This is the second article on House Bill 111 (HB111), pending legislation in NC that would allow individuals with concealed carry permits to bring loaded hand guns into establishments that serve alcohol as well as public parks. I briefly spoke with one of the bill’s sponsors, Representative Mark Hilton, following the June 14th Judiciary II meeting in Raleigh, NC where the bill was discussed and relayed to him some of my concerns. This article is being sent electronically to Representative Hilton, the other sponsors of HB111, as well as various other state officials, advocacy groups, and media outlets in separate communications.I am not an active member of any advocacy group, pro or con, on the gun rights issue. I am a private citizen with a background in product safety/regulation, pharmacology, as well as having been a business founder/owner in this state. The concerns I have with HB111 have nothing to do with the right to own a gun; mine is a public safety concern borne from my experience in product safety and regulation. I previously issued an article (link here) where I outline these concerns as well as take issue with several of the pro-legislation arguments that have been made.
This article addresses the potential negative impact of this legislation in the area of commerce. However, I also propose a solution should this legislation find its way into law. I actively participated in NC commerce during the ten years my business was in operation by bringing clients from across the country, as well as from Europe and Asia, into our state where they supported our economy both on business and pleasure by staying in our hotels, eating and drinking in our restaurants and lounges, renting automobiles, buying merchandise, etc.
Although there is much disagreement and debate on second amendment rights and expanding public exposure to loaded weaponry, I believe there is something that all sides can agree upon; and that is that individuals should have the right to make an informed decision about a service or product they wish to support.
We live in a regional and global economy and as such must look beyond our borders when enacting certain laws. In North Carolina, as in other states, there are numerous out-of-state visitors (including from abroad) coming here for business and/or pleasure. And these individuals are important to us as they support job creation and place money into state coffers. HB111, should it find its way into law, is currently only ‘Opt-Out’, i.e., an owner of an establishment is permitted to post a sign stating that guns are prohibited. Although an argument might be made for state residents that ignorance of law is no excuse, such an argument should not be applied to those who are not state residents and who would therefore not be expected to be familiar with our laws. As such, without signage being posted at eating and drinking establishments (and perhaps even public parks) that allow concealed handguns on site, visitors to our state might enter places that they otherwise might not. As an example, a few years ago Rotary International hosted in our area an exchange group from Australia, a country that enacted strict gun laws following the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre. It was quite clear from discussions with this group that some of them would not have entered an alcohol-serving establishment that permitted loaded concealed weapons on site. One member of that group posted a comment to an article (link here) I published following the Giffords incident in Tucson. Although some might disagree with the comment, we none-the-less should respect the opinion. I believe an ‘Opt-In’ provision to the legislation would solve this issue.
Signage posted in a conspicuous place, something along the lines of:
Pursuant to NC Statute XYZ, individuals having valid concealed carry permits are allowed to bring their handguns into this establishment
would permit visitors to North Carolina, in fact all parties, the opportunity to make a fully informed decision regarding their desire to enter the establishment. I believe this to be consistent with a free market approach and the right of individuals to be given the opportunity to make a fully informed decision regarding a product or service, especially if there is any question regarding safety as opponents of the legislation feel. On the other side, as proponents of HB111 have made the claim that this legislation would enhance safety by serving as a deterrent to crime, I would imagine that such signage could only enhance the business of an ‘Opt-In’ establishment as the patrons would feel more secure. I therefore see no downside on either side of the debate.
For the reasons outlined in my prior article, my belief is that HB111 should be withdrawn as the day-to-day presence of loaded guns in businesses where alcohol is being consumed can only increase the opportunity for unnecessary firearm discharge, perhaps even an exchange of gunfire, in a public setting that would place both employees and patrons at risk for serious bodily harm or death. However, should HB111 find its way into law, I believe both sides can agree that this law should include ‘Opt-In’ as well as ‘Opt-Out’ signage, due to the significant out-of-state traffic into our eating and drinking establishments that is an important part of our commerce. We certainly would not want our state’s good name as being a friendly place to visit for business or pleasure be tarnished should a visitor regrettably suffer a gun shot wound and was not given the opportunity to make an informed decision.
