Citizen
Founder's Club Member
18.2-308 says you can carry concealed without a permit in your own place of business.
So, everybody should open a distillery or brewery!
:banana:
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Bars and Saloons coming to Virginia?
- Thread starter Repeater
- Start date
18.2-308 says you can carry concealed without a permit in your own place of business.
So, everybody should open a distillery or brewery!
:banana:
Repeater
Regular Member
Strongly disagree.
VCDL fought for YEARS to get the so-called 'Restaurant Ban' repealed. The main argument that VCDL was making was about eating at a Red Lobster or some other place where alcoholic beverages were being served for on-premises consumption, whether you intended to drink or not. The other side dragged out the usual parade of horribles about getting drunk in bars; VCDL's rebuttal was that there are no bars in the Commonwealth.
That could change.
It's important to understand the history of 'liquor by the drink' in Virginia post-repeal of Prohibition and the continuing influence of the Temperance Movement.
Back in the 60's, many counties were dry. a few might still be.
The last thing we need right now is any risk of backsliding.
Remember the brown bag clubs? They didn't sell alcoholic spirits - they sold the mixers and kept your bottle behind the [strike]bar[/strike] counter.
Repeater
Regular Member
Well, that would take us back to 1968 ...
The "ABC" of Legal Liquor in Virginia
How dry is Virginia? See here ...
Local Option lives. See this from last year:
Liquor by the drink proposed for Botetourt County's Valley district
It was so easy for the gun-control activists to say: "Guns and alcohol don't mix!" -- bringing 'bars and saloons' to Virginia will surely resurrect that anti-gun refrain.
Well guns and alcohol do not mix.
Alcohol strips the oil/lubricant/protection from guns....is a very bad thing.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
So does acetone as well...
Last edited:
Acetone will run your nice decorative nail job.
"Acetone and Lacquer thinner can remove painted highlights and may damage front sight inserts.
It usually won't harm the polymers that are used in pistol frames, but other plastic parts may be attacked by it.
It has no effect on bluing, parkerizing, plating, or stainless.
On the up side, they make great gun cleaners and degreasers, and have a "brightening" effect on brass.
Of course, the fire risk is high since the fumes are explosively inflammable."
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-366198.html
davidmcbeth
Banned
People are free to put into their bodies whatever they want. Madness or not....its called freedom.
If freedom is insanity; I rather not be sane.
Suicide is not normally legal, although I can't imagine an effective personal penalty for succeeding.
Some would say "No danger of that happening." as to the last.
Last edited:
I visited GW's rebuilt distillery this summer at his Dogue Run farm - bought a little bit of his rye whisky from distiller Steve Bashore. Distillery built in 1797 at suggestion of Jas Anderson - GW's Scottish farm manager.
The interesting thing Bashore told me was the production was sold upriver in Alexandria for hard cash. However all of Mt Vernon's agricultural products - tobacco, and later wheat, rye, corn etc - were typically sold to ship captains on consignment - so it could take up to 6 months for them to come back and with cash.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
utbagpiper
Banned
When the guy who opens a bar can fully pay for all externalities created by that bar, he can complain about the limits placed on his attempts to make money dealing in a mind altering, recreational drug. DUI is just the start of the issues created by excessive alcohol consumption. Most sensible folks here avoid closing times at any but the most genteel of bars as one of the easiest ways to reduce our risk of being involved in an entirely unnecessary and avoidable violent confrontation. Check police records for most communities and you find that bars have a disproportionately high number of calls for service. Far more than restaurants or other retail establishments with comparable numbers of patrons.
When one creates a location where the primary purpose is to socialize (else one could drink at home for a fraction the cost) by bending an elbow, there are entirely rational reasons to require the establishment to provide something that patrons may put into their bellies other than just the intoxicant where the highest profit margin is available. Food not only slows the absorption of alcohol into the bloodstream, but it also acts to fill the stomach, often reducing the total amount of alcohol consumed.
Business owners are generally in business to maximize profits. Generally nothing wrong with that. But when maximum profits result in maximum risk to the public and the imposition of maximum externalities, then some external controls are warranted.
Some might suggest private citizens be required to wait for an actual harm and then sue for damages. The rest of us live in the real world.
I'm not real keen on seeing bar owners or servers held liable for what drunks do when leaving the bar, unless the owner/server continued to serve someone who was obvious intoxicated. But clearly, society is unwilling to "cage" for an appropriate amount of time those who get violent or who drive intoxicated when leaving the bar. And the so-called "hospitality industry" are among those who lobby the most against increased penalties for the kinds of crimes idiots commit after making use of the products sold by that industry.
A few requirements relative to discouraging the routine, gross over-use of mind altering drugs seems a decent trade not to hold bar owners strictly liable for what their brain fuzzied patrons might inflict on innocent victims after leaving their cash at the bar.
And you might cut back on the hyperbole. Nobody gets "caged" for business license violations. They get a fine, or they get their license revoked if they refuse to play by the rules. Jail is almost always reserved for those who choose to escalate things after lessor penalties are imposed.
Charles
utbagpiper
Banned
If liberty is making it as easy as possible for people to get smashed and then do what comes too naturally to the grossly impaired...then I'll stick with constitutional rights.
I'm single issue where guns are concerned. I don't much care what someone thinks about any other topic.
But if we're going to discuss access to booze, I'll happily accept the 21st amendment that explicitly recognizes the power of the States to set liquor controls as they see fit.
Within the widest limits, what a man does in his own home is his own business. What he does in public is sometimes another matter.
Charles
J_dazzle23
Regular Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 643
It's always an interesting topic, this "freedom" business. When it comes to freedom to keep and bear arms, we have an extremely unique characteristic of most(if not all) of the people that stand behind this right. That is we are willing to shoulder the responsibility of that right. Alcoholics, drug users, and the like, otoh, place incredible burdens to society.
