Guns in Bars, I for one don't like it!

[jgalt]

Something I think that was missed in this conversation. You are carrying illegaly, with a permit once you reach .04. So while yes you can carry in a bar, for most people 1 drink, and you are over the limit, and for the rest of us, 2 maybe 3, and your for sure over the limit.

The point is that regardless if you are in the bar or not with your gun, if your drinking and packing, your no longer legal.

Nothing was missed. It is not a question of whether or not carrying a gun with a bac of at least 0.04 is illegal - it clearly is - but rather a question of whether or not is should be illegal. I and a few others are of the opinion it should not be, while the legislators & many other folks here believe it should be.

The question to be answered is this - do I lose the right (the natural / God-given one, not the one granted by the state) to defend myself once an alcoholic beverage touches my lips? How about when my bac hits an arbitrary number like 0.04, regardless of whether or not I am in any way impaired at that point? How about when I am fall-down drunk - have I lost my right to defend myself then? The answer, for any society which claims to believe in individual rights must be NO.

That in no way removes any amount of responsibility for any actions I take while drinking. A person must be held to account for their actions, when their actions infringe upon the rights of other individuals. If I am drunk, with a gun holstered on my hip, I have not infringed upon anyone else's rights in any way. If I am fall down drunk, and armed, and attacked by one or more individuals, and kill my attacker(s), I still have not infringed upon anyone else's rights!!!

I am fully responsible for every action I take, regardless of whether or not I am armed. Any law which dictates fines, penalties or punishments for actions which do not infringe upon the rights of another are immoral and must be fought by any free man or woman who believes in individual rights.

[Squib Joe]

If I am drunk, with a gun holstered on my hip, I have not infringed upon anyone else's rights in any way.

An intoxicated driver could also claim that he isn't infringing on anyone's rights ... up until he hits somebody.

While a drunk carrying a gun may not be infringing upon anyone's rights, I would still suggest that he is putting other people in danger by not being in control of his sidearm - or having the mental facility to manipulate it properly (let alone judiciously).

[jgalt]

If I am drunk, with a gun holstered on my hip, I have not infringed upon anyone else's rights in any way.

An intoxicated driver could also claim that he isn't infringing on anyone's rights ... up until he hits somebody.

While a drunk carrying a gun may not be infringing upon anyone's rights, I would still suggest that he is putting other people in danger by not being in control of his sidearm - or having the mental facility to manipulate it properly (let alone judiciously).

An intoxicated driver isn't infringing upon anyone else's rights until he hits somebody. And you can argue that any number of activities which happen every day - that no one suggests should be criminal acts - are 'putting people in danger' every day. If your threshold for whether or not to pass a law regarding something is when that something 'puts other people in danger', no one would ever be able to leave their homes. Assuming of course you could ever enter you home without it first being completely fire proof, have no sharp corners or edges anywhere inside, have no steps, be impossible to slip in, etc, etc, etc...

I am certainly not advocating that anyone drink to excess while carrying - or driving, or caring for kids, or really pretty much ever. But passing a law which could punish me for having had 'too much to drink', despite my gun never having left it's holster or, since I carry concealed, anyone else around me ever even knowing I have it on me, is an immoral abuse of power on the part of the government. The job of the government is to protect individual rights, not to ensure that no one ever gets hurt. I'll say it again - I do not lose my natural right to self defense once alcohol passes my lips. If I hurt someone with my firearm - drunk or sober - punish me to the fullest extent possible. If I don't, then piss off (the government, not you personally...).

[justaguy]

Driving on public roads is also a privilege and not a Right.

Which of the other 27 Amendments to the United States Constitution do I loose when I have drinks? Anymore that you think I don't need?

If you agree that you should loose the Second Amendment while drinking, how do you not agree to loosing them all? We only need some of the rights some of the time? Rights are not for when you or the government think I need them. It's reasonable gun control. Common sense would dictate that we need this gun control. People wonder how gun control laws get passed. It happens because everyone is so quick to decide that others cant handle their own freedom and want to take it away from everyone else, but still want to retain all of theirs. You have enough people and different groups doing that, and we do, everyone looses. This gun control is no different than what the Brady bunch do. People that believe we loose the Second Amendment because (fill in the blank) believe in gun control. They just rationalize and try to hide their believe in gun control better than the outright gun grabbers.

It is ridiculous to accept that you loose some Rights but not others.

[Holland&Holland]

BS I am all for the 2nd amendment but that says I have the right to bear arms not be armed any where I choose whenever I choose. There are situations where your rights can not supercede anothers. If I do not want you armed in my house for what ever reason, do your rights trump mine? I think not. Now of course you do not have to come to my house. If you are working in a prision should there not be policies on what areas of the prision have guns and which do not for everyones safety or should we let individual employees decide where they can carry? Hell, what about the prisionors rights to defend themselves? Maybe they should not lose their rights to bear arms.

You have a right to bear arms you do not have a "right" to drink. You get to drink because it exists and it is a free country. If one is going to carry one needs to know when one is not in a condition that is safe. Have a designated driver, have that person be a permit holder, do not ruin it for the rest of us.

