Msnbc.com: Arizona approves bill allowing guns in bars

[MrMcKulit 0]

Arizona approves bill allowing guns in bars

The Arizona Senate has given final approval to a bill that would allow people with concealed weapons permits to carry a gun into a business that serves alcohol.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31683427/from/ET/

[Ray Ray 3,566]

Arizona approves bill allowing guns in bars

The Arizona Senate has given final approval to a bill that would allow people with concealed weapons permits to carry a gun into a business that serves alcohol.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31683427/from/ET/

 

I love those Red States!

[ben 0]

I personally don't agree with this. It would be nice if all citizens were responsible firearm handlers. All it takes is one drunken idiot to ruin it for everyone.

[Chad 3]

Some citizens can not handle themselves or their children, let alone firearms. I think it should be reserved for responsible people.

[Radek 73]

Of course, I am for the 2nd amendment, but this is a bad idea :roll:

 

"Drinking while carrying is a bad mix." :shock:

[tbtrout 141]

I believe if you are carrying you are not allowed to drink in a bar. But, A bar is not the only place to drink. It is up to the individual to follow the law and do the right thing. Just like drinking and driving. When they screw up, hammer them with the full extent of the law. We need to go back to relying on personal responsability for our protection, not Government regulations.

[njpilot 671]

I believe if you are carrying you are not allowed to drink in a bar. But, A bar is not the only place to drink. It is up to the individual to follow the law and do the right thing. Just like drinking and driving. When they screw up, hammer them with the full extent of the law. We need to go back to relying on personal responsability for our protection, not Government regulations.

 

+1

[KpdPipes 388]

I personally don't agree with this. It would be nice if all citizens were responsible firearm handlers. All it takes is one drunken idiot to ruin it for everyone.

 

The law doesnt allow DRINKING while CCW, it allows a person who is carrying to enter an establishment, such as a Restaurant that serves alcohol. Think of it this way, in Az you could NOT CCW if you were going out to dinner with your wife if the restaurant even only served Wine, you could not go to a Friday's, Houlihan's, or Chili's type restaurant, EVEN IF YOU NEVER WENT NEAR THE BAR. This redaction to the law removes that prohibition, while retaining the one that says you cannot CCW if you are CONSUMING alcohol.

[ben 0]

I personally don't agree with this. It would be nice if all citizens were responsible firearm handlers. All it takes is one drunken idiot to ruin it for everyone.

 

The law doesnt allow DRINKING while CCW, it allows a person who is carrying to enter an establishment, such as a Restaurant that serves alcohol. Think of it this way, in Az you could NOT CCW if you were going out to dinner with your wife if the restaurant even only served Wine, you could not go to a Friday's, Houlihan's, or Chili's type restaurant, EVEN IF YOU NEVER WENT NEAR THE BAR. This redaction to the law removes that prohibition, while retaining the one that says you cannot CCW if you are CONSUMING alcohol.

 

I realize this. If practicality and common sense prevailed, there would be no need for discussion. Unfortunately, this country is full of jack-asses. All it takes is one person to become drunk and have a negligent discharge. The media would grossly exaggerate all details and citizens on the fence of 2d Amendment Rights might starting leaning towards the restriction of said rights.

 

Certainly, I agree with tbtrout in that people should be held personally responsible for their f*ckups. But that's not the world we live in. The actions of one could affect an entire demographic.

[SpecialK 193]

well it is about time, that was such a stupid rule. Colorado has always allowed CCW holders to carry into establishments that serve alcoholic beverages and there is no problem. That law in AZ made people disarm to eat at restaurants that sold booze as well as the bars. It is still illegal to be under the influence of alcohol and be in possession of a gun.

 

I REPEAT!!!

If you are intoxicated you are illegally carrying a gun, so it doesn't matter if you have a CCW or not!

 

I go to bars in Colorado all the time while carrying, but I of course do not drink when carrying. To say that allowing guns in bars by people that have a CCW would be bad is an argument against CCW as a whole.

[KpdPipes 388]

I personally don't agree with this. It would be nice if all citizens were responsible firearm handlers. All it takes is one drunken idiot to ruin it for everyone.

 

The law doesnt allow DRINKING while CCW, it allows a person who is carrying to enter an establishment, such as a Restaurant that serves alcohol. Think of it this way, in Az you could NOT CCW if you were going out to dinner with your wife if the restaurant even only served Wine, you could not go to a Friday's, Houlihan's, or Chili's type restaurant, EVEN IF YOU NEVER WENT NEAR THE BAR. This redaction to the law removes that prohibition, while retaining the one that says you cannot CCW if you are CONSUMING alcohol.

 

I realize this. If practicality and common sense prevailed, there would be no need for discussion. Unfortunately, this country is full of jack-asses. All it takes is one person to become drunk and have a negligent discharge. The media would grossly exaggerate all details and citizens on the fence of 2d Amendment Rights might starting leaning towards the restriction of said rights.

 

Certainly, I agree with tbtrout in that people should be held personally responsible for their f*ckups. But that's not the world we live in. The actions of one could affect an entire demographic.

 

 

Not to be a Prick Ben but that is the EXACT same argument the antis use to keep CCW from being a reality here in NJ, and to fight 2A issues everywhere else. Put yourself in this situation. You are in Az with your Family on Vacation. You are carrying there because you had the forethought to get your Fl Nonresident CCW. The family goes into a Chain restaurant for dinner. To be on the good side of the law, you secure your weapon in your car. You are not drinking, nor did you intend to drink since you have your kids along and are driving. An Incident like Luby's in Tx happens, and it COULD have been stopped by someone like you, who did not drink or intend on drinking, but was disarmed because the establishment carried a Liquor License. Yeah there are stupid people out there, hell My profession has at least one or two a week in the spotlight because of terminally stupid things they do.... Should we do away with All police departments because of the small percentage of idiots who manage to pass the screening??

[ben 0]

Not to be a Prick Ben but that is the EXACT same argument the antis use to keep CCW from being a reality here in NJ, and to fight 2A issues everywhere else. Put yourself in this situation. You are in Az with your Family on Vacation. You are carrying there because you had the forethought to get your Fl Nonresident CCW. The family goes into a Chain restaurant for dinner. To be on the good side of the law, you secure your weapon in your car. You are not drinking, nor did you intend to drink since you have your kids along and are driving. An Incident like Luby's in Tx happens, and it COULD have been stopped by someone like you, who did not drink or intend on drinking, but was disarmed because the establishment carried a Liquor License. Yeah there are stupid people out there, hell My profession has at least one or two a week in the spotlight because of terminally stupid things they do.... Should we do away with All police departments because of the small percentage of idiots who manage to pass the screening??

 

I can definitely see how the "antis" could use a similar argument. All I'm saying is this should have been a non-issue. I don't see the need for Arizona to put this issue into the national spotlight. To give my 2 cents on how I would have handled it, I would have left it up to the business owner to restrict firearms on their property, if they were so inclined, PERIOD.

 

Whenever there is an issue where two parties don't agree, especially 2d Amendment or CCW, one side cannot get everything they want. Unfortunately, the only way to find some form of arbitration is through compromise. We can shout rhetoric all we want, but that will get us nowhere. I would love to exercise the 2d Amendment Right as intended by our forefathers, but times have changed, politically. I find it unfortunate that proponents of CCW and the 2d Amendment, WHICH I AM, always set ourselves up for failure, then complain about it when things don't go our way, i.e. a drunken fool with an itchy trigger finger.

 

Obviously I do not think they should do away with police departments because of a few idiots. I'm not suggesting they get rid of CCW licenses because of a few idiots either.

[wsl 2]

Its already been in the national spotlight. The tennessee incident where the wife had her CCW but had to leave her weapon in the car to enter the restaurant, and her husband was shot and killed. CCW is to give you the opportunity to defend yourself if the need arises. And those with CCW tend to be more law abiding than the general population, so there will be alot more incidents of someone protecting themselves or others than there will be a CCW getting drunk and having an accident.

 

Restricting the CCW by the business is still restrictions. And any advocation for more restrictions is directly feeding into the anti-gun mentality. They've already got you thinking about the negative what ifs as opposed to the postive what-ifs. The positive always outwieghs the negative, but it just doesn't get media coverage. Its the reason reality TV is so popular. No one wants feel good news or stories. Fear drives viewers, and announcing successful firearm defenses doesn't scare anyone, it would only make them feel safer and then they'd go outside and not watch as much TV.

[ben 0]

Its already been in the national spotlight. The tennessee incident where the wife had her CCW but had to leave her weapon in the car to enter the restaurant, and her husband was shot and killed. CCW is to give you the opportunity to defend yourself if the need arises. And those with CCW tend to be more law abiding than the general population, so there will be alot more incidents of someone protecting themselves or others than there will be a CCW getting drunk and having an accident.

 

Restricting the CCW by the business is still restrictions. And any advocation for more restrictions is directly feeding into the anti-gun mentality. They've already got you thinking about the negative what ifs as opposed to the postive what-ifs. The positive always outwieghs the negative, but it just doesn't get media coverage. Its the reason reality TV is so popular. No one wants feel good news or stories. Fear drives viewers, and announcing successful firearm defenses doesn't scare anyone, it would only make them feel safer and then they'd go outside and not watch as much TV.

 

Restricting CCW in a business is absolutely legitimate. As in, government should not be able to interfere in personal/business affairs on private property. I agree, positives always outweigh the negatives.

[SpecialK 193]

a business should have the right to deny people with guns to enter. It is their personal property and they can do as they wish. You do not have to be a patron of such businesses. There was a restaurant in Steamboat, CO a while back that went out of business because they posted a "Gun Free Zone" and we(meaning Veterans, NRA members and other gun friendly shop owners and people) refused to go eat there and had all our friends and family do the same. They have the right to deny you entry if you are armed, but you have the right to deny them money by spending it elsewhere.

[kenw 293]

As in, government should not be able to interfere in personal/business affairs on private property.

The question goes deeper than that. Can a business post the following rules without running afoul of the government?

 

No Blacks Allowed

No Women Allowed

No Democrats Allowed

Muslims will not be served.

Service will be refused to anyone over 6' tall

The Blind will not be served here

 

Of course not... they would be publicly flogged, and rightfully so. We have a long way to go before the discrimination against legal CCW ends, but gov't does interfere in business affairs all the time, sometimes it's bad interference, and sometimes not. A world without rules isn't a Utopia, it's a Dystopia, where anarchy rules. Until civil rights laws extend to CCW (probably never), restaurants and other businesses can do what they want, make whatever restrictions they choose, and your only recourse is to go somewhere else, or picket in front of the place, as is your right.

 

K

[ben 0]

As in, government should not be able to interfere in personal/business affairs on private property.

The question goes deeper than that. Can a business post the following rules without running afoul of the government?

 

No Blacks Allowed

No Women Allowed

No Democrats Allowed

Muslims will not be served.

Service will be refused to anyone over 6' tall

The Blind will not be served here

 

Of course not... they would be publicly flogged, and rightfully so. We have a long way to go before the discrimination against legal CCW ends, but gov't does interfere in business affairs all the time, sometimes it's bad interference, and sometimes not. A world without rules isn't a Utopia, it's a Dystopia, where anarchy rules. Until civil rights laws extend to CCW (probably never), restaurants and other businesses can do what they want, make whatever restrictions they choose, and your only recourse is to go somewhere else, or picket in front of the place, as is your right.

 

K

 

You're really comparing apples to oranges here. These are the types of arguments that I would hear all the time from the right. Comparing racial discrimination to CCW discrimination is completely baseless. If we were to petition for CCW in NJ and cited racial discrimination as the basis for requested legislation, we would never be taken seriously.

[KpdPipes 388]

a business should have the right to deny people with guns to enter. It is their personal property and they can do as they wish. You do not have to be a patron of such businesses. There was a restaurant in Steamboat, CO a while back that went out of business because they posted a "Gun Free Zone" and we(meaning Veterans, NRA members and other gun friendly shop owners and people) refused to go eat there and had all our friends and family do the same. They have the right to deny you entry if you are armed, but you have the right to deny them money by spending it elsewhere.

 

 

I Believe Arizona HAS the provision in the law for businesses to post the "No Weapons" signs..so any restaurant/Bar owners that DO feel that way would still be able to prohibit CCW..of course they would have the same problem as the place in Steamboat Springs, since once that sign goes up you open yourself up to people voting with their wallets.

[bbk 188]

Ahh I miss Colorado, especially during the summer time... but yes, I agree with ben (I'm a Ben too!). And the fact that Arizona might in fact have that provision in their laws, that's icing on the cake.