Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Some early press coverage of the July 1st dinners

  1. #1
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Some early press coverage of the July 1st dinners


  2. #2
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Proof that many in the news/journalism field are not at all well versed. They still think there are bars in Virginia.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  3. #3
    Regular Member AdamC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Brookneal, VA
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    They still think there are bars in Virginia.
    I understand when people say this, but how are we really differentiating between bars and other establishments that serve alcohol? "ABC stipulates that each restaurant must sell enough food and soda to account for at least 45 percent of liquor and non-liquor sales, beer and wine excluded," but isn't a bar simply a place that serves alcoholic beverages that may be consumed on the premises? Or is there some legal definition of a bar that I'm missing?

  4. #4
    Lone Star Veteran DrMark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Hampton Roads, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,553
    Note that the CBS News story has a poll, should you be inclined to vote.

  5. #5
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803
    Quote Originally Posted by DrMark View Post
    Note that the CBS News story has a poll, should you be inclined to vote.
    The poll was 66% in favor of allowing guns and 34% against when I voted.

  6. #6
    Regular Member celticredneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Amelia County, virginia
    Posts
    169
    I would hope that Dennis had more than two spare cartridges for his pistol.

    Quote;

    ,,,,"O'Connor said environments that allow guns are safer. He was carrying a pistol on one hip and two cartridges on the other."

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA, ,
    Posts
    385
    Quote Originally Posted by AdamC View Post
    I understand when people say this, but how are we really differentiating between bars and other establishments that serve alcohol? "ABC stipulates that each restaurant must sell enough food and soda to account for at least 45 percent of liquor and non-liquor sales, beer and wine excluded," but isn't a bar simply a place that serves alcoholic beverages that may be consumed on the premises? Or is there some legal definition of a bar that I'm missing?
    There are no bars in Virginia. Any place with a liquor license in this state is a restaurant. Legally, there is no difference between the clubs on the ocean front and a Chili's. Realistically, the difference is that places like Chili's probably never have to play games with the numbers to make sure their food sales show up as being at least 45 percent of their total sales.

    So, your definition of a bar is actually the legal definition of a restaurant in this state.

  8. #8
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by AdamC View Post
    I understand when people say this, but how are we really differentiating between bars and other establishments that serve alcohol? "ABC stipulates that each restaurant must sell enough food and soda to account for at least 45 percent of liquor and non-liquor sales, beer and wine excluded," but isn't a bar simply a place that serves alcoholic beverages that may be consumed on the premises? Or is there some legal definition of a bar that I'm missing?
    As I understand the definition of bar, and please people.... I more than welcome input with this. A bar is an establishment in which the sale of alcoholic beverages is the prime source of their revenues and their reason for being. Any food sold is secondary in nature.

    I am by no means an authority on this subject since I don't frequent "bars". That was in my teenage years and early twenties. So once again, I do welcome clarification on this.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  9. #9
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037
    I'm guessing the "common" (read: uneducated) man's definition of a bar is any establishment which serves alcohol and has either sports-watching, karaoke, jungle DJs or live music as its draw and is mostly vacant before 9PM on Friday and Saturday nights and 11 AM on race days.

    The restaurant "law" in Virginia is specifically why you will find lunch specials, wings and other "pub" foods at these establishments, particularly during Happy Hours. The 45% of sales, as I understand it, is 45% of the combined food-v-liquor gross receipts. Beer and wine do not count towards either of the numbers.

    It is possible to have a restaurant which only has a "beer/wine" ABC license. For these places beer and wine are sideline items. Think Qdoba or Moe's.

    Liquor, as a controlled substance, cannot simply be bought next door at the Food Lion and then sold at the bar (which I have seen done MANY, MANY times at certain "bars") whereas liquor can only be purchased lawfully from an ABC distributor, with the proper tax stamps and bills of lading attached.
    The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
    And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid
    Novos ordo seclorum ~ Mustaine

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  10. #10
    Regular Member kennys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ruther Glen Va
    Posts
    508
    What worries me are things like this quote “Plus, Everitt says the permitting process is not real security. He points out that the accused Fort Hood shooter once held a concealed carry permit issued in Roanoke, Virginia. Everitt says the permit background check is not strict enough.”

    Article reactions I have read shows the defense of carrying concealed restaurants in bars is that CHP holders have had background checks and are safer.

    Not trying to start a holy war or anything, but there will be those that will not find the need or reason to OC. As the motto of OCDO is a right unexercised is a right lost. If the antis push on this the thing that runs would be why we need OC at all. Some gun owners or should I say many already feel this way. Look at the NRA stance for that example and many of it’s members. All again from the above quote, trying to make getting a permit more regulated and un necessary.

    May I remind you, weirder things have happened, and we have yet to see what will happen with what I consider the illegal mandate on health insurance.


  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by kennys View Post
    What worries me are things like this quote “Plus, Everitt says the permitting process is not real security. He points out that the accused Fort Hood shooter once held a concealed carry permit issued in Roanoke, Virginia. Everitt says the permit background check is not strict enough.”

    Article reactions I have read shows the defense of carrying concealed restaurants in bars is that CHP holders have had background checks and are safer.

    Not trying to start a holy war or anything, but there will be those that will not find the need or reason to OC. As the motto of OCDO is a right unexercised is a right lost. If the antis push on this the thing that runs would be why we need OC at all. Some gun owners or should I say many already feel this way. Look at the NRA stance for that example and many of it’s members. All again from the above quote, trying to make getting a permit more regulated and un necessary.

    May I remind you, weirder things have happened, and we have yet to see what will happen with what I consider the illegal mandate on health insurance.
    Good Observation Kenny and one of the very teal dangers in P4P.

