Guns in Bars

[Just Us]

imported post

Hate to say it, but lets be realistic! You have these younger ones go into the bars with their hot girlfriend (with attitudes themselves) and they think they're the s*^%. They start drinking and their egos get bigger, their girls start flirting with other guys that are checking them out, people bumping into other (it's crowded),say the wrong thing to the waitress,then lone behold a bunch of drunk obnoxious guys start shooting it out all over that young, barely touched, teasing girl flirting with another guy to get a rise. I've been in clubs and bars seeing things happen. I got a lot more I can say, but I'll end it here.

On a side note, a good way for population control. I would just watch from a great distance. (The TV)

 

[MrGray]

imported post

I'm just tired of worrying about breaking the law when the hostess leads my dinner party through the bar to reach our table in the restaurant area, or when the only way to the washroom is through the bar area. Or, as often happens, when the bar area is poorly marked.

I've got zero interest in sitting in a bar. I've got zero interest in engaging in public drunkenness, or carrying while drunk.

But I'm really tired of going to eat lunch in the local tavern once a week and being unable to use the restrooms without disarming simply because they can't be reached without going through the bar area.

If you want to amend the law to say "can only pass through the age restricted area to reach dining area or sanitary facilities", I'm good with that.

 

[Just Us]

imported post

MrGray wrote:

I'm just tired of worrying about breaking the law when the hostess leads my dinner party through the bar to reach our table in the restaurant area, or when the only way to the washroom is through the bar area. Or, as often happens, when the bar area is poorly marked.

I've got zero interest in sitting in a bar. I've got zero interest in engaging in public drunkenness, or carrying while drunk.

But I'm really tired of going to eat lunch in the local tavern once a week and being unable to use the restrooms without disarming simply because they can't be reached without going through the bar area.

If you want to amend the law to say "can only pass through the age restricted area to reach dining area or sanitary facilities", I'm good with that.

You do have a point, maybe for some reason I haven't seen the original post. I was thinking of actual clubs and bars (no-one under 21 area).

 

[kito109654]

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.

Just wanted to point out that this law doesn't apply to what you quoted. It only applies to being drunk with a pistol in a vehicle such as a car or bus.

 

[kparker]

imported post

SVG, a beer with your meal gets you over .08% ???

 

[erps]

imported post

From my perspective, laws should regulate the actual conduct that puts the public at risk. So rather than outlaw certain firearms, I would outlaw the conduct of assaulting others with firearms. So rather than regulating possession of firearms in drinking establishments because a person might get drunk, the law should outlaw being in possession of a firearm in public while intoxicated. I'm not keen on the state regulating activities that are a step or two removed from the actual activity they are trying to prevent.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

kparker wrote:

SVG, a beer with your meal gets you over .08% ???

Depends on the size of the beer and what micro I am drinking. :lol:

No my point was against any more regulation. Like Tawnos pointed out most the crimes that would be committed because you happened to be intoxicated are already illegal, and it isn't working.

I don't get drunk, I never had a blood alcohol test to find out what my limit is , but I don't like the feeling of not being in control. But I do enjoy a good micro or two every once in awhile.

 

[grishnav]

imported post

Jeeze guys. I'm, as usual, disappointed at the usurpation of freedom you will tolerate in the name of safety. Oregon has no restriction on intoxication while carrying, or on carrying in bars, And there isn't a problem with bar shootings in Oregon.

The last two "bar shootings" I can recall before moving to Seattle were:

1. A VT/Columbine style shooting at Wetlands, where some guy just walked in and opened up. Wetlands never served him a single drink.
2. Kel's Irish pub, where I have opened carried while I have a couple of beers with lunch, had a bullet hit a patron when a gang fight broke out outside the establishment. Kel's didn't serve them anything to drink, either.

You know what happens in the absence of government regulation in the matter? Private @#$%ing property owners take care of that @#$%. Most of the bars downtown were wide open, but the clubbier-types and types where heavier drinking was expected, the kinds of places with the free-flowing booze and flirty girls that "Just Us" described, all of them search for weapons as a condition of entry. Two guards posted outside the door, and nobody, even employees, got through without being thoroughly manhandled. Some of them even implemented lockers where they would allow people to store pocket knives, pepper spray, and other assorted banned implements, until they were ready to leave.

There's no need for some crappy law that makes it illegal for me to set out in the parking lot and drink a couple of beers with the neighbor while I happen to be carrying. There is no need for some crappy law that makes it illegal to go to the bathroom by virtue of poor establishment layout planning. There is no need for any of these crappy carry laws! In the absence of them, private property owners will make whatever rules and take whatever precautions they see fit to keep their patrons safe, and they will live and die by those rules on the free market.

You can argue about whether or not fighting the bar ban is a tactically sound maneuver in accomplishing the overall strategy of securing greater gun rights, but arguing that violence will increase without these bans is simply coming from a place of ignorance, no better (and, in fact, identical to) the anti-gun lobby's early cries that allowing mere mortals to obtain concealed carry permits would result in blood running in the streets in Florida. It's just silly, and all it does is serve to add fuel to their claims that regulations are "necessary" to keep us safe. Regulations don't make us safe. The best they can do is give us a false sense of security.

If you can't mix guns and alcohol without shooting up the room, fine, don't drink whlie your gun isn't in a safe with someone safely keeping the key, but don't impose your inability to make good choices on the rest of us in the form of one-size-fits-all government regulations.

