted to bring a black friend, not named Barak.
I want to see some bars and restuarants that put these 'protection free' signs up get sued after someone is injured in the establishment or on they way back to their car. I bet there are a lot more lawsuits like that than with random shots and fights, NFL & NBA players excluded.
I do like the balance of it is a concealed handgun and they can post their little little signs, but all they can do is ask you to leave, no criminal. I might start printing bad right after dessert. Bad sign placement, new signs being put up, and general clutter in entrances make it too easy to get pinched.
I've been pretty surprised here in Colorado that most corporate places don't have signs, thought there is not a standard one to put up.
I wonder if the bar in question in the story has steak knives for their customers?
I will fight in court that I left my red cartoon gun at home, so the sign doesn't apply to me.
Now Arizona gun owners need to band together and boycott any establishments stupid enough to put up the signs...and be noisy about it.
I will make sure not to go into places with signs :)
If you catch somebody with the gun, tell them to leave. If they don't, then charge them with trespass. That's a sufficient legal remedy, in my opinion.
That's pretty much how it is in NV, with the exception of government buildings, schools, places like that.
I don't think many people would argue with you that business owners should not be putting these signs up. However, I do 100% support their right to make their own decisions, albeit poor ones, on their own property. Kinda the main thread of America has been the right to decide for ourselves. That includes the right to make bad decisions.
As long as they don't have total control over their own property, I will fight their right to prohibit me from carrying.
As long as they are "places of public accommodation", open to the public, then all sorts of laws apply to them, rightly or wrongly and they do not have total control over their property.
I agree with your sentiment but if the property owners choose not to allow guns then don't patronize their establishment. They are the property owners and should be able to dictate what happens on their property the same way you do at your house. If you don't like it then leave... same thing goes for smoking in restaurants, etc. We should limit the amount of government intrusion in business in my opinion.
So if they want to prohibit white folks from coming into their restaurant, they should have that right?
Or black folk, or asian folk, or women, or whatever?
...by taking your business elsewhere... right? Or by supporting further government intrusion in the way of legislation?
I can get behind the first one. Not so much the second one.
Let me ask you this... Why not? Do you really think businesses who promote racial, "BLACKS ONLY" or "NO ASIANS" are really going to last long.... at all? Let them learn their lesson by spending an absorbent amount of money on a failed venture. By exposing themselves publicly as racists and thus dealing with public perception and professional exclusion. etc. etc. Sounds a shit load better to me.
I happen to agree with you.
HOWEVER, as long as we have laws that intrude on property owners rights for places of public accommodation, then I am going to make sure that the 2A rights also are covered. I am not going to selectively let pass intrusion -- it is all or nothing in my book.
So if they want to prohibit white folks from coming into their restaurant, they should have that right?
Or black folk, or asian folk, or women, or whatever?
Yes, and their revenue will reflect their poor decision. I wrote this example using smoking a while ago but think it's pertinent to the discussion...
As the proprietor of an establishment do you not have the right to set the precedents in your own structure? Who's right is it to determine whether you or your patrons have the right to smoke a cigarette in your restaurant, bar, house, outside or anywhere else for that matter? This right belongs to the owner of the establishment. You don't smoke? The smoke bothers you? Take your money and yourself somewhere else! You do not have a right to impose your wanton, unconstitutional ideals on another person's property or way of life through legislation. You have no right to frequent any establishment and the owner has a righteous, legitimate claim to make or abridge any rules that they set forth at any time, you do not!
If a person is intelligent enough and has the resources to go in to business for themselves then presumably their sagacious intellects could discern their customer's wishes and they would change their policies to benefit themselves. After all, the owners are in business to make a profit.
I hope Virginia follows close behind Arizona.
Let me ask you this... Why not? Do you really think businesses who promote racial, "BLACKS ONLY" or "NO ASIANS" are really going to last long.... at all? Let them learn their lesson by spending an absorbent amount of money on a failed venture. By exposing themselves publicly as racists and thus dealing with public perception and professional exclusion. etc. etc. Sounds a shit load better to me.
Really close to my train of thought.
Yes, and their revenue will reflect their poor decision. I wrote this example using smoking a while ago but think it's pertinent to the discussion...
As the proprietor of an establishment do you not have the right to set the precedents in your own structure? Who's right is it to determine whether you or your patrons have the right to smoke a cigarette in your restaurant, bar, house, outside or anywhere else for that matter? This right belongs to the owner of the establishment. You don't smoke? The smoke bothers you? Take your money and yourself somewhere else! You do not have a right to impose your wanton, unconstitutional ideals on another person's property or way of life through legislation. You have no right to frequent any establishment and the owner has a righteous, legitimate claim to make or abridge any rules that they set forth at any time, you do not!
If a person is intelligent enough and has the resources to go in to business for themselves then presumably their sagacious intellects could discern their customer's wishes and they would change their policies to benefit themselves. After all, the owners are in business to make a profit.
As I mentioned on ZDL's answer, I happen to agree with you 100%.
HOWEVER, if anti-discrimination laws are the law of the land I am going to make sure that gun rights are also not discriminated against.
To me it is an all or nothing proposition. I will fight for the right to self defense under the current set of laws and also work to change the set of laws in the first place to be more free.
You do not have a right to impose your wanton, unconstitutional ideals on another person's property or way of life through legislation.
True, but is insisting on being able to carrying a legal firearm in the public "bar" as unconstitutional as insisting on a non-smoking venue?
True, but is insisting on being able to carrying a legal firearm in the public "bar" as unconstitutional as insisting on a non-smoking venue?
I think the owner of the establishment should be able to make any and all decisions that will affect his/her business in regards to the topic at hand. I would not support an anti-2nd Amendment establishment and would take my money elsewhere. I would also inform them of my reasoning as to why I would not utilize their business.
As I mentioned on ZDL's answer, I happen to agree with you 100%.
HOWEVER, if anti-discrimination laws are the law of the land I am going to make sure that gun rights are also not discriminated against.
To me it is an all or nothing proposition. I will fight for the right to self defense under the current set of laws and also work to change the set of laws in the first place to be more free.
Sounds good to me!
LockenLoad
09-30-09, 16:50
Not sure what this means.
My point is that in Virginia, a business is free to put up a no firearms sign, and it is a policy. I can be asked to leave and eventually be trespassing, but I cannot be arrested for having that firearm there. Virginia's issue is that I cannot legally conceal my firearm where they serve alcohol, and I agree that makes no sense.
In Arizona, a business owner can put up a sign and you will be arrested for bringing a firearm there.
it's his property and liability, your ccw does not give you the right to trample other peoples rights, go to a bar that allows you to carry, to me you ignoring a no weapons sign, is the same as ignoring a no trespassing sign, you should respect the bar owners rights, he is not infringing on your right to bear arms, but you want too violate his property rights :confused:
LockenLoad
09-30-09, 16:59
As long as they don't have total control over their own property, I will fight their right to prohibit me from carrying.
As long as they are "places of public accommodation", open to the public, then all sorts of laws apply to them, rightly or wrongly and they do not have total control over their property.
a movie theater can deny you entrance, clubs do it based on dress, in a free society we all have to take some inherent risks
LockenLoad
09-30-09, 17:02
So if they want to prohibit white folks from coming into their restaurant, they should have that right?
Or black folk, or asian folk, or women, or whatever?
I think we should allow dogs and cats in too :rolleyes:, umm no I think there might be an amendment prohibiting that, and using that as an analogy is a stretch
QuietShootr
09-30-09, 18:40
Anyone remember this discussion here prior to this ruling? If they still can't drink, is it really an issue?
Guns Allowed in Arizona Bars Starting Wednesday
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
PHOENIX — Bartender Randy Shields was serving British brews and Arizona ambers as usual at Shady's bar in east Phoenix when he saw a customer walk in with a hunting knife strapped to his hip.
A disturbing image flashed through his mind — "that knife sliding between my ribs."
The customer willingly turned over the knife while he was in the bar, but Shields still worries about a new Arizona law that goes into effect Wednesday that will allow guns into Arizona bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.
Under the law, backed by the National Rifle Association, the 138,350 people with concealed-weapons permits in Arizona will be allowed to bring their guns into bars and restaurants that haven't posted signs banning them.
Those carrying the weapons aren't allowed to drink alcohol.
The new law has Shields and other bar owners and workers wondering: What's going to happen when guns are allowed in an atmosphere filled with booze and people with impaired judgment?
"Somebody can pull the trigger, then a bullet comes out, and people get hurt and killed," said Brad Henrich, owner of Shady's, a popular neighborhood bar that sees occasional minor scuffles. "The idea of anyone coming in with guns in a place that serves alcohol just seems ludicrous."
An 8 1/2-by-11-inch sign that says "No Firearms Allowed" and shows a red slash over a gun now hangs next to Henrich's liquor license. If a bar owner does not post such a state-approved sign, people with concealed weapons are allowed in with their guns.
There is no way to track how many of Arizona's 5,800 bars and restaurants that serve alcohol have posted such signs. The Arizona Department of Liquor Licensing and Control has signs available for download on its Web site and doesn't track that figure.
The department has provided 1,300 signs to bar and restaurant owners who went to the department in person or asked to have signs mailed to them.
A similar law took effect in July in Tennessee, with the same reaction from many bar owners who posted signs banning firearms. The NRA says 41 states now allow guns in businesses that serve alcohol.
"I hate to have to put them up," Mark DeSimone, owner of the Hidden House Cocktail Lounge in central Phoenix, said of the signs. "It looks scary. It looks to somebody like, should I go in this place because they obviously have a problem with people bringing weapons in."
DeSimone has signs banning guns next to his liquor license and outside the bar.
He said every bar owner should be concerned about the possible consequences of allowing anyone into a bar with a gun.
"You don't want people to even have a stick," he said. "When I take steak knives out (for customers), I look for the ones that don't have pointy ends."
Taking a gun into a bar banning the weapons would be a misdemeanor punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a fine of up to $500.
But the law includes a partial legal defense. A person would be exempt if the sign banning guns had fallen down, the person wasn't an Arizona resident, or the notice was first posted less than a month earlier.
J.P. Nelson, director of the NRA's western region, said people with concealed-weapons permits have the right to protect themselves by bringing guns into bars and restaurants.
"Bad things happen in bars and restaurants," Nelson said. "People want to carry a gun and if the facility owner doesn't have a problem with it, there shouldn't be a problem. If a person starts drinking and gets in a shootout and kills someone, of course they're subject to criminal prosecution."
Marc Peagler, owner of the Silver Spur Saloon Restaurant in Cave Creek outside Phoenix, said he will allow people with concealed weapons permits to carry in his business, and Silver Spur will be safer because of it.
"It's a deterrent," he said. "In the criminal element, there is some logic that says when people look at a place that they might want to rob, the ones that have big signs up that say 'We do not permit firearms' would be the first target.
"They know there's not going to be anybody in there that can stop them," he said.
Arizonans are also allowed to openly carry guns — on a belt or holster, for example. Those people still won't be allowed in bars or restaurants serving alcohol under the new law if they're armed.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,557503,00.html
Big deal. They've never been NOT allowed in bars in Indiana, and it's a non-issue.
Big deal. They've never been NOT allowed in bars in Indiana, and it's a non-issue.
Great answer. And as you personally know, this is also a non-issue here in NJ since carrying is a near impossibility. Therefore none of this shit means anything to me as a resident of this state either.
Has nothing to do with it. There is a bigger picture to observe.
QuietShootr
09-30-09, 20:47
Great answer. And as you personally know, this is also a non-issue here in NJ since carrying is a near impossibility. Therefore none of this shit means anything to me as a resident of this state either.
Has nothing to do with it. There is a bigger picture to observe.
You asked if it was an issue in your original post. Based on my observations, it is not. In fact, we had a rather amusing situation in a local Applebee's a couple of years ago - a patron came in and sat at the bar open carrying a pistol. The manager called the police in a panic, and was asked, "Is he doing anything?" "No, but he has a gun!" "Sir, that's not illegal. Call us back if he causes a problem."
Basically the only people who are shooting people in bars here are people who would shoot people in bars anyway. I strongly suspect this holds true everywhere else, too...with the possible exception of the great Northeast - people seem to be really angry there.
...with the possible exception of the great Northeast - people seem to be really angry there.
Damn you and your opinions!!
:D
Couldn't resist. I think we are on the same overall page.
The problem is that we could not even carry a firearm in a restaraunt because the way the law was written. Now, we can as well as bars and pubs as long as you don't consume alcohol. As for all of the irrational fears I remember the exact same angst when CCW started being passed all over the country.
Yes I think it is a bad idea, I always will, whether the person is drinking or not. Yes I realize I will get my @ss chewed out on this site for saying so. Yes I work in the industry. Yes I support the 2nd Amendment. Yes I think that it is up to the property owner though, and not the government to make these decisions.
Feel free to fire away!
Exactly. The new law is very clear and concise. If a property owner posts a sign in the correct manner then you can choose to leave the premises or leave the gun in your car.
I like the law and how it is written.
The establishment still has the ability to block people from carrying on the premises which I feel they should have the right to do. If you are carrying a firearm then you can complain to the management, leave your gun in your vehicle, or go down the street to a establishment that allows carrying.
If they lose enough business or get a serious amount of flak then they will probably change their policy.
The law is very clear in the manner that it has to be posted. If they DO NOT DO IT CORRECTLY there is nothing they can do. At least that is what the newest NRA email says;
Also effective today, concealed carry permit holders can carry a concealed firearm for self-defense while in an establishment that serves on site alcoholic beverages as long as they are not consuming alcohol. A restaurant or bar can ban possession by posting a sign next to the liquor license. It is important to note that posting the sign at the entrance of an establishment is not sufficient and one is legally protected to enter the premises and see if the sign is posted in the proper place next to the liquor license. If it is not, the establishment is not in compliance with the law and you may remain inside even if a sign is posted at the entrance. It is important for gun owners to politely let restaurant owners know you prefer to patronize those restaurants who do not post their premises.
House is different than a public establishment, if we are talking bars and restuarants.
To me, property rights vs my right to self-defense is a win for self-defense. I understand property owners wanting complete control, but when you are open to the public all kinds of stuff is no longer in your control.
If I want to bring my 'black friend' with me to the bar, I should be able to just like if I wanted to bring a black friend, not named Barak.
I want to see some bars and restuarants that put these 'protection free' signs up get sued after someone is injured in the establishment or on they way back to their car. I bet there are a lot more lawsuits like that than with random shots and fights, NFL & NBA players excluded.
I do like the balance of it is a concealed handgun and they can post their little little signs, but all they can do is ask you to leave, no criminal. I might start printing bad right after dessert. Bad sign placement, new signs being put up, and general clutter in entrances make it too easy to get pinched.
I've been pretty surprised here in Colorado that most corporate places don't have signs, thought there is not a standard one to put up.
I wonder if the bar in question in the story has steak knives for their customers?
I will fight in court that I left my red cartoon gun at home, so the sign doesn't apply to me.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.