And for those who might say as this has not occurred it is not a problem, go to my first article (link here) where it is explained that it is not history, but rather potential, that is central to enacting commonsense safety regulation.
I know that you rather avoid answering this but, Question: In states that allow Citizens with CWP (CCW) in places that serve alcohol, What are the statistics about them being involved in “unnecessary firearm discharge, perhaps even an exchange of gunfire”? I know for you it is a question of “potential” but Florida has no restrictions for patrons that want to attend restaurants that serve alcohol and yet, after 23 years of carrying concealed weapons this has not been an issue. Are Floridians mentally superior and mature than your fellow North Carolinians?
It comes to a point in life when you must realize that there is no hidden monster under the bed.
No problem answering. Safety is about potential, not history, so past history is not a decider for me. I know the pharmacology and effects of alcohol, such as impaired judgment and emotional lability (alcohol induced rage), as well as the alcohol related violence that occurs in establishments where that substance is served. I’m not a believer that placing loaded weapons into that environment makes a lot of sense.
There are indeed differences between the states. For example, here in NC a provision to allow guns to be stored in cars at places of employment was removed from legislation – it was opposed by the NC Bar Association. Also the bill discussed above did not go to vote in the last session – public opinion was shown to disagree with it. In Florida, although the American Academy of Pediatrics identifies firearm related injuries as a leading cause of death in children, and studies showing that gun safety training doesn’t work that well in children because of healthy developmental traits such as inquisitiveness, Florida passed a law that prohibits pediatricians from asking parents if they have a gun in the home. i believe that one is being challenged in the courts. So differences do exist.
But the point of the above article is, I believe, finding common ground between the two sides on the bar/restaurant issue. If an ‘Opt-In’ provision is included (posting signage saying that those with concealed carry permits are allowed to bring their guns into the establishment) those who would not be familiar with the NC law, in fact all parties, would be able to make an informed decision as to whether or not they wish to enter the establishment. On the other side, as proponents of the bill claim that the presence of concealed guns actually increases safety by being a deterrent to crime, posting signage should only serve to enhance the business of the establishment. So no downside either way. The market would decide – a very American free market approach; and this would also give the proponents of the legislation the opportunity to put it front and center and stand behind it. I do not believe there should be difficulty with that.
“Safety is about potential, not history, so past history is not a decider for me.”Let me translate: “I don’t care about actual reality, just the made up version in my head. I mean, if I had to point to actual facts and statistics, I wouldn’t have a leg to stand on, so I won’t.””I know the pharmacology and effects of alcohol, such as impaired judgment and emotional lability (alcohol induced rage), as well as the alcohol related violence that occurs in establishments where that substance is served. I’m not a believer that placing loaded weapons into that environment makes a lot of sense.”But you are fine with all the cars in the parking lot? And that despite the fact that it is still illegal to have ANY alcohol in your bloodstream if you are carrying concealed? You don’t want to be reasonable. You want to ban and make it sound reasonable. Take a tip from the NC Restaurant and Lodging Association. They decided to stay out of the argument entirely and said that they would happily follow the law as it was, or would be written. They didn’t feel that it was a good idea to try to exclude the most law abiding group of citizens in the world http://bit.ly/oBiB62 from eating at their establishments. I fail to see why you would want to exclude us.
Well, I do disagree with the legislation, as do others, and that is our right. But, I believe you are missing the point. The solution I am offering above excludes no one. I believe the simple answer is just to post it. You and anyone else who felt inclined could enter. It would be front and center.
You must think we are stupid. I might not have a fancy degree, but I’m not dumb enough to believe that you don’t know exactly what you are doing. You know that no one will post a “Guns are allowed” sign. Besides, we want to force the anti-rights bigots to post their “No Law Abiding Gun Owners” sign. We consider it fair warning that the person we are dealing with is the same sort of bigot that would post a “Whites Only” sign. We want someone to have to identify themselves when they exclude the most law abiding people on the planet.
No, not at all (regarding stupidity). But, don’t particularly care to be referred to as a bigot – not the best approach in achieving dialog. The legislation already contains an Opt-Out provision. The difficulty I have is with the lack of signage for those establishments who do because there will be individuals who may enter an establishment that they otherwise might not – and with an opt-out in place that choice would be taken away. Something along the lines of: “Pursuant to NC Statute XYZ, individuals having valid concealed carry permits are allowed to bring their handguns into this establishment”, very non-incendiary, might do the trick. And I believe proponents of the legislation should really stand behind the legislation. Having an establishment declare provides choice and that is how our markets work. And, frankly it is really inappropriate to draw a comparison between race and guns. There is no choice to being black, white, etc – that is part of the human condition – can’t leave those at the door.
You imagine that you are having a dialog. We’re just informing you that the world has changed. The Democrat party has lost North Carolina, probably forever, and with it the possibility of preventing NC from joining the rest of the states in reforming our Jim Crow era gun laws.
My right to defend myself is as immutable as the color of my skin. You are attempting to make my right to self defense difficult or impossible. You prejudge me, a licensed concealed carrier who can legally carry a gun in 41 states, as a drunken danger to everyone around me. That’s what makes you a bigot.
You seem to think that the truth must exist somewhere between what you say and what I say. Actually, you’re just wrong.
He can make up whatever bull caca excuse he wants, lord his doctorate over others all he wants. Evil is evil, and that is exactly how disarming victims on behalf of criminals (however he wants to spin it as pro-public safety) is defined.
I would like it if you and the others posting here could at least come to the table and discuss this like civilized people. Calling the person on the other side of an issue from you “evil” creates a very strong and unneeded “us versus them” mentality, draws lines between us that don’t need to exist, and vilifies someone who is coming from the honest intention of bettering their community. Speaking purely for myself, I can see the reason you feel the way you do and do not think of you as evil, nor do I want to see you “lose your guns,” I just disagree with you on the finer points of where and when the right time to carry a weapon are, and find the idea proposed here to be novel and would allow restaurant owners the right to decide.
If you cannot see that most of us are trying to make things better and we are not enemies, then you are being outright blinded by your ideology. It is confrontational, vitriolic garbage like this that leads me to think that discourse is dead in America.
Is it possible to defend your point without resorting to fear and calling everyone who disagrees with you evil?
You don’t want to be called out as a criminal enabler? Stop enabling criminals. We are not on the same side, so stop pretending that we are. You want to limit my right to self defense. I won’t accept it. There is no middle ground. Each “unarmed victims here” sign you put up is an invitation to murder.
As for “resorting to fear,” who is it that’s afraid that a law abiding citizen might be carrying a gun within shouting distance of a beer?
Thanks, concerned citizen. I do agree that the approach I put forward was an attempt to find middle ground between the sides, but there is no dialogue here nor any desire to have dialog. I believe the suggestion I put forward addresses both sides of the debate, it provides choice to those who may not wish to enter the establishment and those who feel that the legislation provides benefit to the public; but in his remarks he makes clear that he does not want choice. Although I see much rhetoric about ‘criminal enablers’, I do not believe we have seen what Mr. Sorrentino is suggesting to prevent guns from falling into the hands of criminals and the mentally-ill other than prosecution and imprisonment, and is a very costly approach. I believe we need to be taking steps to reduce the opportunity firearm discharge in public places, not increase the chances. But that is not the troubling part of the dialog here as we monitor these responses. It is being called a bigot for putting forth an idea; a statement that I am just wrong about the truth being something other than a position he puts forward; and that dialog is something that we are just imagining – we are being informed that the world has changed and we better get on board. The tactics are bullying and intimidating. I went to lunch with a good friend of mine who is career law enforcement, who is has a concealed carry permit (yes I have friends who are gun owners), who disagrees with HB 111, and who rarely carries his weapon in public even when venturing into gang territory where he attempts to help reduce violence. He took a look at the comments on this post and feels that there is unreasoned fear being expressed. And the language posted here is taken as frank threats: in defending an only opt-out provision “we want to force anti-right bigots to [post that they do want guns in the establishment} is frankly targeting establishment owners who will opt-out, especially followed by “we consider it fair warning…”. And he says he is a proud member of a group by the name of ‘The Forces of Darkness”. Way to much intimidation for my liking, as well as scapegoating those who have a different opinion. History has seen that before. We must not be intimidated from freedom of expression. Too many have already declined comment on this post because of the nature of the comments.
Why do you keep pretending that there is a middle ground? Suggesting you only want to take a portion of our rights instead of all of them is not middle ground.
As for your “cop” friend, who cares what he thinks. We as a society hire him to catch criminals, not opine on what the limits of our rights should be. He can feel whatever he wants about our rights, so long as he respects them.
And yes, we will “target” those who post their victim disarmament signs. We will reason with them, we will remonstrate with them, and finally we will boycott them. When they see that they lose money by excluding the most law abiding group of people on the planet, most will eventually change their minds.
I suggest you click throught the “Forces of Darkness” link. Apparently you didn’t get the joke. Don’t worry, it’s pretty common for a person who lives in terror of law abiding gun owners to miss the joke.
We as a group are done being “reasonble” which by your standards apparently means that we have to accept one more limit on our rights. We are going to stand up for our rights. Now that the Democrats have finally been pried out of the leadership of the NCGA, expect a massive change in NC gun laws. Out with Jim Crow and in with liberty. I know that it is shocking to someone who lives with an unreasoning fear of law abiding gun owners. You’ll get over it.
Trying to get innocent people victimized by using feigned fear and very real laws against them is evil and demonstrates an utter lack of civility. Stop that, and you will no longer be an enemy of the innocent and civility.
You know what Dr. Kamm, concerned citizen, and the entire International Criminals Union (including our moles in law enforcement) says?
FRAK you, law-abiders. You don’t get to complain that we are evil. You get to be disarmed so we can have our way with you. So STFU and get the hell off our blogs or we will start shutting off the comments sections and/or selectively censoring them like all our subsidiary victim disarmament groups, CSGV, Brady, VPC, et al, and all our members in every unit of government, elected or civil service.
You have no right to self-defense, nor any other. Not on the internet, not in public, not in any business, not even in your own home. Just surrender, and give us your money, your children, your women, and your lives.
“I’m not a believer that placing loaded weapons into that environment makes a lot of sense”
I am puzzled by that statement. As a physician I assume you like to see past studies, collected data and result from previous experiments before you should feel confident in asserting an opinion. Yet what I read from you is that you “believe” that NC is a separate and special location where things will work differently and for the worst.
Maybe your personal & political feelings are interfering with your diagnosis.
Well, I do look at data – that is part of my training, but we have learned well in many areas that history is no replacement for potential. The American Academy of Pediatrics position against guns in the home where there are children is based up safety data and studies. In my industry, for example, it was argued for many decades that industry should not be burdened with a requirement to test products for safety – until one got to market that took the lives of over a hundred lives of US citizens – the history was there but the potential was denied. Another that has affected all of us was the CTFC’s failed attempt in the late 1990’s to regulate and bring transparency to OTC derivatives at the hands of free market ideologues and Wall Street lobbyists. CTFC’s concern was the protecting the people’s money, and after 10 years of unregulated growth those products brought corporate giants like AIG to their knees at taxpayer expense. Again, history was fine, the potential that those instruments would be loaded with toxic assets was ignored. So, how do you feel about the recently published study out of UC Davis Medical School that analyzed survey results from 15,000 individuals across 8 states and found that individuals who carry concealed guns were twice as likely to engage in heavy alcohol use than those who did not own guns. Part of my use of data in believing that mixing guns and alcohol is not such a good idea.
Tell your international visitors that if they are scared that the person next to them might be carrying a gun they can go to Illinois. That way they know that the guy with a gun sitting next to them is not a law abiding citizen carrying a gun lawfully and with an official license to do so, he’s a criminal carrying it illegally. That should make them feel better about it, right?
Otherwise, you could tell your overseas guests that in America, citizens have rights. If those rights scare your overseas visitors, they can stay home. We will not turn our country into their country just to make it feel more like home to them.
“Safety is about potential, not history, so past history is not a decider for me.”
Let me translate: “I don’t care about actual reality, just the made up version in my head. I mean, if I had to point to actual facts and statistics, I wouldn’t have a leg to stand on, so I won’t.”
“I know the pharmacology and effects of alcohol, such as impaired judgment and emotional lability (alcohol induced rage), as well as the alcohol related violence that occurs in establishments where that substance is served. I’m not a believer that placing loaded weapons into that environment makes a lot of sense.”
But you are fine with all the cars in the parking lot? And that despite the fact that it is still illegal to have ANY alcohol in your bloodstream if you are carrying concealed?
You don’t want to be reasonable. You want to ban and make it sound reasonable. Take a tip from the NC Restaurant and Lodging Association. They decided to stay out of the argument entirely and said that they would happily follow the law as it was, or would be written. They didn’t feel that it was a good idea to try to exclude the most law abiding group of citizens in the world http://bit.ly/oBiB62 from eating at their establishments. I fail to see why you would want to exclude us.
Thank you, brother Dr. Art Kamm for advocating for our safety! We couldn’t freely victimize without your help.
Our criminals’ utopia is one wherein all our law-abiding victims are disarmed and defenseless. We love to kill, rape, and maim, with impunity!
This comment is off point to the above article. The issue of the article is whether restaurants or bars should have to declare – the Opt-Out is already in place, so why not the other? It seems that there is a lot of support in some corners for this legislation – so why not go front and center with it.
Anything you do that makes it more likely that a potential victim is unarmed make it more likely that the criminal will succeed. That makes you objectively pro-criminal. And that makes his comment exactly on point.
Had to step away for a while and likely for the remainder of the evening. However, the technique you are using is referred to as ‘trolling’, throwing out incendiary remarks that someone is a bigot or that they are pro-criminal and hoping to elicit a response. Been around too long to bite on that one. So let’s stop playing that game. BTW, was amazed that Ethridge allowed himself to fall prey to two trackers.
However, if the issue you have about guns and restaurants/bars is that you would be left defenseless against criminals, I’m all for making it difficult for criminals to get their hands on guns. For example, I believe it was 2009 that there were over 65,000 crimes committed in Texas alone with guns. Criminals are using guns to rob businesses and urban areas have lost businesses – they have moved out causing economic damage. So what’s the answer. Do we just all arm up and have a shoot out defending ourselves? It would seem a better thing to do would be to take steps to minimize the chances of guns winding up in the wrong hands. I have heard an ATF statistic that up to 40% of guns sold at gun shows use what is called the gun show loophole that avoids the background check. Sales without background checks would seem to be an open avenue to place guns into the wrong hands. So, would you favor closing that loophole?
Let’s stop pretending that you are on the side of decency and peace. When you make it tougher for honest people to defend themselves, you are taking the side of the criminals. It’s not “trolling” for me to point that out. What the heck does Bob Ethridge have to do with this conversation? Aside from being NRA F rated.
The answer is,
#1 end the drug war. Almost all violence is drug gang related. Have you noticed that Jim Beam and Jack Daniels aren’t engaged in turf wars?
#2. Lock up the violent criminals. Most murders are committed by people with adult criminal records. When they get out of line, lock them up. Instead of trying to turn America into a low grade prison where no one has any rights, let’s put the dangerous people behind bars.
This half way citizen thing needs to stop, both your attempt to limit my rights, and the general limits on citizenship on released prisoners. Anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian. Guns exist and will always be with us. Instead of trying to take away mine, how about we keep the criminals in a place where they can’t access them.
OK, but you didn’t answer the question as to whether you thought closing the gun show loophole might be useful in preventing guns from getting into criminals hands; prosecuting and jailing will be a never-ending process unless we limit access to weaponry with them. And stopping the drug war, for example, is made much more difficult when our markets are arming the drug cartels. And I do not believe anywhere in this conversation has there been any reference to taking you gun away.
But I’m going to go to another place with you. When you see an issue like this, what is at the bottom of it is money; always is, and you are being very badly manipulated. I’ve been a corporate officer in a regulated industry having a powerful lobbying effort and they know how to get hooks into people. For example, regarding the healthcare reform legislation, it became death panels and pulling the plug on grandma and people went into an uproar. The hook that has been put into you is that attempts to regulate a potentially dangerous product is an infringement of your rights and leaves you vulnerable to criminals. The Right has been masterful at fear tactics. And if you believe the altruistic nature of business, you are naive – the business of business is quite simply business. And the NRA, the lobbying group for the gun industry, is working to keep those markets as wide open as possible. So just know you are being gamed all the way to the bank and they got their hooks into you. That’s what you should really be angry about – you’re too smart for that.
Maybe you should back up and regroup here. Parroting the Brady Campaign talking points might be mistaken for discussion if you know absolutely nothing about firearms and gun rights, but it isn’t going to fly with anyone who has a clue.
The “Gun Show Loophole™” doesn’t exist. I can sell a rifle or shotgun to another North Carolinian without begging permission from the State. They have to have a pistol purchase permit, a relic of the Jim Crow era, to buy my pistol. The Federal government has no power to limit intra-state commerce. See “ObamaCare, reason it will be overturned.”
We can limit the access of criminals to firearms and other weapons by locking them in jail. No one seriously considers prisoners to have Second Amendment rights, so we can comfortably ignore their demands for guns.
The drug war is easy to end. Just legalize the drugs and sell them next to the other, legal, drug the State already sells, alcohol. See “Jim Beam/Jack Daniels, why they aren’t fighting each other.”
Our “markets” weren’t arming the drug cartels, the ATF was. You know, the BATFE, the federal police agency tasked with stopping gun trafficking? Yeah, they were ordering American gun store owners to allow known cartel members to buy multiple firearms and then letting them walk the guns into Mexico. That’s not “markets,” that’s official corruption and accessory to murder. And it isn’t speculation. It’s documented fact. The only thing that remains in the Gunwalker Scandal is to find out how far up the chain of command the rot spread.
A gun is not “dangerous.” My gun is holstered and totally inert. Until I pull it out, it’s not dangerous. The NRA is not the lobbying group for the gun industry. It’s the lobbying group for me and people like me, gun owners. One of these days people like you will get that through your thick skulls. The NRA represents me. The gun industry lobbying group is the National Shooting Sports Association, the NSSA. If you knew half as much about guns as you pretend, you would know that.
Stop trying to insult my intelligence with your leftist anti-corporate screeds. You’re too smart for that.
The NRA has 4 million registered members and has an annual revenue over 250 million . So are the 4 million members each submitting millions of dollars a piece, or are larger, corporate interests responsible for the majority of the revenue?
They spend over 2 million a year annually on lobbying efforts. For 40 years, they have been THE strongest force shaping the
nation’s gun laws. Not the NSSA, who spend far less and exert far less influence.
It is disingenuous to say that the NRA is not the lobbyist for the gun industry when there cannot be a legislative conversation regarding firearms where they have not exerted influence, and usually in the direction that allows more guns to be sold, legal restrictions reduced on obtaining guns, and controlling the dialog on issues like extended clips.
I like guns and am a gun supporter. People have a right to defend their homestead, a right to hunt. I do not understand the mentality of being so afraid of the world that there is only safety when the masses are armed. In my opinion, five legal people pulling guns in a bar when a “bad guy” decides to draw his illegal one will be a situation far more likely to end up with innocent casualties than one where less guns were present. My training received in retail and waiting tables made a very solid point of teaching us to never be the hero. Being a hero gets you injured or killed, or puts the lives of those around you at greater risk. Shooting a firearm in close quarters in a bar, no matter how good the intentions are, is an act that puts many lives at risk.
1 – http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/14/AR2010121406045.html
2 – http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000082&year=2011
Assuming your numbers are correct, $250 million divided by 4 million members is $62.50 per person. Since a membership is $35 a year, and many people give lots more to the NRA-ILA, the lobbying arm, I still don’t see the conspiracy.
“Being a hero gets you injured or killed, or puts the lives of those around you at greater risk.”
So you’re suggesting that, for the benefit of others, I should just let the thug kill me and everyone around me?
There are no bars in North Carolina. They are all restaurants. Full on “bars” are private clubs in NC by State law. That includes dance clubs that serve alcohol. This isn’t a discussion of guns in “bars” it’s a discussion about whether or not I can carry a gun in the local Lone Star Steakhouse or am I legally required to eat in the Golden Corral across the street if I want to defend myself?
This isn’t an academic discussion for me. My friend still has shotgun pellets in the back of his head from the Luigi’s Massacre. How well did the laws disarming people work then? Here we are 20 years later and I still can’t carry a gun in any restaurant that serves alcohol. Why is it you want me disarmed? What do you plan on doing with me?
