guns in bars

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Let's follow the logic trail...

People go to the bar to drink alcohol.  Alcohol and firearms don't mix, for many reasons, so you shouldn't carry while drinking.  The only logical conclusion is that you shouldn't carry in a bar.  Obviously people can't handle this, even LEO's, hence the need for bar bans.

Click to expand...

If I go to a bar, it's NOT to drink, but be social. I don't drink. Having a gun in the hands of one who is sober and trained is a great way to protect myself and others from OTHER drunk retards who wanna pull a gun out in a bar fight...

Illegal to be drunk+armed=ok in my book. restrict the ACTION , not the person/place.

ETA:

Anyone who's impaired by drugs/alcohol is NOT responsible, at least in that moment, to be carrying a firearm. With ALL rights come RESPONSIBILITIES... call it dereliction of duty if you will, but getting drunk while armed is NOT a good idea...

One or two beers is different than shitface plastered...

Edit: pudgy fingers.

imported post

Bang Bang

imported post

'Illegal to be drunk and armed' is just like 'illegal to be crazy and armed' in that only a willing tyrant can decide 'drunk' or 'crazy'. Safety is a tyrant's tool because no one can be against safety.

imported post

TT

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

'Illegal to be drunk and armed' is just like 'illegal to be crazy and armed' in that only a willing tyrant can decide 'drunk' or 'crazy'.  Safety is a tyrant's tool because no one can be against safety.

Click to expand...

No, there are legal definitions of drunk, as there are 'crazy'.....

Doesn't have anything to do with law, has to do with common sense...

How comfortable would YOU be if you're at a bar, having A drink with friends, when a guy sitting next to you is shitfaced plastered, trying to start fights, who happens to have a pistol on his hip? What if he thinks it's cool to pull out and show people because he's inebriated and not thinking straight?

Seriously, do you REALLY think someone can be drunk and maintain responsibility and have proper decision making abilities? We're only talking about the mental effects of alcohol, lets not even get me started on the PHYSICAL effects of alcohol, and how it might come into play in a situation involving a firearm...

imported post

TechnoWeenie wrote:

With ALL rights come RESPONSIBILITIES... call it dereliction of duty if you will, but getting drunk while armed is NOT a good idea...One or two beers is different than @#$%face plastered.

Click to expand...

Implicit in each Right is duty. You almost got it right but eager tyrants will quibble about 'responsibility' while a Right and a duty are clear in a citizen's mind.

imported post

I have to agree with TechnoWeenie that 'If I go to a bar, it's NOT to drink, but be social.'I may have one beer that I sip over the course of 1.5 - 2 hours, but I generally stick to soda and other non-alcoholic drinks. I know a lot of people think that there should be absolutely zero mixing of firearms and alcohol, but it's like anything else, have the responsibility to minimize your risk, and I choose to do that by not drinking most of the time. That time when I do have a beer in a couple of hours, it's at a friends house in private, but even then I'm still not there to get s___ faced plastered, I'm there to enjoy the company of friends.

imported post

TechnoWeenie wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

'Illegal to be drunk and armed' is just like 'illegal to be crazy and armed' in that only a willing tyrant can decide 'drunk' or 'crazy'. Safety is a tyrant's tool because no one can be against safety.

Click to expand...

No, there are legal definitions of drunk, as there are 'crazy'.....

Doesn't have anything to do with law, has to do with common sense...

How comfortable would YOU be if you're at a bar, having A drink with friends, when a guy sitting next to you is @#$%faced plastered, trying to start fights, who happens to have a pistol on his hip? What if he thinks it's cool to pull out and show people because he's inebriated and not thinking straight?

Seriously, do you REALLY think someone can be drunk and maintain responsibility and have proper decision making abilities? We're only talking about the mental effects of alcohol, lets not even get me started on the PHYSICAL effects of alcohol, and how it might come into play in a situation involving a firearm...

Click to expand...