  12. #12
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by kennys View Post
    What worries me are things like this quote “Plus, Everitt says the permitting process is not real security. He points out that the accused Fort Hood shooter once held a concealed carry permit issued in Roanoke, Virginia. Everitt says the permit background check is not strict enough.

    Article reactions I have read shows the defense of carrying concealed restaurants in bars is that CHP holders have had background checks and are safer.

    Not trying to start a holy war or anything, but there will be those that will not find the need or reason to OC. As the motto of OCDO is a right unexercised is a right lost. If the antis push on this the thing that runs would be why we need OC at all. Some gun owners or should I say many already feel this way. Look at the NRA stance for that example and many of it’s members. All again from the above quote, trying to make getting a permit more regulated and un necessary.

    May I remind you, weirder things have happened, and we have yet to see what will happen with what I consider the illegal mandate on health insurance.
    The quote you mention is nonsense. A criminal background check is a boolean function, meaning it returns a value of "yes" or "no". Does the person have a criminal background or not? Now perhaps it would be possible to more closely scrutinize an applicant's record, but it's doubtful that someone applying for a CHP is trying to hide a criminal background.

    What the quote's author is really espousing is the abolition of "shall issue". They appear to be in favor of returning to the "good old boy" days where you have to know Bubba the Sheriffs Deputy in order to be in the "special club" to get a CHP.

    Any permitting scheme that is not "shall issue" based on previous criminal activity or other clearly defined critera is by definition a modern day "Minority Report" methodology where the issuers must try to determine your mindset and predict your future behavior.

    Fortunately, it appears that "Shall Issue" is safe in Virginia for now.

    TFred

  13. #13
    Regular Member kennys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ruther Glen Va
    Posts
    508
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    Good Observation Kenny and one of the very teal dangers in P4P.
    Kind of reminds me of the story of the monkey wanting the banana. The monkey wanted the banana so bad he stuck his hand inside of a thin necked jar to retrieve it. After he grasped the banana he could not get his hand out of the jar. He wanted that banana so bad he would not even release when threatened. I would guess you know how that story ended as a man with a club stood near.

  14. #14
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    "Shall Issue" is safe in Virginia for now.

    TFred
    That's the key phrase!

  15. #15
    Regular Member kennys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ruther Glen Va
    Posts
    508
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    The quote you mention is nonsense. A criminal background check is a boolean function, meaning it returns a value of "yes" or "no". Does the person have a criminal background or not? Now perhaps it would be possible to more closely scrutinize an applicant's record, but it's doubtful that someone applying for a CHP is trying to hide a criminal background.

    What the quote's author is really espousing is the abolition of "shall issue". They appear to be in favor of returning to the "good old boy" days where you have to know Bubba the Sheriffs Deputy in order to be in the "special club" to get a CHP.

    Any permitting scheme that is not "shall issue" based on previous criminal activity or other clearly defined critera is by definition a modern day "Minority Report" methodology where the issuers must try to determine your mindset and predict your future behavior.

    Fortunately, it appears that "Shall Issue" is safe in Virginia for now.

    TFred
    I hope you are correct with the shall isue being safe, but as well I hope that OC is as well safe. OC with permit only is one chain in the link I would not like to see.

    BTW I do have a permit and it is not gun registration, but more and more it eats away with me that it is a gun owner registration.
    While there are good cops and bad cops it leaves us open if we get pulled over for any reason any where the fact of being profiled for just that reason. I guess its ok to profile gun owners but not illegals

  16. #16
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Your Fear of the Unitended Consequences on P4P are well founded Kenny

    Quote Originally Posted by kennys View Post
    What worries me are things like this quote “Plus, Everitt says the permitting process is not real security. He points out that the accused Fort Hood shooter once held a concealed carry permit issued in Roanoke, Virginia. Everitt says the permit background check is not strict enough.”

    Article reactions I have read shows the defense of carrying concealed restaurants in bars is that CHP holders have had background checks and are safer.

    Not trying to start a holy war or anything, but there will be those that will not find the need or reason to OC. As the motto of OCDO is a right unexercised is a right lost. If the antis push on this the thing that runs would be why we need OC at all. Some gun owners or should I say many already feel this way. Look at the NRA stance for that example and many of it’s members. All again from the above quote, trying to make getting a permit more regulated and un necessary.

    May I remind you, weirder things have happened, and we have yet to see what will happen with what I consider the illegal mandate on health insurance.
    That is the law of unintended consequences. Yes you should fear the consequences of people fighting for P4P and not Gun Rights. Priveledges are given and taken at the whim of government. Rights are harder to evicerate. Fight for your rights, not for priveledge enhancement.

    Live Free or Die,
    Thundar
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  17. #17
    Regular Member kennys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ruther Glen Va
    Posts
    508
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    That is the law of unintended consequences. Yes you should fear the consequences of people fighting for P4P and not Gun Rights. Priveledges are given and taken at the whim of government. Rights are harder to evicerate. Fight for your rights, not for priveledge enhancement.

    Live Free or Die,
    Thundar
    I totally agree. How you carry should be personal preference only. The legality of your carry should only be limited to personal property owner’s rights and their preference on their own property only. But as well they should be held accountable if a tragity could have been avoided if it had not been for their rules and lack of security when taking a no gun preferance.
    Law abiding citizens should not have to have a piece of paper for permission to carry in any manner. Let the criminals pay for their own mistakes from their own actions. Don’t penalize me for what someone else will do or has done. Many people in this country need to grow up and realize a the right is a right and it shall not be infringed.

    Just my view.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •