.gif)
Restaurant carry isn't about guns and alcohol
Since the passage of Arizona's restaurant carry law, bar and restaurant owners have been rushing to get their "no firearms" signs up to prevent concealed carry permit holders from legally carrying inside their establishments.
There has been a great deal of discussion of the merits of this law, both pro and con in the news media. Many of the critics and proponents seem to be missing the entire point of the legislation.
The new law exists to protect the 2nd Amendment rights of the citizens of Arizona who have taken the time and trouble to attend a course on firearms safety and pass a rigorous criminal background check in order to obtain a concealed weapons permit.
Approximately 140,000 persons statewide have obtained their permit. Many of these people do so for the purpose of being able to protect themselves and their family members.
The law simply allows a law-abiding citizen with a CCW permit to dine in an establishment and maintain possession of their firearm. They are not allowed to drink and the vast majority will likely honor that prohibition. Remember, these are people that play by the rules. When restaurant owners put those signs up they are saying "Your 2nd Amendments rights don't apply here".
If you listen to the critics of the law it is always about someone drinking, getting into a dispute with someone who has been drinking or having a concern that people who have concealed weapons will drink anyway and that bad things will happen.
Proponents of the new law point to the fact that gun owners don't have to leave their guns locked in a vehicle when they want to grab a bite to eat in an establishment that serves alcohol. The vast majority of restaurants have some sort of on-premises consumption license. This severely limits the choices for most armed citizens. They also make the valid point that the real danger is from criminals who carry illegal firearms, drink while carrying and have absolutely no issue with breaking this or any other law for that matter.
Supporter of the new law also point to the fact that 39 other states already permit their concealed carry permit holders to carry in restaurants and bars as long as they don't consume alcohol. Incidents involving illegal behavior in those states have been pretty much non-existent.
The real issue that we need to consider can best be explained by recalling an October afternoon in Killeen, TX in 1991. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp was having lunch with her parents at a Luby's Cafeteria. She left her handgun in her car to comply with Texas state law which at the time prohibited her from carrying a concealed weapon. George Hennard drove his truck through the front window of the cafeteria and opened fire on the patrons. Hupp started to grab her gun but remembered it was in her car.
Twenty-one people died that day, including Hupp's mother and father. Twenty others were wounded. Had there been one legally armed citizen in that Luby's Cafeteria the outcome could have been remarkably different. Hupp subsequently stated that if she had the opportunity, she would have gladly accepted a criminal conviction for illegally carrying her firearm if it would have saved the life of her mother and father.
The real intention of this law is about not forcing otherwise law-abiding citizens to break the law in order to protect themselves or their family from a violent criminal attack. Unfortunately, the restaurant owners that put up the signs don't seem to see it that way. Perhaps there should be an amendment to this new law making restaurant owners that put up the "no firearms" signs legally liable for injury or wrongful death of their patrons in the event that a criminal like George Hennard decides to go on a rampage in their establishment.
How do you think they'd feel about that?
For more info:
For a list of states that permit firearms in restaurants that serve alcohol:
Read about Suzanna Gratia-Hupp:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp
Comments
When more and more citizens get CCW licenses in Az. and those establishments start to note a drop in revenue, I expect they will take the signs down well before the law you suggest is introduced. Though, I do admit I really like the idea of such a law. if they must bear the burden of protection that they have denied their patrons, I suspect we will see a flaccidness in their claim of principled dissent. Which will, of course, expose the fact that their dissent wasn't principled at all.
As these "no firearms" signs appear in restaurants I frequent, I will seek out the owner and let them know I'll not frequent their business until the signs are removed. 140,000 law-abiding armed citizens can have an impact. Speak up, CCW permit holders. Douglas, you are right - it's about the Second Amendment and not local control or the specter of an inebriated patron in an altercation with a gun.
has it ever occurred to you guys that you don't have to be inebriated in order to snap and start shooting at people? also, have you ever stopped to think that most people are not intelligent enough to know that the law states that you cannot drink with a concieled weapon? how many state or federal laws have you read and how many do you have fully committed to memory? hell most people can't pass a written driving test sober with prior study time. my point is, it is only a matter of time before some idiot with an attitude problem gets himself in trouble then resorts to shooting someone who was probably going to beat his face in. when it happens, and you can trust it will, it will have nothing to do with stopping crime or protecting loved ones, it will be because of the same thing that allows these laws to be inacted, stupidity.
Well, Ray, it's now been two years since that law was signed, and we're still waiting for INCIDENT ONE attributable to it.
In other words, YOU WERE FLAT, DEAD WRONG.
Just like every other Chicken Little gun-grabber trying to frighten the mob every time any gun restriction comes up for reconsideration.
Ray, get tested. Hoplophobia is an ugly disease… but it's curable.
well said, i completely agree, thank you for the article
@Ray..
You assume that CCW holders don't take the time to know the law. I beg to differ. We, know the law, stay current with changes and strive to stay on the right side of the law. Unlike the criminal, who by definition, doesn't give a rat's behind about anything, including your safety.
One little nit-pick. You stated that there are 39 other states that allow ccw holders to carry in bars as long as they don't drink. In point of fact a number of those states actually do allow ccw holders to drink while carrying. Please note that even then there is not blood running in the streets and the bars don't look like the western saloons in the movies.
Ray,
How many times has blood run in the streets as a result of reducing restrictions on the carrying of arms? The vast majority of the states have some form or other of ccw and I have yet to see many cases of ccw holders responding with inappropriate violence. If what you are supposing were actually true there would be ample evidence of it. Please note that 39 other states have already enacted similar legislation, in fact some of that legislation is less restrictive than the legislation here in AZ. How many of those states have had the problems that you believe will occur?
If you count up the states in opencarry.org's map ( opencarry.org/ restaurant.html), the number of states is actually 42. Clicking on your state or the state for which you wish to read up on will give you basic info, plus links to more into (from handgunlaw.us as well as a link to the pertinent .gov location for laws in that state).
Some states do allow consumption of alcohol, but most if not all of those state a carrier is not to become impaired in any way (with varying def's for impaired). In general some states allow carry in "bars" and some don't just in restaurants that serve alcohol. Most "bars" are posting anyway.
No warnings of blood in the streets came true in the other 40 states (AZ and TN laws changed this summer), and no blood in the streets are coming true now here. I actually enjoyed a nice seafood lunch out this weekend for a change. Gee imagine that. Business as a direct result of this new law, in a place where it would otherwise been illegal last week
And (forget to add) an excellent article by the way. Thank you Douglas.
I'm going a bit more guerilla. I made up a bunch of stickers that say: "Management assumes COMPLETE LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY for the physical safety of patrons in this establishment." Every time I see one of those "no guns" sign, I'll plaster one of these stickers on it before I turn on my heel and walk out. So far, I haven't seen any. I have, however, recently eaten at two establishments that had a stack of CCW course applications at the door. You gotta love the AUTHENTIC Arizona.
About 7 years ago I left my pistol in my vehicle due to that I was going into a restaurant that served alcohol & I obeyed the law. When I returned I found my car broken into & my gun stolen. That's the way criminals get guns.
BTW, I had a GA CWP for near 16 years before moving here to AZ. I have an AZ CWP since I moved here about 11 years ago, with appropriate renewals a couple times. I also have non-resident CWPs in two other states & in the process of obtaining my third (completed all testing but waiting for paperwork work to finish). Do the math I've carried, concealed, for over 27 years (very likely I’ve carried longer than most police are old) in approx. 20 states (with reciprocity).
With the gun handling/proficiency testing, classes, time and experience and qualifying I have gone through in the laws of the 5 jurisdictions/states, why would any ration person be frightened by me carrying a firearm anytime any place, unless they intend to do me or mine harm??
No man needs you helpless and defenseless unless he intends you harm. Unfortunately many of those who intend you harm are not even aware that they do so. They just know that they would rather you be harmed than they should honor your rights. Yet, they still think they are good people. They aren't, but they believe they are and therefore they are unreachable on any level of principle or philosophy or liberty. They are only reachable on a "pragmatic" level i.e. when they get bitten hard by the policies they support. Then they convert, they are hypocrites.
Ray, why do you believe it took the enactment of these laws for "stupidity" to occur. You would have us believe if the laws were not in place the "attitude problem resulting in a shooting" would never take place. Really! It seems to me, fights resulting in the use of a gun, along with attitude problems and stupidity have been an ongoing phenomina in Az for as long as I have been a resident,(47 years)and more than a few have taken place in restaurants who serve alcohol. The oldest case I can personally recall was at Pinnacle Peak back in the early 60s with one fatality.
My point; honest, law abiding citizens who have taken the time to study, train, test and follow the laws of our state will NOT add measurable differences in or demonstrative actions on the part of or by those people enjoying their dinners while armed. For many years the guy sitting near you has been armed, trained and dedicated to protecting himself and his family as well as you and yours. Only the laws are new.
UF
The new laws have just enticed me to renew my CCW that I let lapse when I moved out of the country for a while. Most places I go I wasn't allowed to carry so it wasn't a big issue. I almost never drink when I go out so now I have a reason to renew. Great article. Good to see that good laws still get passed even with a very left wing administration in DC.
Learn to ignore Ray. From browsing other examiner articles he's just a troll looking to stir people up.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!