Posted on 06/19/2016 8:52:48 PM PDT by Innovative
From CNN site:
LaPierre later tweeted: “I want to clarify my comment: if you’re going to carry, don’t drink. OK to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol.”
The double barrel shotgun behind the bar was always a good idea.
Train ONE person in every ‘gun free zone’... a bartender - a bar manager...
It doesn’t have to be everyone and it doesn’t have to be people who are drinking. But it has to be ‘enough’ that a killer doesn’t feel safe going in for a slaughter.
Same with schools, colleges etc. - - a couple of people should be armed and trained.
Aha— So the club owner could have been armed at the bar which is her place of business. I would imagine that by extension she can transfer her right to carry to her guard employees and her other employees(?). That sounds at least to me like a more commonsense situation in florida...
So, it was her choice for the bar guards to be unarmed. Hmm. She almost sounds like a typical liberal, someone who actually drank the koolaid that other liberals served about how peaceful the world would be with “sensible” gun control (ie “no guns”)? Apparently she decided to implement her own private “sensible” gun control on her property, but it did no good because folks can always violate her no gun rule somehow. How many florida bar owners are like her, i wonder. And i wonder how she can talk about reopening if she is not going to change her no gun bar guard rule. Who would feel safe in her bar? Would it even be feasible to re-open the bar with her as owner, given the casualty count and the failure of her policy to provide security for her patrons? (I recall reading about her intent to re-open, and of course everyone needs some time to grieve for the victims, but still i wonder if anyone has been able to ask her hard questions such as these).
Anyway thanks, though still somewhat murky on some implementation details and implications...
Aha. Thanks for response.
I am not on any crusade against bar owners in general. I am mainly trying to understand all the legal details and implications.
However, it seems to me that the law puts bar owners in a moral squeeze. Patrons are required to be unarmed by law. From my point of view, this automatically places patrons at some risk. It is difficult for me to contemplate that the liability exposure can be legislatively made to vanish by transferring responsibility for a flawed security loophole to the state, who cannot be sued. That just seems like flawed law.
I feel a need to step back and consider an analogy to schools. How many public schools are armed these days? In California, i get the impression that policy varies from city to city— in particular, some districts have police presence at some or all school sites, and at least where they do, that so far, this seems to work well. Of course, bars cannot simply have police on site— there are just not enough police and there is also the matter of pay. But regardless of details, a form of “protection vacuum” seems obvious for bars, as it imaginably would have been to those california cities who now have school site police presence.
Another analogy would be to some archetypal Wild West saloon with the bartender and his shotgun always kept loaded and ready behind the bar, at least in movies. Or, apparently, some town sheriffs implemented their own gun control by requiring cowboys to turn in their guns when they rode into town, returning them when they rode back out, and that cowboys meekly acquiesced (this seems more mythical than real to me, but whatever).
Anyway so florida legislatively created a protection vacuum without filling the vacuum? The implications still seem murky to me. I am getting an impression that Florida ran itself up a tree so to speak with its own legislation in this corner case situation...
That would be correct. She would however be liable for their actions as well as her own. Most clubs here that have issues hire outside security. BTW the Orlando shooter had a Florida G license (armed security)which meant he had to annually re-qualify with his 9mm.
How about OK to carry in bars that serve fish and chips?
(Still somewhat murky to me...)
Aha thanks.
And for liability, I would anticipate that all bar owners or at least all rational bar owners would use a corporate shield. Note— I am not a bar owner (or lawyer) so I am just talking through my hat here...
If people are taking drugs, they're already breaking the law.
And they probably already have guns both to protect their money and drugs.
The wonder is not that they would shoot someone while in that state, but rather that they are so restrained while in that state!
I've been armed, and I've been drunk, but I've NEVER shot someone or even brandished during those two intersecting times.
Maybe those that serve fish and clips?
I side with Trump on this one. I understand why the NRA takes their position but there are bars I wouldn’t go into unarmed.
That makes a lot of sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.