Guns in restaurants draw stares but little outcry

[el politico]

Had enough wrote:

<quoted text>
...and what if some of those gun-toting patrons ARE criminals? Then you have a free for all shoot out that will probably kill scores of innocent people.
It's a mote point, however, because I have news for you: most shootings are not a result of snipers opening fire on innocent people, they are crimes of passion involving people who know each other.
Only a complete moron would not see the danger of people carrying firearms in an establishment that serves alcohol.
I love the distinction gun advocates make between law abiding citizens who legally carry guns and the "bad guys" that carry guns. Please enlighten me as to how you know the difference? Is it beyond the realm of possibility that, at some point, the "good guy" might become a "bad guy" (i.e. too much to drink, some guy starts hitting on their wife, etc...)

You have gun toting criminal patrons now. The difference is that we don't want them to be the only ones able to use deadly force. In case you haven't noticed, your gun free zones everywhere are ignored by the criminal element.

School shootings? Why don't you tell us about the massacre of dozens at the Appalachian Law School in 2002, not far from Virginia Tech? Oops, I guess you have no clue about that one.

And yes we can tell the good guys from the bad guys. Citizens who have gone through the trouble of background checks and concealed carry permits are statistically safer than almost any other group you could point to. You are more likely to be accidentally shot by a cop than by someone with a concealed carry permit, that from at least 30 years of statistical data.

But don't worry, your phobia of inanimate objects is not uncommon. We see anti's like you in here all the time. You definitely fall into "one of them", so you don't have to feel alone.

[Armed Veteran]

And I should have said "millions" of permits.

[Hydratwo]

FLAGRL wrote:

Reminds me of what happened down here in S. Fla. many years ago. A couple of gun toting thugs tried to rob a local bar. Unfortunately for them, it was a cop hangout (after work beer type of place.) Did they get a surprise!!!! They are now enjoying the hospitality of the grey bar motel.

You have just demonstrated by your post why most people are skeptical of "open gun" fanatics.

[Lochner]

Plant Lady wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you think the liberty to pursue self-protection is not as great of importance as those you espouse?
If you lose this freedom, how would you pursue the others?

I do. John Locke would argue that "you are your own property" and that it is the "right" of the "state" to use its "police powers" that we the willing give them to protect us. We give up some of our liberties for protection from the "state." Is this a perfect system... No, and I'll be the first to admit that. What I am saying is where does one draw the line between taking "protection" by ourselves and the "protection" that the "state" is to provide for us.

[Monty]

Semi-literate wrote:

<quoted text>
(Actually, now that I'm thinking about it, the beav, grown up, really started to get that Sir Winston bloat, didn't he? Unfortunate really.)

Semi, please tell me we're NOT going to name a cigar style after the Beav!!

[el politico]

Lochner wrote:

<quoted text>
I do. John Locke would argue that "you are your own property" and that it is the "right" of the "state" to use its "police powers" that we the willing give them to protect us. We give up some of our liberties for protection from the "state." Is this a perfect system... No, and I'll be the first to admit that. What I am saying is where does one draw the line between taking "protection" by ourselves and the "protection" that the "state" is to provide for us.

We do not give up any rights to the state for protection, since the state is under absolutely NO obligation to protect us whatsoever.
In Warren v. District of Columbia (1981), the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled, official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection... a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen.
In Bowers v. DeVito (1982), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled,[T]here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.
"There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state (or Federal) against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state (gov't) to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order"
(Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686F.2d 616 [1982]).
Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the court ruled, 7-2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C.§1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband.

The constitution says that the state has to provide for the common defense. Individual defense is up to you.

[God Save The Republic]

Lochner wrote:

<quoted text>
I do. John Locke would argue that "you are your own property" and that it is the "right" of the "state" to use its "police powers" that we the willing give them to protect us. We give up some of our liberties for protection from the "state." Is this a perfect system... No, and I'll be the first to admit that. What I am saying is where does one draw the line between taking "protection" by ourselves and the "protection" that the "state" is to provide for us.

The only problem with that is the state is not obligated to protect us. The courts have so ruled many, many times. We are responsible for our own protection. Katrina was a great example of what happens when people wait for the government to take care of them.

[Monty]

Had enough wrote:

<quoted text>
...and what if some of those gun-toting patrons ARE criminals? Then you have a free for all shoot out that will probably kill scores of innocent people.

Some gun-toting people on the street are criminals. In fact, there may even be one waiting to accost you when you come out of that bar. How will you defend yourself?

Had enough wrote:

It's a mote point, however, because I have news for you: most shootings are not a result of snipers opening fire on innocent people, they are crimes of passion involving people who know each other.

Do you have a source for that news. A cite you could post?