” And stopping the drug war, for example, is made much more difficult when our Federal Government is arming the drug cartels.”
You had a typo, I fixed it for you.
” I have heard an ATF statistic that up to 40% of guns sold at gun shows
use what is called the gun show loophole that avoids the background
check. Sales without background checks would seem to be an open avenue
to place guns into the wrong hands. So, would you favor closing that
What does the gun show loophole have to do with making it illegal for me to carry my legally owned pistol at Applebee’s?
Oh my G-d, this is so unbelievably evil! Stop advocating for victim disarmament. Every single living and dead criminal and genocidal leader is on your side. Stop trying to make us their casualties!
“LAWS RELATING TO THE CARRYING OF A
CONCEALED HANDGUN IN TEXAS
PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE
(1) on the premises of a business that has a permit or license issued
under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, Alcoholic Beverage Code, if
the business derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale or
service of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, as determined
by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission under Section
104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code;”
As this indicates, in Texas one can carry a concealed firearm into any restaurant as long as said establishment does not derive more than 51% of it’s gross income from alcohol sales.
Dr Art, this has been the law in Texas since 1996 and we’ve had no problems with license holders shooting up restaurants, surely the good folks of NC are at least as well behaved as Texans.
And with a healthy tourism industry we apparently haven’t scared away any tourists ether.
So maybe you should chill Doc.
GWOT: Shhhhh! Don’t tell him that in Pennsylvania, there’s no law against drinking while carrying in a “bar” or otherwise! What if he finds out that Pennsylvanians can open carry into any restaurant, get drunk, and as long as they have a designated driver, the cops can’t do anything about it?
And we all know about all the drunken bar shootings that PA License To Carry Firearms holders get into, right? Right?
Check this out.
§6.41. CARRY WHILE INTOXICATED. A license holder may not carry
a handgun while intoxicated. Violation is a Class A misdemeanor
under Texas Penal Code, §46.035.
Out here in Gods country I can go into a restaurant heeled have a couple of beers and as long as I stay below .08 BAC I’m golden.
Just gives ya shivers don’t it.
Not that i get sloppy when I’m carrying… Makes it hard to aim.
“The American Academy of Pediatrics position against guns in the home
where there are children is based up safety data and studies.”
Sorry, strike one. AAP’s position is purely political. The main study they mention is Kellerman’s published in the June 12, 1986 issue of New England
Journal of Medicine which has been so debunked it is not even funny. To this date Kellerman has refused to provide the raw data to do a peer review. It is funny that accidental firearms death in children has been decreasing in the last 3 decades to the point if I recall correctly,
” recently published study out of UC Davis Medical School that analyzed
survey results from 15,000 individuals across 8 states and found that
individuals who carry concealed guns were twice as likely to engage in
heavy alcohol use than those who did not own guns.” Yes, I heard about it and also I know the that the author is also a “believer” like yourself and that the “study” has not been peer reviewed either which gives us the “potential” that such investigation is heavily laden with bovine excrement.
It would behoove you to admit you are just against gun because of personal choice and not trying to hide behind your title to lend a supposedly professional tint of scientific “truth.” Then again a dermatologist ignoring 23 years of hard evidence and admitting he rather believe in a politically-oriented and totally imaginary result rather than accepting the hard facts helps nothing to your cause.
One last thing Doctor: Should you be arrested and jailed for rape even though you never committed such crime? According to your final statement you have both the potential and the equipment. Past history of your behavior, morals and honesty should not be considered, right?
“Safety is about potential, not history, so past history is not a decider for me”
I was going to make specific points, but this is the typical “my mind is made up, don’t confuse me with facts” from gun control advocates. How do we know that seatbelts save lives? That certain drugs are sometimes deadly or ineffective?
Even when we are trying something completely new, we use history to make meaningful predictions–but if we are honestly looking for truth we abandon theories once history shows that they are not true. We keep hearing “if we allow guns here, there will be blood”–and in case after case, state after state those predictions fail to come true.
Unless you consider Carolina residents more violent or ignorant than the rest of America, allowing the licensed to carry at Applebees isn’t going to result in more crime and violence.