Style Weekly likes SB1395

buster81 said:

I don't think that guy is on the list Dan Casey keeps. He should be though.

Click to expand...

Dan Casey likely only keeps a list of the good guys he wants to [strike]castrate[/strike] castigate - it's a liberal thing.

TFred said:

As Philip noted in his Alert yesterday, this bill has been hacked up.

The last version on the website has this:

That seems to mean they intend it to not apply only to undercover officers. Are there any other circumstances to which that would apply?

TFred

Click to expand...

See, you noticed. McEachin himself created a huge loophole. How serious a problem would that be? Well, just casually searching the 'Net, I discovered these news stories:

Accused Law-Breaking Cocoa Cop Loses Job

Trial begins for cop who did not fear arrest

Looking back further in time, of course there are more news accounts of LEOs behaving badly. Apparently, McEachin would excuse that, because it's "tradition" - yes, that's what he said in Committee.

Tom Sizemore writes another slanted article

Tom Sizemore writes another slanted [strike]commentary[/strike] well, article:

Bill targeting armed drinkers dies in House panel

A unanimous stamp of approval from the state Senate wasn't enough to save a legislative attempt to keep loaded guns out of the hands of intoxicated people.

Sen. Donald McEachin's bill, SB1395, had been passed by the Democrat-controlled Senate 40-0.

But it died at the hands of four Republican delegates Thursday, probably the last gun-control measure to be considered by the 2011 General Assembly.

...

McEachin's bill was prompted by the so-called "guns in bars" law passed by the Assembly last year, which allows concealed-weapon permit holders to carry their guns into restaurants and bars but prohibits them from consuming alcohol.

That left what McEachin, D-Richmond, considered a large loophole: Patrons who carry weapons openly can drink all they want.

Click to expand...

"... can drink all they want" -- really?

Repeater said:

Tom Sizemore writes another slanted [strike]commentary[/strike] well, article:

Bill targeting armed drinkers dies in House panel



"... can drink all they want" -- really?

Click to expand...

Never thought I'd agree with such minions of the dark side, but he is right in my case and I do drink what I please and as much as I please.

Course it's coffee, tea or ice water when I'm carrying, which is all of the time. :lol:

Grapeshot said:

Course it's coffee, tea or ice water when I'm carrying, which is all of the time. :lol:

Click to expand...

Caffeine is a stimulant and, in high enough volumes, has been shown to affect judgment and impair motor skills, not improve them.

Just sayin'.

TFred said:

In light of this week's developments in Philadelphia, I can't help but observe that if this law had been in place in Philadelphia in January 2010, it is quite likely that Gerald Ung would have been severely beaten and possibly critically injured or killed.

I guess we can safely say that the Senator would prefer that Mr. Ung be injured or killed, rather than have been able to defend himself from a gang of drunken thugs.

TFred

Click to expand...

Absolutely. Gerald had been drinking, but it took a jury a scant couple hours to decide he was justifiably armed, and defended himself justifiably.

His friends knew he was armed, and according to testimony, they were both as scared as they had ever been, and in the end were happy that Gerald was armed and that the gun came out.

Gerald Ung is a better American than any Nancy who wants to pass this law.

By the way, not that I expect any better, but I find it immensely annoying that the antis are claiming that one may be legally intoxicated while armed.

It would seem too reasonable if it were made clear that the only people who can legally carry in bars are people who are not intoxicated. Oh, and cops.

marshaul said:

It would seem too reasonable if it were made clear that the only people who can legally carry in bars are people who are not intoxicated. Oh, and cops.

Click to expand...

Just like the only people who can legally drive are those who are not intoxicated, right?

Except that driving is a privilege and self-defense is a right - a right is something that does not change form dependent on the status of a free individual.

Only through fiat can anyone be disarmed. This statement would be no different.

Please spare me the argument of "You could choose NOT to drink." Sure I could. I could choose a lot of things, but those choices are independent and exclusive of my right to self-defense.

wylde007 said:

Just like the only people who can legally drive are those who are not intoxicated, right?

Except that driving is a privilege and self-defense is a right - a right is something that does not change form dependent on the status of a free individual.

Only through fiat can anyone be disarmed. This statement would be no different.

Please spare me the argument of "You could choose NOT to drink." Sure I could. I could choose a lot of things, but those choices are independent and exclusive of my right to self-defense.

Click to expand...

I referred only to the law, not to the nature of one's rights.

I recall arguing on this very forum, on numerous occasions, against there being any laws prohibiting self-defense and the means thereof to the "intoxicated".

My point here was merely that the state has already thrown the antis a relevant bone, one which defuses the argued potential, and does so in a way which many folks seem to find noncontroversial (myself not included). And still this isn't enough, and so they (the antis) misrepresent the situation in order to pretend that somehow there is still a problem which is somehow legislatively addressable.

"Reasonable" in the sense, is it not "reasonable" to assume that a law prohibiting armed drunkards already addresses the issue of armed drunkards? And that therefore laws addressing the remaining portion of armed folks are unnecessary?

Not "reasonable" in the sense that, from a blank slate, I would find the imposition of carrying prohibitions for the "intoxicated" "reasonable". Objectively, such are intolerable as fundamentally incompatible with absolute, pre-existing right.

And my use of the word "legally" refers to just that: the law. Nowhere have I here, or elsewhere, ever argued that law defines right. The law is what it is, and my reference to its present state in debate provides no suggestion of my own view as to the proper function or limits of law.

Fair enough.

wylde007 said:

Caffeine is a stimulant and, in high enough volumes, has been shown to affect judgment and impair motor skills, not improve them.

Just sayin'.

Click to expand...

Would that be Irish Coffee?

wylde007 said:

Caffeine is a stimulant and, in high enough volumes, has been shown to affect judgment and impair motor skills, not improve them.

Just sayin'.

Click to expand...

Have you ever seen me before my coffee or on the downside of caffeine withdrawal? It's really not a pretty thing.

With enough sugar and cream, it's a meal in a cup. Still everything in due moderation - when my eyes turn brown, I've had enough. :lol:

Grapeshot said:

when my eyes turn brown, I've had enough. :lol:

Click to expand...

I thought that was politicians... and for a somewhat alternate reason. :lol:

marshaul said:

It would seem too reasonable if it were made clear that the only people who can legally carry in bars are people who are not intoxicated. Oh, and cops.

Click to expand...

In Virginia you can add Commonwealth Attorneys to that list and they will no training or experience required to CC. It's not that I think that formal training should be required, but it is one of the war cries of the antis, except for the anointed ones.

Originally Posted by Grapeshot
when my eyes turn brown, I've had enough. :lol:

Click to expand...

wylde007 said:

I thought that was politicians... and for a somewhat alternate reason. :lol:

Click to expand...

See, I make a good straight man too.