Had enough wrote:

Only a complete moron would not see the danger of people carrying firearms in an establishment that serves alcohol.

Explain Indiana which has allowed this or years. Is the state of Indiana a bunch of complete morons? How many bad incidents have they had as a result?

Had enough wrote:

I love the distinction gun advocates make between law abiding citizens who legally carry guns and the "bad guys" that carry guns.

Really? It's also a legal distinction. It's recognized universally...except on your planet obviously.

Had enough wrote:

Please enlighten me as to how you know the difference?

Okay...one is a criminal (becasue after all criminals are so called because they have convicted of crimes) and the other has not. That help?

Had enough wrote:

Is it beyond the realm of possibility that, at some point, the "good guy" might become a "bad guy" (i.e. too much to drink, some guy starts hitting on their wife, etc...)

Might? He might also get into his car and kill someone. But then, ANYONE can do that including people who don't carry. So you're a big proponent of prior restraint?

[Monty]

Hydratwo wrote:

<quoted text>
You have just demonstrated by your post why most people are skeptical of "open gun" fanatics.

You have just demonstrated your post why most hoplophobes never stay long on these boards because their ad hominen attacks reveal their ignorance within the first 3 posts.

[rosco]

They should allow resturants and other places of business to declare themselves weapon free zones. Violators could be arrested and charged with a disorderly conduct charge. Since we are allowed to ban smoking from places, so we should be able to ban guns.

[God Save The Republic]

rosco wrote:

They should allow resturants and other places of business to declare themselves weapon free zones. Violators could be arrested and charged with a disorderly conduct charge. Since we are allowed to ban smoking from places, so we should be able to ban guns.

Or, they could just have the restaurants post a sign that said; Please come in and rob our patrons and us, there is no one here to stop you.

[Plant Lady]

el politico wrote:

<quoted text>
We do not give up any rights to the state for protection, since the state is under absolutely NO obligation to protect us whatsoever.
In Warren v. District of Columbia (1981), the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled, official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection... a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen.
In Bowers v. DeVito (1982), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled,[T]here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.
"There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state (or Federal) against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state (gov't) to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order"
(Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686F.2d 616 [1982]).
Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the court ruled, 7-2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C.§1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband.
The constitution says that the state has to provide for the common defense. Individual defense is up to you.

Thanks EP- saved me a bit of typing there.

[Monty]

rosco wrote:

They should allow resturants and other places of business to declare themselves weapon free zones.

rosco, they can and many do.

rosco wrote:

Violators could be arrested and charged with a disorderly conduct charge.

Well typically the owner/manager of the establishment would ask that eprson to vacate the premises. If the patron resisted it begets possible tresspassing charges brought on the patron. Depending on the escalation of tension between the patron and the manager (and other patrons by extension) certainly disorderly conduct could be an issue...hopefully it wouldn't turn into assault and other offenses.

rosco wrote:

<
Since we are allowed to ban smoking from places, so we should be able to ban guns.

And again, many establishments are already doing that.

[God Save The Republic]

Monty wrote:

<quoted text>
rosco, they can and many do.
<quoted text>
Well typically the owner/manager of the establishment would ask that eprson to vacate the premises. If the patron resisted it begets possible tresspassing charges brought on the patron. Depending on the escalation of tension between the patron and the manager (and other patrons by extension) certainly disorderly conduct could be an issue...hopefully it wouldn't turn into assault and other offenses.
<quoted text>
And again, many establishments are already doing that.

It all depends on the laws of the State. Some States allow business to post against CCW others do not. Some States allow open carry without restrictions and have no permit requirement. There are no national CCW or open carry laws. Firearm owners are responsible for understanding the laws of the States in which they carry.

[Monty]

God Save The Republic wrote:

<quoted text>
It all depends on the laws of the State. Some States allow business to post against CCW others do not. Some States allow open carry without restrictions and have no permit requirement. There are no national CCW or open carry laws. Firearm owners are responsible for understanding the laws of the States in which they carry.

I agree 100% but the owner of an establishment is well within his/her rights to ask ANY patron to leave no matter what the cause. The patron is legally bound to comply with that request.

Doesn't mean I agree in all situations, but that's the way it is in all 50 states.

[BanditZeroThree]

Semi-literate wrote:

Zippity: OMG, I didn't realize B3 (good one!) meant THAT Ward Churchill! Oh, I'm honored.
Actually, Ward and I were in the same A-team that ran Lurpies into China, Moscow, and certain parts of the LA Underground (Yep, Mr.T and George Peppard were also part of our string.) back in 67-70. Ward was the brains of the outfit but that damn Peppard got all the good lookin' girls.
Isn't the internet great there, Zipster. I looked him up ALL BY MYSELF (I think that qualifies as a great contribution to your country, don't you?) and responded so you didn't have to stay up past your bedtime and be bothered to press down all those little letter buttons with your front hooves. I can't imagine how tough that is for you, but then you may well think that is your good service to your country.
Geez, you guys! A bazillion posts ago Armed Vet asked if I was a Marxist (I think he mighta' been hazing me, but offered him some info on that if ya' wanna' check it out) and now B3 and you are on me about 'ol Ward. Such KIDDERS!
Well, let me confess: I don't have nearly as many books and articles as he does, but I'm still "in my prime." (The correct movie cit. for that gets sent 50 rounds of .45 ACP, on Zippy here!)
Woof! That goes to show ya' what happens when schools skimp on the whole "tenure and promotion" procedure. But just in case you might presume that ALL academics are pointy-headed, tweedy Liberals --- well, maybe we are and maybe we aren't?
Actually, one of my old campus buddy's is a pretty darn good competitive shooter, and guess WHAT? The little WUSS teaches ART!!! While wearing a skirt and earrings (his wife's) and he lisps his way down the hall something fierce. Seriously, the groupings he places at tremendous distants are quite cool. And save it, he dresses as normally as Zippy here; but I gotta' tell ya,' he has a more grown up nickname.
Good old Ward. Well, I learn something new every day. Do you think Ward has a carry permit? I bet he could get one if he wanted to, but I don't think he's going to be teaching anywhere decent anytime soon: read NEVER!
Maybe he and Bellesiles could open an internet "university"?

Hey...be nice to Zippy...I have her back :-)

Well, I will give it to you for a thoughtful and humorous post. And I am elated over your idea of putting Ward and Michael together. It's a stroke of genius. Now if you could cajole Chuck Schumer, Bab's Boxer and Madam Pelosi to join the Bellesiles-Churchill duet, we would have a text book (like that?)"Circle J*rk" of the highest magnitude.

Sir, while you are wrong on most of "what" you write, I am delighted by the "way" in which you write it.

b3
out

[Semi-literate]

Monty wrote:

<quoted text>
Semi, please tell me we're NOT going to name a cigar style after the Beav!!

Ya' know, I didn't think of that until now. I like that idea, and this is a free market economy!(You'll get your 10%.)
I dunno, somethin' like "Beaver Logs," "Paunch and Jowls" (lite), "Winnies and Wallys." This type of thinking breaks up my day while I sit in anticipation of my next meds dose!

Meanwhile, keep that rear sight fuzz-less!

[God Save The Republic]

Monty wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree 100% but the owner of an establishment is well within his/her rights to ask ANY patron to leave no matter what the cause. The patron is legally bound to comply with that request.
Doesn't mean I agree in all situations, but that's the way it is in all 50 states.

True. My point and concern is that if the firearm is being carried concealed, the business owner will never know. The problem is if the business is posted against CCW as allowed in some States and the firearm owner carries anyway. If that fact becomes known because of some incident, the firearm owner is in trouble.

In the case of VA, people can open carry in establishments that serve alcohol but may not legally carry concealed. The folks written about in this story were drawing attention to the absurdity of the VA laws. They want the ability to carry concealed in establishments that serve alcohol.

Everyone needs to understand the laws in their state.

[Monty]

God Save The Republic wrote:

<quoted text>
True. My point and concern is that if the firearm is being carried concealed, the business owner will never know. The problem is if the business is posted against CCW as allowed in some States and the firearm owner carries anyway. If that fact becomes known because of some incident, the firearm owner is in trouble.
In the case of VA, people can open carry in establishments that serve alcohol but may not legally carry concealed. The folks written about in this story were drawing attention to the absurdity of the VA laws. They want the ability to carry concealed in establishments that serve alcohol.
Everyone needs to understand the laws in their state.

Agreed 100%

[Semi-literate]

Yo, Bandit: I had NO idea, Zippy was, well...a girl/woman/female/"person of the contradictory gender;" I may have been more polite, but ya' know, when they go after ya' sometimes ya' gotta' go for the X ring.(Read:always go for the X ring.) Now, Plant Lady: I can safely state that I've never before been so enthralled by a woman's...snakes. They seem to become her! So now someone's gonna tell me PL's a HIM? say it ain't so, Joe. It's a screwy world in this threads.

As I truly entered into this arena by accident, it has been an interesting learning experience, and one thing is certain: the gun folks have a plethora of data at hand, while a lot of antis do not.(I'm not saying a contrapositon is not out there, but it probably has not been looked for.) I'm certain there are reasons for this situation with tremendous societal implications, but that ain't my research bag.
Meanwhile, I now have new names to look up (Pelosi aside). Knowledge is power!(Yeah, I know, so is a .45, that's why I own one.)