Posted on 11/25/2013 4:05:23 AM PST by Kaslin
Politics is dominated by sound bites meant to generate emotion, not rational discourse. One of the most dominant sound bites in recent North Carolina politics is that the law now allows people to carry "guns in bars." Upon hearing those three words, "guns in bars," people recoil in horror. The very idea that North Carolina is full of bars where people are packing heat is enough to make tourists avoid the state altogether. However, when one compares the old gun law with the new one, things make perfect sense.
On October 1st, North Carolina's absolute ban on handguns in all restaurants serving alcohol expired. That evening, I just happened to go into such a restaurant with a friend and fellow concealed weapons permit holder. Like me, she is an opponent of a statewide government-imposed ban. Our experience in the restaurant/bar that evening may sound amusing to most readers. But it actually sheds light on why the expired gun law left a lot to be desired.
As we were walking into the somewhat upscale restaurant/bar a group of guys sat on the patio and gawked at my friend as we passed. That's understandable. She is an actress and a model and she's at least three standard deviations above the mean of physical attractiveness. That kind of thing happens to her all the time. It was no big deal. In fact, I thought it was amusing. If she were more that friend then I might not have been so amused. But that's beside the point. (Keep reading. There's a free quiz and a chance for a government handout at the end of the column).
After we sat at the bar and talked for a couple of hours, a group of older men came in and ordered drinks - obviously not their first drinks of the evening. One of the older gentlemen (and I use the term loosely) was noticeably staring from across the bar. Of course, he was staring at my actress friend, not me. Nothing eventful happened and we finished our drinks and left. For the record, hers was an ice water and mine was a Ranger IPA.
I’ll never know what it's like to be an attractive single woman who travels and eats out a lot. But that brings me to the issue. My actress friend who is a concealed permit holder (and who never drinks alcohol) isn't always accompanied by someone. She travels a lot and she often goes into restaurants alone. That means she's often in the position of walking across a parking lot to her car alone. Should she have to leave her weapon in her car simply because she went into an establishment where others might be drinking? Or should the laws be modified to let businesses decide instead of government deciding for them? These are the issues. To address them, it helps to consider three general categories of establishments that serve liquor.
1. Restaurant/bars where there is frequent drunkenness and occasional violence. 2. Restaurant/bars where there is occasional drunkenness but not violence. 3. Restaurants where there is alcohol but no drunkenness or violence.
The first type of restaurant/bar is easy to deal with. If the government relaxes the ban on handguns in bars then such a business still has a right to post a sign saying "no handguns." If there is a history of brawls in the establishment then there is little chance the owner will refrain from posting such a sign. In the absence of a flat-out government ban on handgun possession in such places, there is still civil liability for owners who chose to allow them. And, obviously, concealed weapons permit holders are the kinds of people who have the good sense to avoid such places. They don't need a sign to trigger their avoidance instincts, please pardon the pun.
The third type of restaurant/bar listed above is also easy to deal with. If I'm going into Moe's Southwestern Grill for a lunchtime burrito, there's really no need to pack heat. It's not like the guys shouting "Welcome to Moe's" are all that frightening to me. But that's not the point. The point is that those who are carrying before entering such establishments have no real reason to take a trip to the car to dispose of their firearms. There will be no drunken brawl in Moe's. But these establishments are open after dark. So it’s best to have your firearm on you as you traverse the parking lot as opposed to having it waiting for you in your locked truck. Surely, liberals really cannot think they are saving the world by banning firearms from such establishments. Keep reading and I promise I'll stop calling you "Surely."
It's the second type of restaurant/bar listed above that poses the most difficult questions for owners and patrons. If there is no history of violence at the bar (but there are people getting drunk) then there is still potential liability. Furthermore, patrons who know of no violence at the bar (but see people getting drunk there) might not like the idea that the bar allows guns. Thus, they may decide to stop going there, which may, in turn, provide a financial incentive for the owner to ban guns voluntarily. In other words, the free market may well dictate the very same result the government wants. But the owners have a choice. And so do the patrons who are not forced to doing anything by government fiat.
Throughout all the bad discourse in the public debate over the "guns in bars" issue, a major point has been obscured; namely that there is still absolutely no right to carry for those who have even a single drop of alcohol in their system. That absolute rule applies to the constable and citizen alike.
To be fair, local advocates of gun control were right about something when they raised the "guns in bars" issue earlier this year. They predicted that after the new gun laws took effect in October there would be a drastic increase in gun violence in the downtown bar district of my hometown Wilmington, North Carolina. Unfortunately, that prediction has indeed come to pass.
But the downtown Wilmington violence has taken a slightly different form than the gun grabbers anticipated. For one thing, the shootings have taken place quite literally in the streets of downtown Wilmington, not inside of bars. Furthermore, the disputes have revolved around the distribution of drugs, not the consumption of alcohol.
Perhaps most importantly, none of this recent violence has been perpetrated by 5'6" actress/models who seek to protect themselves from sexual assault by getting concealed weapons permits. It has been perpetrated by young males whose fathers have been replaced by government welfare checks. No one wants to talk about that unpleasant reality. That's the real reason the discussion is dominated by sound bites.
Here in Texas you can’t bring a concealed gun into any establishment in which over 50% of their business is serving alcohol.
I am a concealed carry licensed gun owner and believe this is a good law since not being born yesterday and in my heyday used to be a “hell raiser” and was no stranger to bars.
The problem with bars is that when people are drunk (or really feeling macho), fights break out. People do things that they would not normally do in other environments. Down here in South Texas knifing and stabbing are the most prevalent form of violence in bars and nightclubs.
I can tell you from experiences long ago that the next morning I found out things I didn’t even remember what I had done the evening before but my black eye told me I did something wrong. The same thing applies to one under the influence of alcohol and having a pistol with you can escalate into something the next day far worse than a black eye with little memory of what you did last night....namely, you are in jail on murder charges.
I believe in the absolute right to carry and keep weapons free of government control but the decision to ban weapons at bars should be left up to the owner of the establishment and not the government. For, if left up to the government, more and more “creeping” government control will certainly grow upon top of the original legislation.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed except when there is any alcohol in the bloodstream.
Well! There it is! I never saw that there before.
Beat me to it. Pretty ironic, in that the Founding Fathers drank at every meal, and a lot in between too.
Point very well taken! Like a high ranking LEO once told me while discussing conceal carry in a bar, “they don’t know you are carrying cuz it’s ‘concealed’”!
JMHO of course, but I feel this is a stupidly written article. That aside, In Ohio we can carry if not drinking alcoholic beverages. And the bartenders will put your weapon behind the bottles when requested to.
So why can you carry in a restaurant or bar in North Carolina but not in the capitol building or police station or educational facility?
I can remember a certain biker bar back in Virginia where open carry was allowed, but concealed carry was against state law. Never had a shooting there. They boys preferred preferred shop tools and pool cues when fights broke out. Knives and guns just meant you were taking things too personal. Kept things quiet and in the family that way.
Because there are more drunks in the capitol building, of course.
I kind of look at it this way: If [you know] everybody is armed, who will be the idiot to pull a gun and try something?
Make sure and read the details of this bar shooting. CCL guy STOPPED a deadly bar shooting in progress.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/three-dead-shooting-winnemucca-bar
What on earth gives you the idea that the idiotic drunken blackout drinker won’t carry a concealed firearm into a bar?
Or a fricking knife which you acknowledge “ down here is the most prevalent form of violence”?
Why do you want to disarm me because you were a blind drunken “hell raiser” in your youth?
Deal with your guilt and shame in your own pew. Leave me the hell alone.
Ultimately, I have to say that stupid or violent people are going to be stupid or violent whether or not it is against the law. Having a law against guns in bars is more likely to disarm the law abiding (who SHOULD have the guns) than the stupid, violent, or “hell-raising.”
Of course, I have never spent much time in bars, so I could be entirely wrong.
PA allows CC in bars and there is no blood in the streets from lawful carriers.
This is merely another red herring.
That’s the way it worked at that bar. First man to slap leather was in for a bad time.
—likewise wild, wooley Nevada—some of the smaller casinos have “no weapons”signs but they have no force of law (other than they can ask you to leave and if you don’t charge you with trespassing)—
Excellent article.
Well reasoned arguments.
Therefore it will be lost on the liberals who get the vapors at the thought of a gun within a hundred yards of them.
Regarding the photo of a ‘shooter’ using what is often known as a “teacup” grip - Get Grip!
Range time with an instructor is clearly called for.
Rant off.
Wrong, Mike. I'm pretty sure Constables can carry anywhere, even in bars. They always have special rules, different from us rubes. They have MRAPS these days, too. Maybe even rocket propelled grenades. Dogs can get pretty big.
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.