Well, you stumbled all over the differentiation. You allow "a drink" and I know that I am fine with five drinks (BAC<0.08 ::250# 6'2" PB100/60 RHR60, 60 y.o.) but you would have the law determine drunk. The law and its enforcers are the willing tyrants to which I refer.

I have no problem leaving any public place where an indiscreet patron offends me. I'll instantly leave rather than allow an ugly person near. This is one of the advantages of leaving Chuckton, SC for my Island of 700 Icelander/Norwegians, I live in a community/Gemeinschaft. There are four taverns, three are owned/tended by town-fathers (Mayor, biggest farmer, business leader). The fourth is for tourist-biker wannabes and the youngsters that want to be known as baad. I give it no custom.

imported post



Doug Huffman wrote:

'Illegal to be drunk and armed' is just like 'illegal to be crazy and armed' in that only a willing tyrant can decide 'drunk' or 'crazy'. Safety is a tyrant's tool because no one can be against safety.

Click to expand...

Not true at all. Drunk is considered .08 while driving, and even less is needed for an intoxicated in public charge. An officer can detain you for "crazy" with an ECO but the Magistrate must issue a TDO with the acceptance of a certified mental health employee. Big difference.

imported post

nitrovic wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

'Illegal to be drunk and armed' is just like 'illegal to be crazy and armed' in that only a willing tyrant can decide 'drunk' or 'crazy'. Safety is a tyrant's tool because no one can be against safety.

Click to expand...

Not true at all. Drunk is considered .08 while driving, and even less is needed for an intoxicated in public charge. An officer can detain you for "crazy" with an ECO but the Magistrate must issue a TDO with the acceptance of a certified mental health employee. Big difference.

Click to expand...

Meanwhile the Second Amendment still says "shall not be infringed."

If a felon or a drunk can be properly disbarred his RKABA under color of law then we all may be disarmed by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony or drunk or crazy.

Remember, folks, that the cops are the toothless tyrant's teeth and that safety is also the tyrants tool.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

nitrovic wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

'Illegal to be drunk and armed' is just like 'illegal to be crazy and armed' in that only a willing tyrant can decide 'drunk' or 'crazy'. Safety is a tyrant's tool because no one can be against safety.

Click to expand...

Not true at all. Drunk is considered .08 while driving, and even less is needed for an intoxicated in public charge. An officer can detain you for "crazy" with an ECO but the Magistrate must issue a TDO with the acceptance of a certified mental health employee. Big difference.

Click to expand...

Meanwhile the Second Amendment still says "shall not be infringed."

If a felon or a drunk can be properly disbarred his RKABA under color of law then we all may be disarmed by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony or drunk or crazy.

Remember, folks, that the cops are the toothless tyrant's teeth and that safety is also the tyrants tool.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

Click to expand...

Like I said, your analogy was not correct. You can spew your anti-police rhetoric all you want, you still haven't stated any facts.

imported post

nitrovic wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

Meanwhile the Second Amendment still says "shall not be infringed."

If a felon or a drunk can be properly disbarred his RKABA under color of law then we all may be disarmed by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony or drunk or crazy.

Remember, folks, that the cops are the toothless tyrant's teeth and that safety is also the tyrants tool.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

Click to expand...

Like I said, your analogy was not correct. You can spew your anti-police rhetoric all you want, you still haven't stated any facts.

Click to expand...

That the Second Amendment states in part "shall not be infringed" is a true fact.

The remainder of my assertions in the quoted box are logical conclusions from the stated premises in an IF - THEN syllogism.

If you will have me spewing anti-police rhetoric, so be it. FOAD flatfoot.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

imported post

So far this is the way I see it. An off duty leo in a motorcycle gang (club)goes to a motorcycle rally.He and some other club members go to a bar filled with bikers. He gets into a verbal altercation with a rival motorcycle gang (club) member. The altercation comes to blows and the off duty leo draws agun and shootsthe opposing gang (club)member.

I prefer to wait and let the investigation run it's course.We have only the IP'sword that the incident was started by the HA. Participantsgenerally blameeach other for starting a fight. I would expect a trained and armed off duty LEO to deescalate a bar roomaltercationnot push it to blows and gunshots. If their special training and experience is not enough for them to be able to do this then perhaps we should rethink their special privilege of being able to carry. Perhaps in this case the off duty leo did everything possible to wind the situation down. perhaps they were leaving when he was attacked.It does sound like the verbal exchange went on for some time before theshots were fired though.HA and IP witnesses are biased so hopefully there are some who are not aligned with either side.

How would this be handled if neither participant was a leo? Should we automatically assume the HA was the aggressor? Should we automatically assume the leo was at fault? Other than the fact that a leo was involved isa fightan unusual occurrence at a biker bar during a rally?

imported post

irfner wrote:

So far this is the way I see it. An off duty leo in a motorcycle gang (club)goes to a motorcycle rally.He and some other club members go to a bar filled with bikers. He gets into a verbal altercation with a rival motorcycle gang (club) member. The altercation comes to blows and the off duty leo draws agun and shootsthe opposing gang (club)member.

I prefer to wait and let the investigation run it's course.We have only the IP'sword that the incident was started by the HA. Participantsgenerally blameeach other for starting a fight. I would expect a trained and armed off duty LEO to deescalate a bar roomaltercationnot push it to blows and gunshots. If their special training and experience is not enough for them to be able to do this then perhaps we should rethink their special privilege of being able to carry. Perhaps in this case the off duty leo did everything possible to wind the situation down. perhaps they were leaving when he was attacked.It does sound like the verbal exchange went on for some time before theshots were fired though.HA and IP witnesses are biased so hopefully there are some who are not aligned with either side.

How would this be handled if neither participant was a leo? Should we automatically assume the HA was the aggressor? Should we automatically assume the leo was at fault? Other than the fact that a leo was involved isa fightan unusual occurrence at a biker bar during a rally?

Click to expand...

I don't think we should assume anything. On one hand the HA's have a reputation, on the other the officer had some questionable actions in his past. I'm waiting for the outcome of the court trial, not the investigation.

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

nitrovic wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

Meanwhile the Second Amendment still says "shall not be infringed."

If a felon or a drunk can be properly disbarred his RKABA under color of law then we all may be disarmed by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony or drunk or crazy.

Remember, folks, that the cops are the toothless tyrant's teeth and that safety is also the tyrants tool.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

Click to expand...

Like I said, your analogy was not correct. You can spew your anti-police rhetoric all you want, you still haven't stated any facts.

Click to expand...

That the Second Amendment states in part "shall not be infringed" is a true fact.

The remainder of my assertions in the quoted box are logical conclusions from the stated premises in an IF - THEN syllogism.

If you will have me spewing anti-police rhetoric, so be it. FOAD flatfoot.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

Click to expand...

Here we go with the "flatfoot" again:banghead:. I drive a patrol car genius, I guess you can say "leadfoot" now.:lol:

imported post

nitrovic wrote:

Although I see where you are coming from, why can't a group of anybody go anywhere? It's a free world, they should be able to do what they want. Having said that, I have seen MANY off duty instances where LEO's get targeted. It happened at a party where an off duty guy got fired because his civilian friend put up a questionable picture of his soon to be ex wife on the door. A neighbor complained to his department and they let him go. Just goes to show, we are indeed not equal. That's why I don't go to parties where people know I am an officer. If I have to go, I don't drink. It's unfair, but it's the way it is. I tell all rookies this but they don't listen. :banghead:

Click to expand...

Nitro... You are part of the privileged class. You get to CC a gun into any bar!!

If you get into trouble in that bar.. it was your fault for being there as YOU made a poor decision to go in the first place. But it is never a citizens fault for getting robbed at the ATM machine at 2AM.

The person kicking yourbutt good turns out to be the"victim" because you used force to stop him from beating you senseless. But is citizen fighting off his attacker is applauded for his courage and strength to fight back.

Like most any other citizens... you can take a gun in the bar... butthere is a condition that must be met unlike a citizen. YOU DO NOT GET TO DRINK!!!

So it may not appear to be equal but it isthe citizen has more rights in the end.

Civilian + bar + gun + alcohol = OK

Off Duty Cop + bar + gun + alcohol = Not OK

The only real difference in Virginia is a cop can CC in the bar. That is a real privilege since thisis how most cops are required to carryoff duty by department regulations.

So the citizen has the option to CC and OC out in public and when in a bar he can be openly armed and drink.

The cop has to CC out in public and cannot drink while armed.

Cops do not need to pay for a CC permit but citizens do.

Citizens can carry ANY firearm they like while most cops can only carry what the department allows.



WOW!!! The citizens are the privileged class if you ask me! (Being facetious here)

Look back and see what was written.... it is amazing on what has been posted. The police are so restricted and limited that I would not call them a privileged class. They can CC in a bar and carry in all states. A citizen can do that too if they get permits that cover each state or open carry where allowed.

The bonus is that they get to drink while armed!!

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

nitrovic wrote:

Although I see where you are coming from, why can't a group of anybody go anywhere? It's a free world, they should be able to do what they want. Having said that, I have seen MANY off duty instances where LEO's get targeted. It happened at a party where an off duty guy got fired because his civilian friend put up a questionable picture of his soon to be ex wife on the door. A neighbor complained to his department and they let him go. Just goes to show, we are indeed not equal. That's why I don't go to parties where people know I am an officer. If I have to go, I don't drink. It's unfair, but it's the way it is. I tell all rookies this but they don't listen. :banghead:

Click to expand...

Nitro... You are part of the privileged class. You get to CC a gun into any bar!!

If you get into trouble in that bar.. it was your fault for being there as YOU made a poor decision to go in the first place. But it is never a citizens fault for getting robbed at the ATM machine at 2AM.

The person kicking yourbutt good turns out to be the"victim" because you used force to stop him from beating you senseless. But is citizen fighting off his attacker is applauded for his courage and strength to fight back.

Like most any other citizens... you can take a gun in the bar... butthere is a condition that must be met unlike a citizen. YOU DO NOT GET TO DRINK!!!

So it may not appear to be equal but it isthe citizen has more rights in the end.

Civilian + bar + gun + alcohol = OK

Off Duty Cop + bar + gun + alcohol = Not OK

The only real difference in Virginia is a cop can CC in the bar. That is a real privilege since thisis how most cops are required to carryoff duty by department regulations.

So the citizen has the option to CC and OC out in public and when in a bar he can be openly armed and drink.

The cop has to CC out in public and cannot drink while armed.

Cops do not need to pay for a CC permit but citizens do.

Citizens can carry ANY firearm they like while most cops can only carry what the department allows.



WOW!!! The citizens are the privileged class if you ask me! (Being facetious here)

Look back and see what was written.... it is amazing on what has been posted. The police are so restricted and limited that I would not call them a privileged class. They can CC in a bar and carry in all states. A citizen can do that too if they get permits that cover each state or open carry where allowed.

The bonus is that they get to drink while armed!!

Click to expand...

LEO229: I agree with you. Off duty and retired leo's should not get any extra privileges. They should have the same rights and responsibilities as any other citizen.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

nitrovic wrote:

Although I see where you are coming from, why can't a group of anybody go anywhere? It's a free world, they should be able to do what they want. Having said that, I have seen MANY off duty instances where LEO's get targeted. It happened at a party where an off duty guy got fired because his civilian friend put up a questionable picture of his soon to be ex wife on the door. A neighbor complained to his department and they let him go. Just goes to show, we are indeed not equal. That's why I don't go to parties where people know I am an officer. If I have to go, I don't drink. It's unfair, but it's the way it is. I tell all rookies this but they don't listen. :banghead:

Click to expand...

Nitro... You are part of the privileged class. You get to CC a gun into any bar!!

If you get into trouble in that bar.. it was your fault for being there as YOU made a poor decision to go in the first place. But it is never a citizens fault for getting robbed at the ATM machine at 2AM.

