Defending restaurant carry...

AndeyHall

AndeyHall

Active member
I saw where NcIC105 posted the link about the restaurant carry being in the news and all the anti-gunners posting comments. I try and support these things as much as I can, however I'm better off not participating in these things because I just get irate when I see some of these comments. I mean how do you logically defend this bill when someone who is obviously uneducated on the bill honestly believes its going to start shoot outs like in the old western days. One person even posted about how it would make SC like one big "Dodge City".

I think I'll just stick to persuading senators and congressmen because these people obviously don't understand that this bill actually ADDS more language to the gun laws about the illegality of consuming alcohol while carrying a gun, while simply expanding the rights of lawful CWP holders who aren't consuming alcohol.
 
I had that very problem last night at work. 2 guys, totally ignorant, thought it meant that any S.C. citizen could carry into a restaurant. They even used the words, "O.K. Corale." I entered the convo. Told 'em it only applies to people who have CWPs. They both thought that anyone could get a CWP. I then informed them that a test, both written & on the range, had to earn satisfactory scores, as well as a sled/fingerprint check. I then went on to explain how restaurants aren't really the concern, but parking lots are. They initially tried to argue, b/c they're ignorant, but by the time we were finished discussing it, they really weren't saying much.
 
nca_mm said:
I had that very problem last night at work. 2 guys, totally ignorant, thought it meant that any S.C. citizen could carry into a restaurant. They even used the words, "O.K. Corale." I entered the convo. Told 'em it only applies to people who have CWPs. They both thought that anyone could get a CWP. I then informed them that a test, both written & on the range, had to earn satisfactory scores, as well as a sled/fingerprint check. I then went on to explain how restaurants aren't really the concern, but parking lots are. They initially tried to argue, b/c they're ignorant, but by the time we were finished discussing it, they really weren't saying much.
Click to expand...
Yeah I try and explain to people that its already illegal to carry a gun and consume alcohol and under this bill it's still just as illegal to carry a gun and consume alcohol.
 
AndeyHall said:
I saw where NcIC105 posted the link about the restaurant carry being in the news and all the anti-gunners posting comments. I try and support these things as much as I can, however I'm better off not participating in these things because I just get irate when I see some of these comments. I mean how do you logically defend this bill when someone who is obviously uneducated on the bill honestly believes its going to start shoot outs like in the old western days. One person even posted about how it would make SC like one big "Dodge City".

I think I'll just stick to persuading senators and congressmen because these people obviously don't understand that this bill actually ADDS more language to the gun laws about the illegality of consuming alcohol while carrying a gun, while simply expanding the rights of lawful CWP holders who aren't consuming alcohol.
Click to expand...

Idk man, I listen to the OTR episodes of Gunsmoke every night with my kids at bedtime and most the shooting occurs outside city limits or at the saloon while one is drunk. Plus, Marshall Dillon keeps that town on lock.

If they are going to reference Dodge City (which they only know from the TV show) then play along and make a James Arness avatar and troll em lol
 
Kevin Bryant just sent me a list of all the senators that supported the 12am-5am amendment (he wasn't one of them of course) and I ask him if those senators had an alternative plan to keep criminals out of those restaurants after 12 since they felt we didn't need to carry and if they had any evident or research to support the notion that us CWP holders were more likely to try and shoot something between 12am and 5am. I'm sure he'll find it quite amusing.
 
We have always been able to carry concealed in restaurants and bars in New York State. No shootouts, no problems.
 
If you actually study western history pretty much the same a lot of gun carrying and very little shoot of other folks, with more guns per capita than today. Fully the libs always bring up blood in the streets, and the only blood in the streets is where the BG knows he has the advantage. Every time you see a post where the gun is used for protection send it to the local paper, it is estimated guns are used for protection around 100,000 times a year.
 
Nightmare45 said:
If you actually study western history pretty much the same a lot of gun carrying and very little shoot of other folks, with more guns per capita than today. Fully the libs always bring up blood in the streets, and the only blood in the streets is where the BG knows he has the advantage. Every time you see a post where the gun is used for protection send it to the local paper, it is estimated guns are used for protection around 100,000 times a year.
Click to expand...
It varies a lot by different studies.
Lawrence Southwick, Jr., Link Removed - concludes there are at least 400,000 "fewer violent crimes due to civilian self-defense use of guns" and at least "800,000 violent crimes are deterred each year because of gun ownership and use by civilians."
Excerpted from Link Removed:
The political climate surrounding guns is so intense that studies have been done of studies that have been done about studies. Philip Cook, the director of Duke University's public policy institute, has examined the data behind the 108,000 and the 2.5 million figures and suspects the truth lies somewhere in between. "Many of the basic statistics about guns are in wide disagreement with each other depending on which source you go to," says Cook, a member of the apolitical National Consortium on Violence Research. "That's been a real puzzle to people who are trying to understand what's going on."
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense?​
 
Am I wrong is assuming that under this bill it is illegal to carry in a bar? Their entire business is for the service and consumption of alcohol. If they weren't they would be considered a restaurant. So it seems like all these articles saying it will allow CWP holders to carry in restaurants AND bars is false.
 
AndeyHall said:
Am I wrong is assuming that under this bill it is illegal to carry in a bar? Their entire business is for the service and consumption of alcohol. If they weren't they would be considered a restaurant. So it seems like all these articles saying it will allow CWP holders to carry in restaurants AND bars is false.
Click to expand...

There is a single license authorizing the sale and consumption of alcoholic liquors by the drink, whether you do it in Applebee's or in a gentlemens club.

So, the stories are wrong because there are no bars, at least as far as liquor licenses go. I'm sure there are other regulations regarding a food service permit, etc. This is the primary reason that some insisted on putting a time restriction in the bill. There is no way to differentiate between Chipotle and The Titty Twister.
 
John Canuck said:
There is a single license authorizing the sale and consumption of alcoholic liquors by the drink, whether you do it in Applebee's or in a gentlemens club.

So, the stories are wrong because there are no bars, at least as far as liquor licenses go. I'm sure there are other regulations regarding a food service permit, etc. This is the primary reason that some insisted on putting a time restriction in the bill. There is no way to differentiate between Chipotle and The Titty Twister.
Click to expand...
I talked to the girl who wrote the article and basically told her that her wording of bars is creating a lot of animosity towards the bill because of the way she refers to bars. I basically told her what you just had said (I went ahead and called her before I had a chance to read this). I told her that her statements are false for 2 reasons: 1)because technically there is no such thing as a "bar" (when comparing to a restaurant) in SC and 2) it does not allow anyone to carry in the section of the business primarily devoted to the consumption of alcohol. So if a place were to be considered a "bar", then it would be entirely devoted to the consumption of alcohol therefore deeming it an off-limits establishment.

Here is a question that I would have though. There is a place called TD's in downtown Clemson. It is a "restaurant" that has a bar, but after 10-o-clock they stop serving food and the only way you're allowed in is if you're 21, and they stay open until 2am serving drinks. So after 10pm, would this place be considered a bar? Because all they do after that time is serve alcohol. Would that place be entirely off limits after 10pm? Because they do have pool tables. So would the area with pool tables be considered an area primarily devoted to the consumption of alcohol or no? What if I was there just playing pool and didn't intend on drinking?

I'm like you in that I like the bill but I think there is too much vagueness and it's completely unnecessary because it only stems from trying to create regulations that are meant to keep people from doing things which might TEMPT them to drink. They are trying to keep people out of the bar area because there might be that temptation to drink while you're there. Well if you're going to restrict people from doing something that isn't illegal or wrong in and of itself, but might "encourage" or "tempt" illegal activity, then you should probably ban people from going into a bank because they might be tempted to rob it.
 
The law refers to "a business which sells alcoholic liquor, beer, or wine for consumption on the premises" so it doesn't matter if they serve food, or not.
 
John Canuck said:
The law refers to "a business which sells alcoholic liquor, beer, or wine for consumption on the premises" so it doesn't matter if they serve food, or not.
Click to expand...
I know that. But what I'm asking is, where the "shall not enter and remain on any portion of the business' premises primarily devoted to the service and consumption of alcoholic liquor, beer, or wine." section is concerned...what happens when the business suddenly stops serving food at a certain time? Suddenly the "primary service" has changed at that point in time. If you were sitting at a table eating prior to 10pm, the primary service was food related. After 10pm, sitting at that same table would have to be deemed primarily alcohol related since food is no longer served.
 
kerb said:
What argument did he make?

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

Among Gary Kleck’s findings:

  • For every use of a gun to commit a crime, there are three-to-four cases of guns being used in self-defense of a crime.
  • Assault and robbery rates are lower when victims are armed with a gun.
  • A gun is used in self-defense to protect its owner from crime 2.5 million times per year, an average of once every 13 seconds.
  • Fifteen percent of the gun defenders interviewed believed someone would have died if they had not been armed. If true, that’s an average of one life saved due to firearm self-defense every 1.3 minutes.
  • In nearly 75% of the cases, the victim did not know his attackers. In nearly 50% of the cases, he faced at least two attackers and in nearly 25% of the cases, there were three or more attackers. A quarter of the incidents of self-defense occurred away from the home.
  • Results of Kleck’s Findings
    Kleck’s National Self-Defense Survey findings provided a strong argument for concealed carry laws and keeping guns in the home for self-defense purposes. It also provided a counter argument to other surveys at the time which claimed that keeping guns for the purpose of self-defense was inadvisable due to their overall danger to the gun owner and his family members.
    Marvin Wolfgang, a noted criminologist who was on record favoring a ban on all firearms, even those carried by law enforcement officers, was quoted as saying that the Kleck survey was nearly foolproof, saying: “What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator…I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology.”
  • Dr. Gary Kleck - The Criminologist Whose Self-Defense Research Destroyed Gun Control Arguments
 
Your concern is valid and I don't know the answer.

In your example, does the entire inside of the building become a "portion of the business' premises primarily devoted to the service and consumption of alcoholic liquor, beer, or wine." Good question.

I hope folks can see how many problems there are with this language. If this gets passed, it will need to get cleaned up at some point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 92 (members: 0, guests: 92)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,523
Messages
610,662
Members
74,992
Latest member
RedDotArmsTraining

Share this page

Back
Top