 

[FMCDH]

imported post

erps wrote:

From my perspective, laws should regulate the actual conduct that puts the public at risk. So rather than outlaw certain firearms, I would outlaw the conduct of assaulting others with firearms. So rather than regulating possession of firearms in drinking establishments because a person might get drunk, the law should outlaw being in possession of a firearm in public while intoxicated. I'm not keen on the state regulating activities that are a step or two removed from the actual activity they are trying to prevent.

Amen, erps!

The current Washingtonlaw is all about feel good idiocy. It sounds good at a passing glance, but has no reality in fact for its existence.

Case in point...

We have two neighbors, Oregon and Idaho, and neither of them make taking guns into bars against the law in any form, and only one (Idaho) makes intoxication while possessing a firearm in publicillegal. Neither of these two states have any kind of problem with "drunken shootouts" at bars, any more than Washington.

Its a silly and uselesslaw that needs to be repealed and replaced with something that makes sense. One that doesn't victimize Innocent people, and one that places the risk of prosecution on those who are actually engaged in a high risk and senselessaction.

Whena person carries a firearm andcan sit on the restaurantside of awaist high dividerat Applebees and drink till they collapse, and THAT is legal, but the same person can sit on the bar side of that same divider (literally a foot difference between them)and simply eat a quiet alcohol free dinner, and THAT is illegal,its dumb beyond all reasoning.

 

[1245A Defender]

imported post

kparker wrote:

SVG, a beer with your meal gets you over .08% ???

an average guy drinking an average beer and eating an average lunch in an average amount of time wont even register a blood alcahol concentration on an average testing machine

 

[erps]

imported post

1245A Defender wrote:

kparker wrote:

SVG, a beer with your meal gets you over .08% ???

an average guy drinking an average beer and eating an average lunch in an average amount of time wont even register a blood alcahol concentration on an average testing machine

what's the basis of this statement? Have you tested yourself with a pbt?

 

[1245A Defender]

imported post

erps wrote:

1245A Defender wrote:

kparker wrote:

SVG, a beer with your meal gets you over .08% ???

an average guy drinking an average beer and eating an average lunch in an average amount of time wont even register a blood alcahol concentration on an average testing machine

what's the basis of this statement? Have you tested yourself with a pbt?

thanx for asking,,, as a matter of fact i do own an alcomate personal breath tester. its alot like the portable units used by LEO. ive tested myself lots of times after differing levels of drinking and i know to a reasonable level of certainty what level of BAC i will be in a given circumstance. and i stand by my statement of averages.

 

[Tawnos]

imported post

erps wrote:

1245A Defender wrote:

kparker wrote:

SVG, a beer with your meal gets you over .08% ???

an average guy drinking an average beer and eating an average lunch in an average amount of time wont even register a blood alcahol concentration on an average testing machine

what's the basis of this statement? Have you tested yourself with a pbt?

He's likely right - liver can process one 5% beer per hour, testing procedure requires 15 minutes without burping... One beer in one hour (average lunch, unless you're me and food/drink disappear immediately) plus 15 minute wait time = margin of error reading.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

imported post

I have to agree with 1245A, I have been trained on and owned a PBA just like the State Patrol used at the time.I played with it a lot it takes me about 4 beers/drinks in an hour to register over .06. I am a big guy 6-6 245 so adjust for size accordingly.

BTW I am lucky if I drink a 6 pack a month anymore.

 

[amzbrady]

imported post

Dont drink, not worries...

 

[Just Us]

imported post

Look,I just don't care for the idea high levels of alcohol in that atmosphere should be mixed with firearm right now, at some of these places. I think most people can control themselves. Incidents like I brought up in the earlier is more on the rare side and probably on the top half of the extreme. I also think when more understanding come about for the general public it won't be as much of an issue. Taverns are usually more of a relaxed atmosphere. I also understand the restaurant layout situation and don't think that should be a issue. I'm not backtracking on my words, just trying to give more understanding of what I was saying.

 

[erps]

imported post

I have to agree with 1245A, I have been trained on and owned a PBA just like the State Patrol used at the time. I played with it a lot it takes me about 4 beers/drinks in an hour to register over .06. I am a big guy 6-6 245 so adjust for size accordingly.

That's similar with the results I've observed with four beers but a result of .000 after one beer with a meal is not consistent with the results that I have observed, more like .015 to .020 depending on the size of the person. Actually, if you do the math with your own results, .06/4=.015

 

[compmanio365]

imported post

Wow, this argument again. We need a "rolling eyes" icon here. Those who are pro-statist will argue that "guns+alcohol=BAD" and we need the big, wonderful .GOV to protect us from ourselves, because apparently, the same guy you trusted 5 seconds ago with a gun turns into a raving lunatic the moment he touches drink and can't be trusted. Whether that's the case or not, because one person MIGHT be, we better ban all guns from bars, everywhere. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Then you have the pro-freedom crowd, who believes, "Be armed where you will and do what you will so long as you harm nobody. Beyond that, your own opinions will shape your own actions. Once you harm another, your freedoms are curtailed." You know....the principles this country was founded on. But hell, what did those old codgers know, right? We better be protected from ourselves.

I, for one, welcome our armed-bar-patron fearing overlords..........:banghead:

 

[jinj]

imported post

heresolong wrote:

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.

Ok, then no being drunk while carrying.

 

[holepoker]

imported post

I don't think people without 20/20 vision,(no corrective lens allowed)should carry, you mightshoot the wrong person.

No person on medication, to include OTC, shoot carry, you might get drowsy, foggy, or getdiarrhea and might shoot somebody.

Hell, maybe carrying a gun is bad all around, you might shoot somebody.

:cuss::banghead: