Dining Disarmed: A Recipe for Disaster

This forum is for discussion of general issues regarding Concealed Carry in your everyday life. This forum is not intended to be political or for discussing legislation.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Post Reply
Scott
Posts: 415
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 9:57 am
Location: Blip!

Dining Disarmed: A Recipe for Disaster

Post by Scott »

Mr. Caroline and I are on the exact same page on this issue; No emotional handwringing here; just logic and reason (and the article pilfered from July’s Blue Press!! If I could have just posted part of the article and a link, I would have, but as it is, I had to scan it and edit it--all for you.)

Dining Disarmed: A Recipe for Disaster

Story & Photo by Peter Caroline

As anyone knows who has ever watched the TV show "Cops," consuming a couple of beers can turn a person into an idiot. This was apparently the premise behind a piece of legislation that was recently vetoed by Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano. The bill in question allowed licensed individuals to carry a handgun in a bar or restaurant as long as they didn't drink.

Although more than 30 other states currently allow concealed carry in a bar, with no restriction on drinking, the Governor apparently felt that armed Arizonans could not be trusted to behave responsibly in any establishment serving liquor, whether they drank or not.

Arizona passed its first concealed carry law in 1994, legalizing at last what for many years had been common practice. I recall, back in the 1980s, visiting the offices of a magazine publisher in Tucson. I asked one of the staff members why it was that Arizona, certainly a more gun-friendly state than Massachusetts where I lived, did not allow concealed carry. At this point, a couple of individuals showed me their handguns...one tucked under a vest, the other in a backpack. I was informed that the law was regarded with contempt, and not observed by many.

To me, "allowing" law-abiding folk to carry a concealed handgun in a bar or restaurant where liquor is served makes eminently good sense.

Requiring that the gun be left in a vehicle when dining out is simply asking for trouble. An unattended gun is a candidate for theft. In addition, gun prohibitions have the undesirable effect of requiring gun owners to render themselves defenseless in these establishments.
Remember Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, October 16, 1991: A lunatic drove Iris vehicle through the front of the restaurant during a busy lunch hour, and then proceeded to shoot 24 unarmed people to death. Susan Gratia watched helplessly while both her parents were killed, knowing that her .38 revolver was 100 ft. away, locked in her car, as required by Texas law. Later, she lobbied successfully for a change in the law, and legal concealed carry became a fact of life in Texas.

Any law that requires decent people to be defenseless is a bad law. To tell gun owners that yes, you may be armed in a bar or restaurant, but no, you may not have a drink, is patronizing and insulting. I have, on many occasions both in Massachusetts and Arizona, dined with individuals I’ve known to be armed. Drinks were served to all, and decorum prevailed.

Responsible, mature individuals do not get slobbery or nasty drunk, particularly when armed. Well, one might ask, what about irresponsible or immature individuals? These people should not be armed in the first place, and probably should not drink. But until that unhappy day when prior restraint becomes the law of the land, there's very little we can do about these very untypical instances except punish the offenders after the fact.

The anti-self- defense spokes-people are constantly warning us that passing pro-gun laws will turn our land into Dodge City. Oh, really. Virtually any blue-state inner city area will have Dodge City beat four ways to Sunday in terms of homicide rate. The cow towns and mining towns of the Old West had a considerable number of instances of young, drunk and stupid men shooting each other. For the most part, however, the streets were safe for sober and law-abiding citizens, unlike the streets of, say, today's Washington, D.C., a showcase of gun control laws and uncontrolled violence.

It would be nice to believe that, on any occasion when I went out for dinner and drinks with family and friends, I could be assured of a safe and untroubled time. It would be nice...but it wouldn't be realistic.

As long as the Supreme Court says that the police are not directly responsible for my personal safety, then it is my responsibility to provide security for myself and my family. And that means all the time and everywhere, even in a restaurant or bar. Think about it: when your legislators do not allow you the means of self- defense, wherever you might be, what does that say about their respect for your life?
Blip!
User avatar
Glock and dagger
Posts: 3091
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Findlay

Post by Glock and dagger »

Lots of logic in that...
I'm Glock and Dagger and I approved this message.

"If it deprives just one citizen of their God-given rights, it's not worth it."
-evan price

FOOTOS... the Fresh Fighter
User avatar
Aaron
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:50 pm
Location: Wadsworth (Medina County)

Post by Aaron »

a good read.

that particular law needs to be changed here, and fast.
Life is precious, Got Sig?
Sig P250 Compact .40s&w
Post Reply