One of the tenets we teach our children in every hunter safety course I have seen is that guns and alcohol do not mix. I have seen the results of these 2 mixing and it is not good. Enough said...I am done with this.

[Squib Joe]

An intoxicated driver isn't infringing upon anyone else's rights until he hits somebody.

If nobody else is on the road, you're right!

A drunk driver is putting my life at considerable risk and I have the right to defend myself from that danger. Since I don't have the option of running the drunk off the road myself, I hire law enforcement to do it for me. As a society, we pass laws to defend ourselves from behavior that has demonstrably proven itself to be dangerous to others in our community.

If you choose to juggle straight razors in the privacy of your backyard, I completely agree that you should be allowed that right. Do it on a crowded city bus, however, and I think you should be arrested.

[justaguy]

BS I am all for the 2nd amendment but that says I have the right to bear arms not be armed any where I choose whenever I choose. There are situations where your rights can not supercede anothers. If I do not want you armed in my house for what ever reason, do your rights trump mine? I think not. Now of course you do not have to come to my house.

I'm talking about the Government taking Rights. You are talking about private property. There is a big difference between the two.

You also missed the last part of the Second Amendment to The Constitution Of the United States of America:

...A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I don't take that to read: “well, you can infringe upon these rights in the event someone drinks". Obviously you do.

Should there be a law that says you cant have a loaded gun in the house if you drink?

You never said which of the other 27 Amendments I loose if I drink?

[Holland&Holland]

BS I am all for the 2nd amendment but that says I have the right to bear arms not be armed any where I choose whenever I choose. There are situations where your rights can not supercede anothers. If I do not want you armed in my house for what ever reason, do your rights trump mine? I think not. Now of course you do not have to come to my house.

I'm talking about the Government taking Rights. You are talking about private property. There is a big difference between the two.

You also missed the last part of the Second Amendment to The Constitution Of the United States of America:

...A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I don't take that to read: “well, you can infringe upon these rights in the event someone drinks". Obviously you do.

Should there be a law that says you cant have a loaded gun in the house if you drink?

You never said which of the other 27 Amendments I loose if I drink?

Whatever....

[justaguy]

That was a good well thought out reply, but I thought you were "done with this".

I wish you the best of luck infringing on "other" peoples rights. I hope no one ever comes for your rights, well whatever.

[jgalt]

Holland&Holland-

You aren't getting it. This is NOT about whether or not "guns & alcohol mix" - it is about whether or not the government has any authority to limit my ability to exercise my inherent right to self-defense prior to my having infringed upon anyone else's rights. Nothing you wrote in your last post addresses this issue in any way. You want to teach kids in hunter's safety courses that guns & alcohol don't mix, I'm right there with you. You want to keep me from carrying on your property, I'm with you on that too. You want to push the designated driver program, awesome - I love getting free sodas while out with friends. But if you want to sanction the government imposition of limitations on my ability to defend myself, despite the fact that I have not done anything wrong, we've got a problem. You are wrong, both on principle and in practice.

Squib Joe-

A drunk driver is not necessarily putting your life at risk - a poor driver is. Now, are folks who have had too much to drink more likely to be poor drivers as well - absolutely. But I'd rather be surrounded by drivers who have had a couple of drinks with their meal than by a bunch of 16 year olds who just got their licenses. Or by people who haven't slept in 48 hours - or even 24 hours. Or any of the millions of Americans who regularly take OTC or prescription drugs which impair their reaction times. Or by poor drivers of any type. I stand by my statement - and regardless, this isn't about drinking & driving (which neither I nor anyone else here is advocating), but about the government's ability to limit my inherent right to defend myself, absent my having done anything wrong.

[Rem700]

The Arizona Senate has given final approval to a bill that would allow people with concealed weapons permits to carry a gun into a business that serves alcohol.

I dont drink so why shouldnt I be allowed to carry in Az establishments that serve alcohol.

[justaguy]

I dont drink so why shouldnt I be allowed to carry in Az establishments that serve alcohol.

Because people take that away from you. They think it makes everyone safer. That is why we need gun control, to make everyone "safer".

[Holland&Holland]

That was a good well thought out reply, but I thought you were "done with this".

I wish you the best of luck infringing on "other" peoples rights. I hope no one ever comes for your rights, well whatever.

I do not think I have EVER infringed on anyone elses rights, but if you want o keep spewing stuff that does not make any sense by all means. That is one of your rights as well. Enjoy...

[Rem700]

I havnt kept up with Az law but the mere fact that a establishment served alcohol made it off limits IIrc.
If a resturant had alchohol on the premisis it was off limits, Some states in order to be legal had to make more then 50% profit from say food vs alcohol sales to be legal.

[justaguy]

That was a good well thought out reply, but I thought you were "done with this".

I wish you the best of luck infringing on "other" peoples rights. I hope no one ever comes for your rights, well whatever.

I do not think I have EVER infringed on anyone elses rights, but if you want o keep spewing stuff that does not make any sense by all means. That is one of your rights as well. Enjoy...

Whatever.