The person kicking yourbutt good turns out to be the"victim" because you used force to stop him from beating you senseless. But is citizen fighting off his attacker is applauded for his courage and strength to fight back.

Like most any other citizens... you can take a gun in the bar... butthere is a condition that must be met unlike a citizen. YOU DO NOT GET TO DRINK!!!

So it may not appear to be equal but it isthe citizen has more rights in the end.

Civilian + bar + gun + alcohol = OK

Off Duty Cop + bar + gun + alcohol = Not OK

The only real difference in Virginia is a cop can CC in the bar. That is a real privilege since thisis how most cops are required to carryoff duty by department regulations.

So the citizen has the option to CC and OC out in public and when in a bar he can be openly armed and drink.

The cop has to CC out in public and cannot drink while armed.

Cops do not need to pay for a CC permit but citizens do.

Citizens can carry ANY firearm they like while most cops can only carry what the department allows.



WOW!!! The citizens are the privileged class if you ask me! (Being facetious here)

Look back and see what was written.... it is amazing on what has been posted. The police are so restricted and limited that I would not call them a privileged class. They can CC in a bar and carry in all states. A citizen can do that too if they get permits that cover each state or open carry where allowed.

The bonus is that they get to drink while armed!!

Click to expand...

That's what I took out of it as well. I thought "we are equal" per Doug Hoffman. However, he really doesn't believe that. He should put "we are all equal, unless you are a police officer. Then you must stay in your house and never come out unless you are working."

imported post

irfner wrote:

LEO229: I agree with you. Off duty and retired leo's should not get any extra privileges. They should have the same rights and responsibilities as any other citizen.

Click to expand...

The only thing a LEO really gets is a USA wide CC permit.

But he cannot drink while armed.

So there is a trade off...

Most everyone here would agree that citizens should be allowed to be armed. Why not cops? But cops are already armed, right??

Wait...

Most if not all officers CANNOT open carry so they must CC everywhere. But when they leave their home state.... they did not have a CC permit foranother state so they had to lock up their gun or leave it at home.

I could be arrested in another state for being armed.... In Indiana I know for a fact that they would arrest out-of-state cops and seize the gun as evidence.

But think about that for a moment... not that they should be part of someprivileged class.... but cops that can CC in their own state would be arrested by... cops in another state!!

Both have the same job andboth can CC off duty.... but the one would arrest the other because he is not a cop in that state. He is law enforcement.... but because he is not LE in that state it would not count.

Keep in mind that many states allow open carry so citizens can simply go from state to state and not need a permit to walk around armed.

Even a Virginia CC permit lets you go visit a few other states and it is valid. But being a cop had no standing at all. No permit = No gun.

So you say.. the cop should go get a CC permit then? No! Many departments forbid that too because you could bypass policy on what gun you could carry. If you carried a .44 magnum and did something under color or law.... the department would have to answer to it.

So now you know WHY HR218 was enacted....cops were basically forced to travel unarmed.



So... you had citizens allowed to go openly armed or use a multi state CC permit... and cops that had to unlock and lock up their guns.

Has anyone ever thought about that?

imported post

nitrovic wrote:

That's what I took out of it as well. I thought "we are equal" per Doug Hoffman. However, he really doesn't believe that. He should put "we are all equal, unless you are a police officer. Then you must stay in your house and never come out unless you are working."

Click to expand...

Oh... we are NOT equal.

While off duty and out of uniform at home....

If my neighbor is real rude and nasty to me... Nothing happens to him.

But if I am rude and nasty to him... he can complain to my job and I could get fired for something I did off the clock.

• I cannot open carry
• I cannot drink and carry
• I cannot carry any gun I like
• If I use my gun I am under investigation by IA and the CID
• I cannot remain silent and must incriminate myselfto IA or I lose my job
• I do not get to have an attorney present during questions with IA

There is no privileged class here... The police have far greater restrictions than the citizens will ever know.