Guns in bars? Ariz. legislators say yes
Published: July 1, 2009
PHOENIX -- The Arizona Senate has approved a bill to allow people with concealed weapons permits to carry a gun into a business that serves alcohol.
The 19-8 vote completes legislative action on the bill and sends it to Gov. Jan Brewer.
The measure has pitted powerful groups representing gun and bar owners against each other.
It would require bar and restaurant owners who want to ban weapons to post a sign next to their liquor license. Drinking while carrying a weapon would be illegal.
Opponents have said mixing guns and alcohol could cause violence, but supporters argue that people should be able to protect themselves at businesses that serve alcohol.
-- The Associated Press
Reader Reactions
THIS LAW IS RIDICULOUS. Handguns are not needed in this country AT ALL, unless you are military, police, or private security. I will say Rifles are OK for the hunting crowd, and you can perfectly capable of defending your home if you are one of the SCARED CRAPLESS Americans who can only get their manhood by the feeling of having a gun in their waistband.
This law is irresponsible, and I would never give my business to an establishment allowing guns on the premesis.
Come on American’s, stop reading the conservative BS and living in fear.
Response to: Posted by ( FanTastic ) on July 01, 2009 at 1:22 pm
re: Right to carry a bazooka (etc.) on an airplane.
As one already pointed out, you do have such a right. But the second part of the answer is that the airline has the right to deny you access. It is a private concern, not a public space.
Indeed, even if the law states you can carry a concealed weapon into a bar, the bar owner has the right to deny you access to the premises with one. It is his (or her) private establishment, not a public place. The second amendment limits government, not private citizens. Most people either are totally clueless on what the constitution does and does not do, or are intentionally obtuse in order to further their own argument.
Good to hear. Hopefully other states will follow suit.
Two points: 2nd Amendment & Responsible Gun Laws
1) Our Founding Fathers made is clear through the Federalists Papers that the 2nd Amendment was not intended to come into play ‘in crisis’, it was a guard against tyranny. As unpopular as the idea is now, the idea of being prepared to overthrough the CURRENT government at a moments notice was on their mind
2) Vermont has responsible gun laws, as is practically ZERO gun laws. If we need gun laws to ensure safety, why aren’t people in Vermont gunning each other down at McDonalds on a daily basis?
In California, it’s illegal to carry a handgun in all virtually all population centers, and permits are only available to the ‘well-connected’, I can’t fathom why a shooting just occured in Simi Valley at a dental office.
Vermont has it right, you can carry a gun anywhere, but it’s still illegal to shoot anyone.
Fantastic,
Please get your facts and thoughts straight, you r statements go against your own explanations, for example,; you mention the North Hollywood shootout, and you go on to explain that the police had to go to a gun store to compete with the firepower of the two thieves… Ok, now would have the police been able to match the firepower of the thieves had the gun store in question not been able to give them the weapons because they were banned? Then you mention Columbine, where the shooters were in possession of such warped minds that they killed themselves, that makes it appear to me that it would not have mattered if they were facing an extra ten years for a weapons charge as they obviously had no intention of going through the justice system in the first place… on to “Cho’s Piece” as you so elegantly put it was never banned, the production of the hi capacity clips were restricted to law enforcement, military and export use, and any magazines produced prior were simply grandfathered in (please get that straight) M16’s are available in many military and civilian variants, and despite your apparent belief there are not illustrated instructions on which bullet load to pick based on the weight or nationality of your enemy…
If you want to give examples, why not point out that the creep that shot the security guard at the Holocaust museum had a .22, the security team likely had 9mm / .40cal / .357sig, well in case you missed it the security guard was tragically killed… kind of blows your whole theory out the window eh?
Point is and always will be, that any restriction on the ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens creates a greater danger for the general public in the long run.
And yes Fantastic, I do as well as many many others wish there was a way to get rid of all violent criminals, unfortunately we are all cursed with living in the real world here…
Perhaps you guys are too young to remember the North Hollywood shootout where police actually had to go to a gun store to compete with the firepower of two bank theives in a 3 hour shootout. Perhaps you’re even too young to remember Columnbine. You were all so quick to jump on me about Cho’s piece. I’m sorry, it didn’t just become banned, it WAS banned but then we allowed it to lapse just in time for him to be able to pump rounds into people’s heads without stopping to reload. My appologies. You guys are right. And as for the M16, we use a lager bullet in the A-2 than in the original because it lacked stopping power now that we weren’t shooting 75 pound Vietnamese people. My point is the same, but I guess I missed my chance.
I’ve said it ten times, I’ll say it again. The 2nd ammendment had to do with civilian militias staying armed in case of invasion. It has been interpreted to mean that we all have the right to bear arms as independent citizens and I AM FINE WITH THAT (I exercise that right). But you all sound like such suckers when Matt Drudge uses your irrational fear of a government taking your gun to get you all panicy and pliable. Responsible gun laws and the repealing of an ammendment from the BILL OF RIGHTS is an entirely differnt thing. Calm Down.
FanTastic,
Your facts don’t seem to be in alignment with your opinions:
1) Cho’s handgun is still for sale - A Glock 19.. It holds 15 rounds—You can even buy a subcompact. Even if the law was changed to only allow sale of the “Baby Glock” 9mm which holds 10 rounds, any enterprising criminal and BUY OR HOME-BREW a 30 round magazine
2) How are more laws going to control something that is already illegal? It’s illegal to possess a fully automatic weapon without SERIOUS licensing. Only collectors bothers because of the extreme expense and hassle, but the gang-bangers still have them. If these laws are so effective, why don’t we make smoking pot ‘double illegal’(when 1 law isn’t enough) or ‘triple outlaw murder’
3) If laws are the answer, why isn’t the state of Vermont in a state of 24/7 bloodbath? You can carry concealed without a permit and the only place you CAN’T carry a gun is a school or a courthouse!
Amendment II to the Constitution verbatum without leaving anything out: “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.“ Nowhere does it say what constitutes “arms”. The Supreme Court has upheld a citizens right to keep and bear arms. This is a mute point.
THERE IS NO GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE. THERE IS NO GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE. THERE IS NO GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE. What is being called that is the restriction of private sales and transfer of weapons from one person to another. The law being pushed would even ban the transfeer of a firearm from a father to a son after his death. It would curtail the right to purchase a firearm that would infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
If we are banning all these items that can kill a person then we must with all due efforts ban doctors, Their mistakes and misdiagnosis kill 50 times more people than guns. Look at the AMA’s own statistics for this.
The Democratic party as part of their last several election platforms advocating banning or severly restricting gun ownership. Again look it up.
Fantastic you would give up the rights given to all american citizens and the freedoms all military people have fought and died for just because you do not want to enforce the laws of this fine country. Instead you would give up your rights so crimminals and law breakers could freely roam our streets. What other constitutional right would you give up so that you would have peace of mind. What other right given to us by our forefather would you give up to fullfill your other thoughts and ideas. I am sorry but I do not want to give up my rights under the constitution for anybody especially andybody who has broken the laws of this country. If Mayor Bloomberg can’t control the crimminals in New York then someone else probably can. Why should Virginia citizens give up their rights to help him do his job. We do not have the crime rate he has, yet he has stricter gun laws than Virginia. We must be doing something right and he is finding a scapgoat for his ineffectiveness to control the crimminals. Not my fault. Not me giving up my rights for the New Yorkers. Let them fix their own problem.
Fantastic,
We still us M16’s and actually the M16 & M4 are both chambered for the same round (5.56 X 45mm)
15 round hand gun’s are not banned, the production of magazines with a capacity greater than ten for civilian use in the US was banned during the Clinton assault weapons ban which has since expired, likely because it made no difference in the number of violent crimes
If it was a fully automatic Mac-10, it goes to prove than banning (banned in the 1930’s with few exceptions)a particular weapon will not work to stop a violent act.
Don’t get me wrong I don’t want a serial killer or a street thug for that matter having access to guns, but it is impossible to keep them away from them simply by banning a certain type of weapon. It takes one idiot one shot to kill no matter what type of weapon therefor no one gun is more dangerous than the next, you have more dangerous people, not more dangerous guns.
I’m sure that you feel strongly in your beliefs, as do I but banning certain types of weapons (no matter how exotic their name or look) has no effect on the criminal element of our society, it was not long ago that a local police officer wrote on these boards “We will be there in minutes, but you may only have seconds” (or something similar to that) I firmly believe that we should have the same access to guns as the criminal element (if we so choose) to cover those precious few seconds if need be, until the authorities have a chance to arrive…
I can find statements that EACH ONE of those on that list below of politicians have OPENLY STATED that they have the desire to make it illegal for any public citizen to own a firearm.
Your “reclamation” would be done by the government with law enforcement by arrests for possession of a firearm. Which was so successful in the current drug war. (rolls eyes)
As to misspellings? That really irritates me. When a point is made, and someone nitpicks spelling because they’ve lost the issue. It’s petty. HIPPAA, HIPPO, HARPO Marx, doesn’t matter, the point is made.
The gunshow loophole issue is a moot point, because private sales will continue, it’s just a different location. You cannot put the genie BACK into the bottle.
Also, Deeds, and McD both are Center (one slight left, one slight right) so this issue will be addressed again in the GA, and each time, they vote to allow CHP owners to carry in bars concealed with precursor rules.
SEE YA IN JANUARY AT LOBBY DAY!
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement