Concealed Guns in Bars OK in Arizona

[Ron 10]

Quote

That seems like a pretty good compromise.

Why? It is already illegal to drink and carry. All you are really doing is limiting a persons right to self defense.

And what parts of the 1st, 3rd, 4th,...ect are you willing to compromise on?

Quote

Likewise, if the primary purpose of an establishment is drinking, it is reasonable to expect that most people who go there, go there to drink.

Or be the designated driver, or listen to the band, or pick up drunk chicks, or play pool, or go see a game with friends..... LOTS of reasons to go to a bar other than drink.

Quote

it may be unreasonable to expect to hold CCW holders to an even higher standard

Except they already ARE held to a higher standard.

How about you only regulate the areas that are shown to be a problem and not throw blanket fixes out of irrational fear?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

Anyplace that sells alcohol is required to post one of two signs. Both provided by the TABC (TX alcoholic bev. commission). Either the 51% sign (has a LARGE "51%" on it with wording prohibiting concealed carry) or the other one that simply says something along the lines of "unlicensed carry of a weapon on these premises is prohibited".

The two signs are:

1. A red 51% sign.

2. The 30.06 sign

It must say: "PURSUANT TO SECTION 30.06, PENAL CODE (TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF A LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN) A PERSON LICENSED UNDER SUBCHAPTER H, CHAPTER 411, GOVERNMENT CODE (CONCEALED HANDGUN LAW), MAY NOT ENTER THIS PROPERTY WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN."

It must be in ENGLISH and SPANISH.
It must be at least one inch tall in contrasting colors.
It must be readily visible

Anything else, and you can carry all day.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 3,120]

>All you are really doing is limiting a persons right to self defense.

Correct - as is already done in airports, courthouses etc.

>And what parts of the 1st, 3rd, 4th,...ect are you willing to compromise on?

You can't shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.

If you are arrested for drunk driving, you lose your right to be "secure in your person" - you can either take a BAC test or lose your car and license right there.

I can't think of any cases of third amendment compromises since it hasn't been an issue for centuries. But if we did have to quarter troops in, say, a privately owned hotel during an emergency, I'd be OK with that provided that such use was decided by an impartial judge.

>Or be the designated driver, or listen to the band, or pick up drunk chicks, or
>play pool, or go see a game with friends..... LOTS of reasons to go to a bar other
>than drink.

Of course. History has shown, though, that drivers cannot reliably resist the temptation to drink, even with the draconian penalties and educational programs discouraging that.

>How about you only regulate the areas that are shown to be a problem and
>not throw blanket fixes out of irrational fear?

We are talking about allowing more CCW holders into restaurants that serve alcohol; in other words, expanding the rights they have now. Do you oppose that?

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

You can't shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.

Actually, you can. You're just responsible for any negative outcome.

There's a difference between assigning responsibility after the fact and engaging in prior restraint.

Quote

I can't think of any cases of third amendment compromises since it hasn't been an issue for centuries. But if we did have to quarter troops in, say, a privately owned hotel during an emergency, I'd be OK with that provided that such use was decided by an impartial judge.

Wow. Just wow. Really?

Would it also be ok to engage in just a little slavery, as long as an impartial judge signed off on it?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 3,120]

>Wow. Just wow. Really?

Yes. If we had another Katrina, and FEMA needed a hotel as a staging area, and nothing else was available - the needs of the emergency might overcome the third amendment rights of the property owner.

>Would it also be ok to engage in just a little slavery, as long as an impartial
>judge signed off on it?

Yes. We used to call them chain gangs. Don't know what they're called nowadays though.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

>Wow. Just wow. Really?

Yes. If we had another Katrina, and FEMA needed a hotel as a staging area, and nothing else was available - the needs of the emergency might overcome the third amendment rights of the property owner.

>Would it also be ok to engage in just a little slavery, as long as an impartial judge signed off on it?

Yes. We used to call them chain gangs. Don't know what they're called nowadays though.

And it would be ok to press innocent people into them in order to clean up another Katrina? So long as an impartial judge signed off on it? Really?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Ron 10]

Quote

If you are arrested for drunk driving, you lose your right to be "secure in your person" - you can either take a BAC test or lose your car and license right there.

How about you prove the danger before you deny a right in the Constitution?

Otherwise why don't we gag everyone going to see a movie since they *could* yell fire and cause a problem.

Quote

Of course. History has shown, though, that drivers cannot reliably resist the temptation to drink, even with the draconian penalties and educational programs discouraging that.

Well, then lets just add breath interlock devices and make them standard on all new cars? I mean you have claimed that we can't be trusted not to drink and drive, right?

Or maybe you could only pass laws that are going to fix real problems maybe?

Quote

We are talking about allowing more CCW holders into restaurants that serve alcohol; in other words, expanding the rights they have now. Do you oppose that?

No, but you clearly do oppose the right for a CCW holder to go places that as of yet have not been shown to be a problem.

Like I said, how about we only take away rights when we can PROVE it will fix a problem... Not just out of blind fear.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[rhaig 0]

those are the signs that keep a CHL holder from carrying.

I was referring to the other sign (for non 51% establishments)

Anyplace with a license granted by the TABC specifically must post either the 51% sign, or the other (not 30.06) sign. if they aren't a 51% establishment, they must post the other sign, and the 30.06 sign both if they don't want CHL holders carrying in their establishment.

http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/faq/general.asp
see question # 10

--
Rob

[billvon 3,120]

>And it would be ok to press innocent people into them in order to clean
>up another Katrina?

Nope, not sure where you got that from.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

>And it would be ok to press innocent people into them in order to clean up another Katrina?

Nope, not sure where you got that from.

You said that you were ok violating a Constitutional Right so long as a judge signed off on it. You gave the specific example of another hurricane Katrina. You went on to mention chain gangs in the context of such denial of rights.

I put those things together to infer that you'd be ok with denying people's constitutional right not to be enslaved on a chain gang, if it was necessary to clean up "another Katrina" and approved by a judge.

I guess I misunderstood what you were saying. Can you explain what you meant? Specifically, under what circumstances it's ok to violate Constitutional Rights, whether a pressing public need justifies it, whether a judges approval justifies it, and if there are some rights that are deserving of more protection than others, in your view.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

those are the signs that keep a CHL holder from carrying.

I was referring to the other sign (for non 51% establishments)

Anyplace with a license granted by the TABC specifically must post either the 51% sign, or the other (not 30.06) sign. if they aren't a 51% establishment, they must post the other sign, and the 30.06 sign both if they don't want CHL holders carrying in their establishment.

http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/faq/general.asp
see question # 10

The "other sign" you mention specifies UNLICENSED carry and is found in MANY other places besides those serving/selling alcohol. The only applicable signage barring CCW carry in a business is the 30-06 sign and the 51% sign, unless the law has changed.

That said, the owner of a property (or someone with the apparent authority to act for the owner) *CAN* verbally deny permission for CCW holders to carry on his property. Invoking that *CAN* be something of a gray area, as many businesses do not own the buildings they operate from.

Best practice: 30-06 sign, 51% sign, or owner that tells you that you can't carry in his place of business? Spend your money at places that *DO* support your 2nd amendment rights.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,120]

>You said that you were ok violating a Constitutional Right so long as a
>judge signed off on it.

Yes. In this case, as long as there is a clear, emergent and imminent need that cannot be met any other way, and as long as there is judicial oversight.

The Supreme Court has a long history of balancing rights against societal needs. They have affirmed the right to carry weapons, but have also upheld specific restrictions to those rights (i.e. airports, courthouses.) They have affirmed the right to free speech, but again, are OK with restrictions (like prohibiting protest assemblies in certain public places.) This sort of compromise is why we have a judicial branch in the first place, and more often than not, I think they do a good job,

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Or be the designated driver, or listen to the band, or pick up drunk chicks, or
>play pool, or go see a game with friends..... LOTS of reasons to go to a bar other
>than drink.

Of course. History has shown, though, that drivers cannot reliably resist the temptation to drink, even with the draconian penalties and educational programs discouraging that.

No, history has not shown this. History suggests that many people who go out to drink have a difficult time with the quantity and time elapsed before they drive. But I don't see how you can claim this tells you anything about what people will do when they go into a bar not intending to drink at all. The consequences for them being caught drinking are rather clear, unlike the consequences on a drinker having that 4th round. Depending on time and other minor factors, that may or may not be a crime.

[billvon 3,120]

> History suggests that many people who go out to drink have a difficult
>time with the quantity and time elapsed before they drive.

You are making some assumptions there.

We know that, no matter what their internal intentions, some drivers cannot reliably refrain from drinking too much. They may have not intended to drink at all; they may have intended to drink only a little. There are others who may intend to get very drunk and just get away with it. There are certainly readily-available examples of all of those groups.

Based on that, people who go into bars intending not to drink do sometimes drink anyway.

[TomAiello 26]

So, people might break the law (by drinking)? And our solution is to create another law (about carrying in the bar)? Because people who are willing to break the one are going to be stopped by the other?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Quote

those are the signs that keep a CHL holder from carrying.

I was referring to the other sign (for non 51% establishments)

Anyplace with a license granted by the TABC specifically must post either the 51% sign, or the other (not 30.06) sign. if they aren't a 51% establishment, they must post the other sign, and the 30.06 sign both if they don't want CHL holders carrying in their establishment.

http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/faq/general.asp
see question # 10

The "other sign" you mention specifies UNLICENSED carry and is found in MANY other places besides those serving/selling alcohol. The only applicable signage barring CCW carry in a business is the 30-06 sign and the 51% sign, unless the law has changed.

That said, the owner of a property (or someone with the apparent authority to act for the owner) *CAN* verbally deny permission for CCW holders to carry on his property. Invoking that *CAN* be something of a gray area, as many businesses do not own the buildings they operate from.

Best practice: 30-06 sign, 51% sign, or owner that tells you that you can't carry in his place of business? Spend your money at places that *DO* support your 2nd amendment rights.

The only recent changes I'm aware of were that they made it a requirement that the 51% sign be visible at the entrances to the establishment to constitute effective notice.

I ran into this issue when carrying into a place that didn't have a sign displayed anywhere but behind the bar.

[billvon 3,120]

>So, people might break the law (by drinking)?

Yes.

> And our solution is to create another law (about carrying in the bar)?

No. We are talking about _relaxing_ a law - in other words, allowing people to carry guns in places they currently (under present law) cannot. Do you object to that?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

> History suggests that many people who go out to drink have a difficult
>time with the quantity and time elapsed before they drive.

You are making some assumptions there.

We know that, no matter what their internal intentions, some drivers cannot reliably refrain from drinking too much. They may have not intended to drink at all; they may have intended to drink only a little. There are others who may intend to get very drunk and just get away with it. There are certainly readily-available examples of all of those groups.

Based on that, people who go into bars intending not to drink do sometimes drink anyway.

You're continuing to make a logical leap without foundation.

Unarmed people who go into a bar with the intent to not drink aren't committing a misdomeanor (felony?) by having a drink. CCW holders are, and one of the penalties would be the loss of the permit.they invested considerable effort to obtain. The rate of criminal behavior by CCW holders suggests quite strongly that they won't commit this offense either.

The sort of people that can't control their drinking tend to be repeat offenders. The kind that can't get a CCW to start with. Those that just commit poor judgement and drink a bit too much - those people do not seem likely to commit the crime of drinking while carrying. I would expect those people, if deciding to change their mind, would walk out to their car and store their gun, then return to order a drink.

[billvon 3,120]

>Unarmed people who go into a bar with the intent to not drink aren't
>committing a misdomeanor (felony?) by having a drink.

Correct.

>CCW holders are . .

Correct. We should fix that, at least for restaurants with bars in them. Do you disagree?

>The rate of criminal behavior by CCW holders suggests quite strongly that they
>won't commit this offense either.

A logical leap by you. A more correct conclusion would be that CCW holders are not caught drinking with their gun very often.

> I would expect those people, if deciding to change their mind, would walk out
>to their car and store their gun, then return to order a drink.

The people I have gone to bars with who have been carrying guns have never done this. They just plain drink, being fairly confident that no one will decide to frisk them spontaneously.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

> I would expect those people, if deciding to change their mind, would walk out
>to their car and store their gun, then return to order a drink.

The people I have gone to bars with who have been carrying guns have never done this. They just plain drink, being fairly confident that no one will decide to frisk them spontaneously.

So how many of them pulled them out in a fight, exactly? (And since you live in CA, how frequently are you seeing this behavior - visits to Eloy the most common?)

I see no problem with citations here. But I see no problems with allowing carrying in bars versus pubs either. It's the same violation in either.

[billvon 3,120]

>So how many of them pulled them out in a fight, exactly?

None. Bar fights are, at least in the places I frequent, fairly rare.

>And since you live in CA, how frequently are you seeing this behavior . . .

One friend of mine did it every time we were out together, which was mainly in CA. I have no idea what sort of permit (or lack thereof) he had.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

The "other sign" you mention specifies UNLICENSED carry and is found in MANY other places besides those serving/selling alcohol.

the one I referred to when I typed

Quote

the other one that simply says something along the lines of "unlicensed carry of a weapon on these premises is prohibited".

is provided by the TABC to (to quote the TABC) "Establishments licensed to sell alcoholic beverages for off-premise consumption or establishments licensed to sell for on-premises consumption whose alcohol sales are 50% or less of total gross receipts"

perhaps I wasn't clear exactly which sign I was referring to.

Quote

The only applicable signage barring CCW carry in a business is the 30-06 sign and the 51% sign, unless the law has changed.

yes. that's what I said.

Quote

That said, the owner of a property (or someone with the apparent authority to act for the owner) *CAN* verbally deny permission for CCW holders to carry on his property. Invoking that *CAN* be something of a gray area, as many businesses do not own the buildings they operate from.

either through one of the posted signs, verbal notification from someone acting as an officer of the property owner or manager, or through specific written notice (meaning a letter) from the same owner/manager.

no, the laws haven't changed with that regard

Quote

Best practice: 30-06 sign, 51% sign, or owner that tells you that you can't carry in his place of business? Spend your money at places that *DO* support your 2nd amendment rights.

So because the TABC requires the local bar to post a 51% sign, don't spend money there?

I don't frequent 30.06 establishments, but 51% is out of their control.

--
Rob

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

So because the TABC requires the local bar to post a 51% sign, don't spend money there?

I don't frequent 30.06 establishments, but 51% is out of their control.

I see your point. I've also seen places put up 51% signage that I don't think actually made 51% of their income via direct alcohol sales.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

*Not legal advice, just my observations. If you want legal advice, consult a firearms attorney licensed to practice in Arizona*

If you have a CCW, you can bring a concealed weapon into places that serve alcohol in California, provided their primary purpose isn't serving alcohol and the person carrying the weapon doesn't consume any alcohol. For example, a restaurant is okay as long as the person carrying isn't drinking, but you can't walk into a bar. This is what the law is trying to fix in Arizona. Right now, if you have a concealed weapon, you can't even walk into a sit down restaurant to eat, because they serve beer and wine. What's really curious is that you can OPEN CARRY in many of these places.

I understand wanting to keep concealed weapons out of bars. People go there mainly to get drunk. I don't like that they fail to recognize that people that go through the CCW process are statistically the most law abiding citizens in the US, and are highly unlikely to drink and carry a weapon if it is against the terms of their license. The current law that tries to keep CCW holders out of Dennys is dumb.

An alcohol violation in a bar is not good for the "CCW" holder like a DUI is not good for a pilot. I have my own designated driver most of the time and she has her carry permit, but in Montana guns are supposed to remain out of bars.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[JohnRich 4]

You've all been deceived by the anti-gun media reporting once again, with their phrases like "Wild West" and "guns in bars". They haven't told you the whole truth. In fact, the whole truth is hard to find, because everyone just copies each other's bias into their own stories. But here it is. I actually took the time to research and read a bit, before reaching a judgment. You folks should try it.

First of all, 40 other states already do this, and it hasn't been a problem. So all this "the sky is falling" hysteria is a bunch of crap. Par for the course, though, for the gun-o-phobes.

Second, you'll have to possess a concealed carry permit to do it.

Third, it's not just bars, it's also restaurants. People like to have a glass of wine or beer with their dinner. It doesn't turn them into homicidal maniacs.

Proprietors of these establishments can opt-out if they wish by posting a sign, prohibiting guns inside their business, allowing private property owners to decide for themselves if they want this in their business. The proprietors will not be liable for any injuries caused by patrons with guns on their premises.

And, if you carry your permitted gun inside the bar or restaurant, you won't be allowed to consume alcohol while doing so. You can simply just have it there for self-defense, and to keep it from getting stolen from your car.

So exactly what is it that everyone is so afraid of?

The Bill: http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/1r/summary/s.1113jud_aspassed.doc.htm