Guns in Bars

[Richard6218]

imported post

DEROS72 wrote:

Exactly as I said Leave the guns in bar issue alone .My ex was a bartender for years and andto many drunks starting fights over stupid crap.Just because we have the second ammendment doesn't mean it should be a free for all.Although I do think college students of age should carry on campus.

Besides as I said with legislators trying to take away our guns all together it isn't the time to be telling them you want to be able to carry in bars freakin stupid.Wait untill this bill gets buried then if some want to then bring it up.

DEROS: EXACTLY what I was saying. Let's choose our battles. Starting a whole new fire when we have that 6396 to deal with is just not good logic.

 

[trevorthebusdriver]

imported post

I'd say still illegal in a bar only, but legalize it in restaurants with a bar like Red Robin...

 

[Lante]

imported post

As Trevorthebusdriver said. There is a distinct difference between a restaurant bar, and a tavern or tonk.
I don't drink anyway, but have worked in bars. The problem is with people....those who have a drink with dinner are not looking to get drunk. However there are those who go to Azteca, Red Robin or whatever is handy to get drunk and quarrel with people (when they do this at home it is called DV)...and often those are the ones that cause trouble and have no common sense to begin with...

My feeling - leave it alone, work at tightening up the laws for bad behavior while intoxicated, then maybe work towards this. Otherwise we will just end up with bad press.

 

[gogodawgs]

imported post

Wow, I would say this is very interesting. Let me see if I can recap what many of you are saying.

You would rather be on the DEFENSIVE with the legislature and not on the offensive:

DEROS72 wrote:

In light of people trying to ban guns here all together leave the guns in bar issue alone for now.

I would say NO, stay on the offensive. If we just wait for the anti's to propose bills every session we will always be defending and losing our rights. This has been the strategy for decades.

DEROS72 also wrote:

I don't see the need to carry in a bar anyway I just stay out.

This is an argument of the anti's: "I don't see the need to carry in a city park anyway..."

Trofwa wrote:

BAD Ju Ju mixing alcohol, and guns. Just plain bad Ju Ju.

Get rid of peoples inhibitions, fuel their emotions on alcohol and give um a gun to have at hand.

People can't even drive down the highway without having the 2 year old in their car shot. By a sober man. Now remove his inhibitions and add an emotional amplifier in alcohol, and you really have a recipe for disaster.

I did not say to mix alcohol and guns. I am talking about the right to bear arms and self defense everywhere I travel. You made the argument for my side when you pointed to a criminal who was sober shoting a 2 year old. Certainly there are many instances of criminals shooting others in bars. For example: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003759441_dige23m.html
or
http://www.king5.com/news/local/Three-wounded-in-Everett-bar-shooting-81227072.html

mostly this is food for though, perhaps to be on the offesive for the next legislative session.....

 

[TechnoWeenie]

imported post

I can carry in a restaurant and order a bunch of coronas and get shitfaced drunk, and that's legal....

But I can't go to a bar, not drink because I'm the DD, and enjoy some friends' company..


Makes perfect sense.


:banghead:

 

[kito109654]

imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:

I agree Tawnos. At the meet we had here in Bellingham last month, the name is The Quarterback Pub. I and a few other carriers ordered a beer with our meal. And nothing happened. Plus people blame too much on drink or drugs for the actions of criminals. I have seen brawls and fights were everyone were sober.

I don't think with all the other gun stuff going on at the moment it is the appropriate time to try to tackle this issue. If you want a drink don't go to the Bar that bans those under 21. We did and it worked out just fine.

Along the same lines, I ordered a "Red Bull 'Rita" at the last open carry meet in Mill Creek. I managed to not shoot the place up.

 

[DEROS72]

imported post

You guys need to listen .We are in a war for gun rights period right now. For that reason I won't support it .If we loose the battle we are in we can't win the war and carrying in bars will be a mute point because we won't have the rights left to carry anything. Stay focused on the issue at hand.

 

[gogodawgs]

imported post

Good news is that it is very likely to fail! (The AWB SB 6396)

Support for assault gun ban lagging in Olympia

OLYMPIA — After 2009 ended in a hail of high-profile gun violence, Washington state’s gun-control advocates are frustrated by an apparent lack of political support for an assault weapons ban, warning that the state will likely face more deadly shootings without it.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/topstories/story/1042538.html

 

[jinj]

imported post

Yes, leave this law alone.

Only criminals should be allowed to carry in a bar. :banghead:

But really...
The law should be the same as in other states, no drinking while carrying, and you should be allowed to carry anywhere.

 

[DEROS72]

imported post

I saw that lets make sure we first kill this bill so it never rises again.Then we at a later date can debate this issue.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

imported post

I agree that we should be able to carry anywhere anytime including bars, drinking or not .06 blood alcohol limit or less. The problem as I see it is we need to get all the lesser things like carry in the park or the Capitol bldg and grounds legal before we tackle carry in bars. If we all work together on a few small things we can make progress if we are spread out all over the place we will not go very far.

Now is the best opportunity to get laws changed or new onesmade that we have had in 70 years. A few years from now that may not be the case any longer lets use this time wisely. Carry in bars is going to be a hard sell anyway you look at it. We lost our rights a little at a time and that is the only way we are going to get them back a little at a time.

 

[.45ACPaddy]

imported post

TechnoWeenie wrote:

I can carry in a restaurant and order a bunch of coronas and get @#$%faced drunk, and that's legal....

But I can't go to a bar, not drink because I'm the DD, and enjoy some friends' company..


Makes perfect sense.


:banghead:

Actually, it's against the law to be under the influence of alcohol while in possession of a firearm where a CPL is required per RCW 9.41.098:

"(1) The superior courts and the courts of limited jurisdiction of the state may order forfeiture of a firearm which is proven to be:

(e) In the possession of a person who is in any place in which a concealed pistol license is required, and who is under the influence of any drug or under the influence of intoxicating liquor, as defined in chapter 46.61 RCW;"

I take it to mean that it means where a CPL is required to carry concealed. But then again, if you go by the absolute letter of the law, it would only apply if you were CC or if it were loaded and you were in a vehicle.

I agree on the alcohol + guns = BAD JUJU thing. If they were to change the laws and impose some sort of restriction, they should just restrict your BAC while in possession of a firearm, as they do with driving.

 

[heresolong]

imported post

jinj wrote:

no drinking while carrying,

Really? Under your proposal I can't have a beer or a glass of wine with my dinner if I am exercising my right to self defense (ie always). Thanks.

This doesn't sound like Change We Need to me.

 

[erps]

imported post

Really? Under your proposal I can't have a beer or a glass of wine with my dinner if I am exercising my right to self defense (ie always). Thanks.

DUI laws are currently .08 in Washington, lower for commercial drivers. Would something like that be acceptable in your opinion?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

erps wrote:

Really? Under your proposal I can't have a beer or a glass of wine with my dinner if I am exercising my right to self defense (ie always). Thanks.

DUI laws are currently .08 in Washington, lower for commercial drivers. Would something like that be acceptable in your opinion?

No.

 

[kparker]

imported post

I saw that lets make sure we first kill this bill so it never rises again.

Deros72,

With all due respect--there is no such thing as killing a bill forever. Any idiot legislator can always propose anything they want to, more or less. This is not an argument against opposing it, mind you, it's just the opposite: we can't successfuly oppose it, see it disappear, and then go home and say, "Well, at least we'll never have to worry about that again!"

Nope, instead it's eternal vigilance and all that...

 

[Tawnos]

imported post

G22Paddy wrote:

TechnoWeenie wrote:

I can carry in a restaurant and order a bunch of coronas and get @#$%faced drunk, and that's legal....

But I can't go to a bar, not drink because I'm the DD, and enjoy some friends' company..


Makes perfect sense.


:banghead:

Actually, it's against the law to be under the influence of alcohol while in possession of a firearm where a CPL is required per RCW 9.41.098:

"(1) The superior courts and the courts of limited jurisdiction of the state may order forfeiture of a firearm which is proven to be:

(e) In the possession of a person who is in any place in which a concealed pistol license is required, and who is under the influence of any drug or under the influence of intoxicating liquor, as defined in chapter 46.61 RCW;"

I take it to mean that it means where a CPL is required to carry concealed. But then again, if you go by the absolute letter of the law, it would only apply if you were CC or if it were loaded and you were in a vehicle.

I agree on the alcohol + guns = BAD JUJU thing. If they were to change the laws and impose some sort of restriction, they should just restrict your BAC while in possession of a firearm, as they do with driving.

There are a few places where a CPL is required, open or concealed. It would be interesting to see if having a pistol on you makes that place "a place where a CPL is required." If that's the standard, I'd say the wording is overly vague, because a more sane reading is in a vehicle with a loaded pistol, or in any stadium or convention center operated by a city, town, or municipality (per 9.41.300, which grants regulatory rights to those entities except for those who have CPLs).

 

[kparker]

imported post

SVG, not even compared to what we have now?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

kparker wrote:

SVG, not even compared to what we have now?

Right now I can have a beer or two with my meal.
I do think the age restrictive law of carrying is silly.
To ad more regulation to how much we can or can't drink is just asking for trouble.

 

[Tawnos]

imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:

kparker wrote:

SVG, not even compared to what we have now?

Right now I can have a beer or two with my meal.
I do think the age restrictive law of carrying is silly.
To ad more regulation to how much we can or can't drink is just asking for trouble.

I could see this argument, but have to think about how it plays out. Basically, being intoxicated in public is already illegal, overservice is already illegal, etc. However, there are laws regarding operating or handling potentially deadly items (vehicles, for example) while in such a state, due to the inherent risk they pose and that it poses a legitimate threat of harm (assault).

Overall, I think intoxication is a better legal standard of limitations than location. Searches still require probable cause, and it removes another GFZ.