In Arizona, You Can Now Bring Your Gun Into a Bar
NRA-ILA is pleased to announce that three new pro-gun laws officially go into effect today in Arizona.
The employee protection/parking lot law requires employers to allow the lawful storage of firearm(s) in employees’ locked motor vehicles while they are at work. Employers are not allowed to ban the storage of firearms in vehicles unless they offer an alternate location to park immediately adjacent to the standard parking area.
Also effective today, concealed carry permit holders can carry a concealed firearm for self-defense while in an establishment that serves on site alcoholic beverages as long as they are not consuming alcohol. A restaurant or bar can ban possession by posting a sign next to the liquor license.
It is important to note that posting the sign at the entrance of an establishment is not sufficient and one is legally protected to enter the premises and see if the sign is posted in the proper place next to the liquor license. If it is not, the establishment is not in compliance with the law and you may remain inside even if a sign is posted at the entrance. It is important for gun owners to politely let restaurant owners know you prefer to patronize those restaurants who do not post their premises.
Finally, a new law allows for a concealed carry permit holder to “display” their weapon to de-escalate what would otherwise be a violent altercation. It has been designed to stop problems in the past where the passive display of a firearm was considered brandishing and not a means of self defense. It will prevent law abiding citizens from violating the law when lethal force is not required to prevent a violent incident.
It is important to note that this law does not allow for you to remove your handgun from its holster to intimidate another individual or gain leverage on a situation. Thank you to all of the NRA members who answered the call to act during the legislative session. Without you, these victories would not have been possible.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Great job Arizona.Thanks NRA for helping to giving the people of Arizona back there freedoms
We have concealed gun laws . Incuded in those laws are provisions for various types of business enviroments such as hospitals, restaurants...and yes, even bars may post a disclaimer about their right to not allow anybody who possesses a weapon of any kind to enter their establishment.
However, there's a standing sort of joke that might apply to some environments. For example the joke might be used in the following manner:
"If you are going to Joe's Bar and Grill there will be a bouncer at the door to check for guns or knives. If you don't have either, you will be promptly issued one of each."
Sorry, but alcohol and guns don't mix. If the potential for violence is like Texas, the state will be taxing everybody to keep up with the significant increase in case loads in their court system.
That might get the taxpayer's attention. Well, it will if they've been going to Joe's Bar and Grill for a fun night out and happen to witness the expose of blood and guts flying everywhere...plus having to incur the expense of getting hearing aids after their ears being damaged from the explosive sound of bullets being discharged at close range.
However...I'm not sure what it would be like if the weapons were worn in plain sight. That might be something to think about before engaging in a violent act with xomeone with a gun.
Who knows? Maybe the days of who draws the fastest might become fashionable once again.
I think you need to reread the article, nowhere in it does it reccomend drinking and carrying legally your weapon, also you should read some of the current posts on being a mature adult as I'm sure you are. NOW NOW lets not be childish!
the_car_man
and blood has not run in the streets. Period. Having carriers on the streets and in the bars has been a non-event--save for the emmbarassment experienced by the antigun, blood-in-the-streets-crowd .
That law was passed over six years ago, and it passed in the face of incredible opposition from the Democrat antigun crowd. It allows, IIRC, a BAC of .02 or .04--IOW, below an accepted legal threshold, and well below any identifiable threshold of impairment. (Remember that numerous anecdotal tests of "drinking" and impairment (Car & Driver comes to mind) show that one or two drinks generally improve driving skills, including implied judgement skills in the subsequent testing....)
I know of only one criminal case involving a permittee--and he was NOT carrying when he got thrown out; he went home or back to his car to get his firearm and come back to shoot the bouncer. As it turned out, this guy had a real alcohol problem, period. It was at least arguable that his local LEO could have recommended no permit despite his meeting the carry-permit requirements.
AFAIK, all other incidents involving guns in bars have either been the usual suspects--criminals without permits, or the odd SD shooting later found to be legal in all respects. Overall, there certainly has been no general upswell in SD shooting here in MN involving permittees.
gun control: the belief that a woman raped and strangled with her own hose is morally superior to one who defends herself with a firearm.
Alcohol + weapons = ???
This should be interesting. The "display" law is uttering retarded. Yeah, it's going to be so easy to tell the difference between showing it off to "de-escalate a violent altercation" and "to intimidate another individual or gain leverage" what a sloppily written law. I love the stupidity of the " concealed carry " clause. Yeah, a restaurant owner is going to know if you've brought a gun with you and you are drinking. I'm SURE that will be respected.
The naivete is astounding. Not only is this a stupid law, it shows complete disregard for any common sense. Clearly, you are going to a bar because you aren't going to drink. I mean, who doesn't go to a bar with friends and just sit their in the corner? They are going to bring the concealed weapon, and start drinking - even if they didn't intend to do so (remember that "friend" who is always the designated drive lol).
Either just admit you want drunken bums to wield fire arms in public places and be done with it, but don't be so naive to expect that isn't going to happen.
I do own a gun, although it's mostly just a remembrance from my childhood and I carry it sometime (though rarely). But, under no circumstances, would I be under the delusion that it would be appropriate for me to bring it to a place with alcohol or a school or a place where any reasonable human being recognizes they are inappropriate.
I still can believe the stupidity of believing someone with a concealed weapon that goes to a bar isn't going to drink. Or that "showing off" your weapon isn't going to turn into "you disrespected me, back up" and because of the legal ambiguity will likely be completely protected in the case of the latter, simply because you wouldn't be able to prove it in almost all cases.
I like the blatant disregard for small restaurant owners. They should be allowed to ban guns if they want to absolutely, regardless of where they place the sign. It's their business. I can't walk into some stores in my boxers - I think they have the right to restrict me carrying a gun.
It is always amusing to see the opinion (you know what they say about opinions!)of some one that is obviously inexperienced in self-protection methods in areas of violence, mexico border, ghettos, etc,etc... If you are not of the same uneducated/inexperienced opinion, you are "naive". The cemeteries are replant with those that failed to protect themselves and those that threatened those that protected themselves! Your long-winded comment is obsurd!
"I do own a gun, although it's mostly just a remembrance from my childhood and I carry it sometime (though rarely). But, under no circumstances, would I be under the delusion that it would be appropriate for me to bring it to a place with alcohol or a school or a place where any reasonable human being recognizes they are inappropriate."
I feel the same way. Just because a law allows for a behavior does not mean that it forces such behavior. A speed limit sign does not force a car to obey it... Knowing that people /can/ speed does not invalidate the speed limit laws.
In the same manner, allowing for people to make poor choices does not make a law stupid. It allows liberty while demanding responsibility.
I prefer to be treated as an adult. Don't you?
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
You apparently have a far higher degree in confidence than is warranted.
If the majority of Americans are responsible adults explain
1 - Irrational Exuberance in Housing Bubbles?
2 - Crime in general
3 - Obesity Rates
4 - Drug Use
5 - Lying
To presume that we are responsible as a society is absurd. To encourage irresponsibility is the last thing the government should be doing which is exactly what a law like this does. Takes irresponsible people and approves of them going into an irresponsible setting. This is where your speed limit analogy is destroyed. The speed limits don't encourage irresponsible behavior. This law is closer to speed limits encouraging 25 MPH in a school zone but saying it's "OK" to go 75 MPH, just don't do it please - pretty please!
I found them here: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/druguse /
But failed to include them when arguing against your false assumptions.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
As the fallout of the housing bubble burst, I learned that 92% of homeowners were still on time with their mortgages. We are not irresponsible.
http://www.greatbostonapartments.com/blog/?p=233
Criminals are not a reasonable yardstick with which we should measure the responsibility of our society . They represent those who failed to be responsible. All 2.7%. We are not irresponsible.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm #prevalence
We are some fat asses! 67% of non-institutionalized adults, are obese. We aren't irresponsible, we're HUNGRY! =)
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/overwt.htm
Druggies: in 2001, 10.8 people took an illicit drug in the past 30 days, and 20.8 in the past year. Not irresponsible.
Lying is not irresponsibility. C'mon... Leave Obama out of this, will ya?
To assume that we are an irresponsible society is criminal ineptitude in the first degree. For a law to allow for individual responsibility is courageous and a refreshing change . It is also the opposite of oppression: Liberty!
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.