Now before anyone calls me out on the "society is not a real victim" accusation, I'll point out that when these folks drive drunk, or just drink themselves into a coma, and come see me(in the emergency room) it often gets funded by Uncle Sam- which I see get taken out of my paycheck personally. Now of course they are just an excuse for the federal government to take my money by force, but they do provide a cost to us personally. I take a hit in my paycheck when the corporation I work for has to eat cost of their medical services, and I take another hit from Uncle Sam every two weeks.
Gun owners, on the other hand, do nothing but pay for their rights personally. We pay for licenses, background checks, hunting tags, class 3 weapons fees, etc, but as a group do nothing but good for society, both as a whole and typically personally for some.
For that reason, I can't think of a good gun law. But if we want to do away with substance and alcohol laws, then we better dang well do away with me and you footing the bill for their medical and psychological care.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
1245A Defender
Regular Member
Well,,,
This makes me think about motorcycle Helmet laws in many states...
Those responsible riders that wear the helmet, probably,, have health insurance in case of a wreck.
Those that rile against the law requiring the helmet,, probably do not have insurance!
They will gladly expect to be hospitalized and treated and rehabilitated,, for Years, if needed!!!!
This makes me think about motorcycle Helmet laws in many states...
Those responsible riders that wear the helmet, probably,, have health insurance in case of a wreck.
Those that rile against the law requiring the helmet,, probably do not have insurance!
They will gladly expect to be hospitalized and treated and rehabilitated,, for Years, if needed!!!!
FBrinson
Regular Member
Do you believe that my consumption of a beer in a restaurant is any of your business?
Not "a beer," but the ramifications of drinking & driving then seriously injuring or killing one of mine would bring it close to home.
No law or opinion can make that right.......the bell will have been rung.
FBrinson
Regular Member
I was asking specifically about drinking a beer in a restaurant. Driving after drinking to the level of impairment is already illegal.
Last edited:
OC for ME
Regular Member
These laws are specific to the carry of a concealed firearm. OC is exempt in my view. In other words, OCing while having a beer while bellied up is not a violation of 571.107 and as long as it stays in the holster 571.030 is not violated. Agree or disagree, being drunk is not confined to the bar or car.
responsibility/responsible behavior is not confined only to gun owners who are teetottlers.
TFred
Regular Member
utbagpiper
Banned
I don't believe your consumption of a beer in a restaurant is any of my business....when that beer is your first beer of the evening. When it is your 10th beer, it becomes my business. And somewhere along the way, the consumption of the beers clouds one's ability to determine whether it is a good idea to have another, or to determine whether their other conduct is within appropriate social and legal limits.
Many adults are mature enough to strictly control their intake so they don't get to the point of losing their ability to stop drinking before their conduct becomes a problem. But enough have demonstrated over the last couple hundred years that they are not able to do so, that society has engaged in a little self-defense by imposing some limits on the consumption of alcoholic beverages. The 21st amendment specifically authorizes various controls on alcohol crossing State lines, and the 10th amendment leaves intra-State decisions up to the people of the State.
The people in some jurisdictions have determined that those who sell alcohol for public consumption will be required to do so in ways that are designed to discourage over-consumption, NOT encourage over-consumption, and thus limit the danger to society. Remember, all else being equal, the bar owner makes more profit the more you drink. Owners of casinos have gone to great lengths, with great success, to encourage gamblers to keep gambling. This often results in personal problems for gamblers and indirect costs to society. Were bar owners given free rein to do likewise the indisputable results would include some horrific direct costs to society.
DUI is but the most obvious problem from over-consumption in public.
The intoxicated man walking down the street in the middle of night singing and laughing at the top of his lungs without regard to his volume level and how it may impact sleeping residents in adjacent homes is an annoyance. The guy staggering across streets without regard to traffic flow creates a grave hazzard to himself and everyone on the road as drivers may swerve to avoid hitting a pedestrian. The guy puking or urinating in public because he just can't make it home creates various levels of disgust, health risk, and even damage to buildings if certain areas get too much urine. The overly friendly or aggressive drunk is more likely to start fights or sexual assault someone than if he had not over-consumed. Decent members of society shouldn't have to guess at whether the guy walking toward them obviously impaired is going to be friendly or irrationally aggressive.
Alcohol is a mind altering drug. Specifically, it reduces inhibitions. Inhibitions are the things that keep us from engaging in the rash, stupid, anti-social, illegal conduct that is likely to violate the rights of others or at least greatly increase the risk of a violation of their rights.
All of this is ignoring the costs imposed even by entirely private drinking which includes domestic abuse, less ability to hold a steady job, neglect of family, and so on. If a guy wants to sit in the privacy of his home and pickle himself, society probably has to endure it so long as he doesn't actually harm anyone else or criminally neglect his children's welfare and safety. But let's not pretend that society doesn't have an interest here, even if the interest cannot constitutionally justify legal limits on the conduct.
It is none of my business if someone has a drink....so long as he keeps himself well behaved. Sadly, the incidence of alcohol induced ill-behavior is high enough, with the costs to innocents (externalities) severe enough, that we can't simply wait for an innocent person to be victimized and then impose punishment. Some control on the conditions under which alcohol may be sold for public consumption are common in most communities in this nation, with different communities setting different standards based on local culture and other factors.
Unlike the RKBA, in this nation, recreational alcohol use does not enjoy any federal constitutional protections. Whatever costs are imposed by respecting RKBA, RKBA provides both personal and social benefits. Personal, recreational alcohol use has only minimal personal benefits, and very high potential for personal and social costs. Completely different equation, and so completely different constitutional treatment.
Charles