KBCraig
Regular Member
"Gun law issue(s)" that discriminate aren't a civil rights matter? Really?
-
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.
Open Carry In Liquor Establishment in Alb.
- Thread starter steveaikens
- Start date
- Status
"Gun law issue(s)" that discriminate aren't a civil rights matter? Really?
PracticalTactical
Regular Member
If the right to keep and bear arms isn't a civil right, then what sort of right would you categorize it as?
Would you people be for real? Discrimination of skin color versus the right to carry guns is not a logical argument.
Perhaps I should have used better terminology.
However, we are still talking about people who can't be bothered to know the laws. Carrying guns is serious business. You don't think it's necessary to know the details?
Someone knows it's legal to open carry yet they don't know where it is or is not legal? You're making excuses for that kind of lack of responsibility? Seriously?
Perhaps I should have used better terminology.
However, we are still talking about people who can't be bothered to know the laws. Carrying guns is serious business. You don't think it's necessary to know the details?
Someone knows it's legal to open carry yet they don't know where it is or is not legal? You're making excuses for that kind of lack of responsibility? Seriously?
PracticalTactical
Regular Member
All you are doing is saying I am being ridiculous and asking me if I am serious.
Why don't you logically point out the flaw in my argument instead of just trying to kick up an emotional smokescreen?
I know they don't teach that sort of thing in school, and the talking heads never do that sort of thing, but I think you can do it
Steve, you're in a big hurry to condemn the guy who was open carrying. You say you "know the facts." If someone comes up to you, claims to be a Federal Law Enforcement Officer, demands you surrender your firearm, refuses to show any ID himself, and then physically JUMPS YOU, are you going to simply walk away? Please explain how you plan to do that.
How about a little slack for a fellow gun owner that's a victim of some lunatic who hasn't been taking his meds?
Tell me how this would have turned out any differently if the lunatic off his meds had seen the open carry in a fast food joint, auto parts store, or anywhere any gun owner IS ALLOWED to open carry.
Can you explain how this won't happen in the future to someone open-carrying, legally?
This event has NOTHING to do with "where" it happened. Alcohol was not involved in any way. Crucifying a gun owner because some lunatic goes schitzo in a place that just happens to sell beer and wine is ridiculous. If the lunatic happens to spot any one of us in an auto parts store next time, how would things turn out any differently?
The gun owner is not to blame because alcohol had NOTHING to do with this event. The fact that the place sells beer and wine had nothing to do with it. The lunatic is 100% to blame because he'd have lost it no matter where they were. Can you honestly say that this couldn't happen to YOU (or anyone legally open-carrying) in a fast food joint? I'll answer that for you. The answer is NO. You were just lucky in that the lunatic didn't happen to spot you that day.
All you are doing is saying I am being ridiculous and asking me if I am serious.
Why don't you logically point out the flaw in my argument instead of just trying to kick up an emotional smokescreen?
I know they don't teach that sort of thing in school, and the talking heads never do that sort of thing, but I think you can do it
The flaw in your argument is that you are trying to equate discrimination of a human beings' skin color with a person not being allowed to open carry a gun into a store selling alcohol. That is not discrimination in any way, shape or form.
They simply are not even on the same playing field.
Again, it is the person who chooses to open carry who has the responsibility to know the laws and operate within them. The people in question have not, and deserve to pay the penalty. Ignorance is no excuse.
Now, are you still serious about defending a person's ignorance of the laws, no matter what the law says?
You missed the point. The gun owner is to blame for violating the law. The fact that they serve beer and wine is the entire point. The gun owner was breaking the law by open carrying in a restaurant that serves liquor. What point of that is not clear?? It is a different issue if he was assaulted in an auto parts store for open carrying. He would not have been arrested. Do you get that? Arrested with a criminal record now. The point is that you have to be responsible when carrying a gun. I did not defend the nut job pretending to be a DEA agent.
PracticalTactical
Regular Member
How is banning open carry in a place that serves alcohol not discrimination? How exactly are they not on the same playing field?
Once again, I don't defend ignorance of the law, but I condemn a law that frequently trips up people who had no intention of harming anybody.
The proof's in the pudding; people frequently get arrested for this 'crime'. The law isn't well known and there is no notification at the entrance to most establishments.
Its like some police chief in a small town on a busy highway with a ridiculously low speed limit. Sure, you can condemn the driver for not seeing the 25 MPH sign that had a tree growing in front of it, but the speed trap is still unfair and unethical.
Now I think you are not only being ridiculous but also stupid.
It is not discrimination because that person can CHOOSE not to open carry in a place it is illegal to do so. A person CANNOT choose their skin color.
Just because a law is not well-known, it is still no excuse to not be aware of it. Just because a place does not post a sign is not a reason for the person to remain unaware of the illegal, criminal nature of entry.
Intention is irrelevant with regard to WHAT THE LAW SAYS, in this matter. No open carry in certain places, period. Intent does not matter, period.
Just because you think a law is unethical and unfair does not mean it is any less valid. Your comparison of the speed law is very predictable, I almost knew you would use that. The officer's explanation is the same- it's your responsibility to operate within the law regardless of what that law is.
Badger Johnson
Regular Member
I'm a complete teetotaler; never drink alcohol.
Yet I go into place where I think they serve alcohol. Am I to be disarmed in some cities/states?
To further the point, I'm mildly disabled - walk with a cane. So, I can't 'run away' or even retreat very much. Why should I be rendered extremely vulnerable and disarmed unable to protect myself like an able-bodied person?
My question is would you obey this law or circumvent it? Should I obey it? Would you tell your aged grandmother to obey it? Obviously, a rhetorical question since no one wants to advocate breaking the law.
Yet I go into place where I think they serve alcohol. Am I to be disarmed in some cities/states?
To further the point, I'm mildly disabled - walk with a cane. So, I can't 'run away' or even retreat very much. Why should I be rendered extremely vulnerable and disarmed unable to protect myself like an able-bodied person?
My question is would you obey this law or circumvent it? Should I obey it? Would you tell your aged grandmother to obey it? Obviously, a rhetorical question since no one wants to advocate breaking the law.
Badger- I never drink any alcohol either. None whatsoever.
No one is forcing you to enter that establishment. Yes, you are to be disarmed because that is what the law currently states.
Disability is not an exception to the law. Therefore you follow the same regulations and are subject to the same restrictions.
I obey the law despite the fact that I disagree with it. I don't have to like it, I only have to obey it- unless I want to risk the loss of my rights.
No one is forcing you to enter that establishment. Yes, you are to be disarmed because that is what the law currently states.
Disability is not an exception to the law. Therefore you follow the same regulations and are subject to the same restrictions.
I obey the law despite the fact that I disagree with it. I don't have to like it, I only have to obey it- unless I want to risk the loss of my rights.
NMBill
Regular Member
Laws
Badger, if you think about it, most laws are in place, not because most of us are apt to do the "wrong" thing, but because a few of us just can't seem to behave. Let's take arson laws for example. Have you ever considered setting fire to, say, the local movie theater? I doubt it and neither have I, but there are some people out there who would do just that. So, we have laws to dissuade them and to provide suitable consequences, if they should set the Cinemax on fire.
The laws against carrying where alcohol is served are there to dissuade those who might be tempted to have a few drinks and get loose with their firearm. Of course, the question with all these laws is always, are they doing more harm than good. The problem is, if individuals are allowed to choose which laws to obey, the whole system kind of falls apart.
That said, I break the law most days by driving over the posted speed limit at times. Others may make an illegal turn, if there's no law enforcement around. I pretty much know the odds of getting caught and the penalty for doing so, when I drive 10 mph over the limit, for example. Were I to be charged with a felony for the same offense, I'd probably alter my driving habits.
So, the question of whether you are justified in breaking the law is up to you. You need to ask yourself, if you are ready to face the consequences. I'm not ready to give up my freedom to buck this law and would rather work to get the law changed.
Badger, if you think about it, most laws are in place, not because most of us are apt to do the "wrong" thing, but because a few of us just can't seem to behave. Let's take arson laws for example. Have you ever considered setting fire to, say, the local movie theater? I doubt it and neither have I, but there are some people out there who would do just that. So, we have laws to dissuade them and to provide suitable consequences, if they should set the Cinemax on fire.
The laws against carrying where alcohol is served are there to dissuade those who might be tempted to have a few drinks and get loose with their firearm. Of course, the question with all these laws is always, are they doing more harm than good. The problem is, if individuals are allowed to choose which laws to obey, the whole system kind of falls apart.
That said, I break the law most days by driving over the posted speed limit at times. Others may make an illegal turn, if there's no law enforcement around. I pretty much know the odds of getting caught and the penalty for doing so, when I drive 10 mph over the limit, for example. Were I to be charged with a felony for the same offense, I'd probably alter my driving habits.
So, the question of whether you are justified in breaking the law is up to you. You need to ask yourself, if you are ready to face the consequences. I'm not ready to give up my freedom to buck this law and would rather work to get the law changed.
Badger Johnson
Regular Member
It's misguided. You can't legislate such behavior which is relies on an almost moral obligation to obey the law. Without metal detectors they are not going to catch guys who CC and go in and drink. Such people don't care about these laws. So not content to miss the mark by a mile, lawmakers inadvertently disarm and make vulnerable their grandmothers which is the ONLY effect of such laws. Seriously.
Your reasoning eludes me. The same argument can be made about any law- those who don't care about them aren't limited by them, until they're caught.
The effect of the laws, therefore, are upon those who choose to abide by them.
NMBill
Regular Member
I Think We're on the Same Page
I think all three of us have said pretty much the same thing (in three different ways). The legislators pass laws to try and stop the bad guys from misbehaving. The bad guys pay no attention to the laws. End result -- the laws negatively impact the good guys and has no effect on the bad guys.
I think all three of us have said pretty much the same thing (in three different ways). The legislators pass laws to try and stop the bad guys from misbehaving. The bad guys pay no attention to the laws. End result -- the laws negatively impact the good guys and has no effect on the bad guys.
First of all, Garcia's does NOT SERVE LIQUOR! They serve beer and wine. Alcohol yes, liquor NO. Throwing words around like that make you seem like an internet troll to me.
Secondly, the name of the place is called Garcia's KITCHEN, not Garcia's bar and grill. There is no "bar" in the place. In fact, I'm not sure how anyone is supposed to know they serve alcohol if they don't go all the way to the back of the menu and find it there. They do not display their alcohol products. I'm not sure how the gun owner was supposed to know there was any beer and wine served there in the first place.
The fact that they have a piece of paper that says they can serve beer and wine is completely irrelevant because alcohol had nothing to do with this event. The lunatic would have gone off anywhere he happened to be. The news report said the guy was ranting about the gun owner planning on robbing the place and satellite surveilance and crap like that.
You are defending the lunatic by attacking the real victim here - the gun owner. The ONLY thing that will make us safer is to institutionalize the lunatic, not prosecute the gun owner.
What sense does it make to allow concealed and outlaw open carry in a place like that anyway? Mindlessly attacking the gun owner citing irresponsibility is bogus.
If you're going to go somewhere and want to open or concealed carry and are unsure of the status of the place, a PHONE CALL ahead of time will answer the question.
Whether alcohol was involved, it is not irrelevant if alcohol was in fact present in the establishment for serving purposes.
It is your personal burden as a gun owner to know for yourself what the situation is, not to rely on someone else to make you aware. It is called being smart and responsible.
The gun owner was still at fault for carrying openly into a place that served, regardless of the place's name.
Whether alcohol was involved, it is not irrelevant if alcohol was in fact present in the establishment for serving purposes.
It is your personal burden as a gun owner to know for yourself what the situation is, not to rely on someone else to make you aware. It is called being smart and responsible.
The gun owner was still at fault for carrying openly into a place that served, regardless of the place's name.
You really don't understand what happened, do you?
The guy was headed to the gun range with his family and they decided ON THE WAY to drop in and have brunch.
They walk in, they see no alcohol, nobody is drinking alcohol, and everything is fine until some MORON attacks the gun owner.
Now, people like YOU are calling him irresponsible. That's ridiculous.
Look, we gun owners need to band together, not eat each other alive - especially when something out of the Twilight Zone like this pops up. Slavishly following some technicality like this does NOBODY any good. It does not serve the public in general and it damn sure doesn't serve gun owners in particular for us to eat our own.
I can envision some anti-gun left-tard trying to nail this guy on some technicality like this, but not a second amendment supporting gun owner.
It is you who are not getting it.
He broke the law by even entering the place at all. It is irrelevant what he did or did not see anyone drinking. Why are you harping on that irrelevant point?
It is irrelevant where he was going or where he came from. He entered an alcohol establishment when he should not have. That is the only point that is relevant. That is the only thing that matters. It was his responsibility to not break the law and enter the place, period.
Why you fail to understand that simple point is beyond me. Technicality? I think not. That's just unbelievable of you to say- it's THE LAW.
Last edited:
- Status