Carrying a concealed weapon into a restaurant or bar

[Moontanman]

Just try googling "accidental shooting" and you'll have more links than you care to examine.

 

Larv, you are using disinformation and fear tactics to promote your own irrational fears. I googled accidental shootings and couldn't find even one connected with concealed carry permit holder accidentally shooting anyone.

 

Contrary to popular belief, guns do not simply go off by themselves. In fact only about 2% of all firearm-related deaths in the U.S. are accidental. A person is five times more likely to accidentally drown, five times more likely to accidentally die in a fire, 29 times more likely to die in an accidental fall, and 32 times more likely to die from accidental poisoning than to die from an accidental gunshot wound.

[lawcat]

The first part of the amendment is a dependent clause, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and is only meant to support the actual statement in the second part "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

You are generally correct that the first clause dealing with militia is not determinative of anything. But technically you are incorrect that the reason is the dependent clause. If the first clause was dependent, it would still bound the second clause which gives the right of gun keeping and bearing.

 

However, the militia clause has no bearing on gun keeping and bearing. The Supreme Court has recently interpreted the "militia" clause to be a mere prologue--an introduction, with no legal significance. This was done in a 5-4 plurality opinion in Heller v. District of Columbia: District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

 

The second question was: If militia clause has no legal weight, then to what extent shall the "right of people to keep and bear arms" not be infringed?

 

The court looked at England's common law at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. Our Bill of Rights was modeled after the English Rights. In England at the time, the right of gunownership was a right subject to legislative regulation. The question in Heller was whether our 2d amendment right is equally subject to regulation. The answer is yes; our 2d amendment rights are subject to reasonable state regulation.

 

As it concerns concealed weapons, the question is whether the people have a right to bear arms. The asnwer to that is clearly yes. But what does bear means exactly? And to what extent, if people can bear arms, can the state regulate if at all? So here, a state can regulate but it must be reasonable.

 

OP's question about bars is a matter of reasonableness of bearing weapons in restaurants and bars once the state grants the right to bear a weapon in a concealed manner.

 

Reasonableness is generally a question of balance of interest. What are the individual's interest in carrying a concealed weapon, and what is the interest of society. We need to balance the two.

 

If we balance the interest in favor of the individual to carry a concealed weapon in a restaurant, then we can probably safely assume that the society's interest is always lower than the individual's interest in a concealed weapon, regardless of location. I am not willing to go that far.

[lemit]

It seems to me that many many years ago when I studied early American writing--it was contemporary writing then--I noticed that "bearing arms" meant serving in the military and nothing else.

 

Of course, that was before modern, total war, a time when Americans practiced something akin to guerilla warfare against the Hessian hirelings of England and were very proud of their citizen/soldiers to the point of wanting to codify that right, because as long as citizens bore arms in defense of their country, that country was being represented democratically in the field.

 

Does that make sense? Is it just something I imagined? If I'm wrong, please don't shoot! I'll agree with anything you want me to agree with. Just put the gun down. Please!

 

--lemit

[lawcat]

Lemit,

 

I am not going to shoot. :rolleyes:

 

You are historically correct. But, since the militia clause has no legal punch any more, the "bear" has a new significance in the context of civil rights, and not in the historical context of military service. You can listen to the announcement of court's opinion in Heller here: District of Columbia v. Heller, U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument. (There is also a recording of the arguments in that case.)

[lemit]

So, the people who complain about judicial activism got the benefit of some judicial activism?

 

If it weren't seemingly such a universal trait, I'd start a thread about the practice in politics and law of using tactics you condemn in others to your own advantage, and inconsistently flopping as the issue changes.

 

Thank you. I'd been wondering about Heller. Nearly 20 years ago, I posed the question of "bearing arms" to some pre-law students. They professed interest in the concept of a militia, ignoring what I had actually asked. I'd kept quiet about 18th Century language since then. It's reassuring but depressing that that stone has been turned.

 

I have a simple, naive belief that eplosives aren't healthy for people, although I know nitroglycerine can be good for the heart. Another of those inconsistencies in law and politics is that people who would not think of legalizing anything else for the purpose of neutralizing the very thing they want to legalize seem to be very comfortable with that argument when explosives are being discussed. If I gave any example to support what I am suggesting, I'd be cursed and ridiculed at length. I guess I'll just let this whole thread stand as an example and take all the calumny I'll get for saying that.

 

I think that while others are hunting big game or each other, I'll keep looking for those long-forgotten better angels, not to kill them, but to bring them out of that wilderness where they seem to have wandered for so long.

 

--lemit

[Larv]

I'll keep looking for those long-forgotten better angels, not to kill them, but to bring them out of that wilderness where they seem to have wandered for so long.

lemit, wouldn't is be more accurate to say that your "better angles" have been wandering in the "closet" instead of the "wilderness"?

[CraigD]

Though it drifts far enough from this thread’s original topic to warrant splitting into its own thread, and though it’s been discussed at length here at hypography and elsewhere, the meaning of the word “militia” as it appears in the 2nd Amendment is so commonly assumed with little consideration, and thus so commonly without awareness of its multiple meanings and the controversy this has entailed, that I think it’s worth noting these meanings here.

 

In its oldest English language usage, militia referred simply to a collection of soldiers in some sort of army. However, by the time of the writing and ratification of the first ten Amendments, militia was commonly understood to refer not only to enlisted soldiers, but to people who could be enlisted – in short, all males not too young or too old or physically or mentally disabled – as well as to distinguish armies hurriedly assembled with minimal training and provisioning, and minimal pay, from ones comprised of professional soldiers.

 

By present day times, this leads to two at least one interpretations of the meaning of the entire 2nd Amendment’s “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”: Because the US might need to suddenly call up an army, and have no guns with which to equip them, it’s important that people have them, so it should be legal.

 

I’ve heard reasonable arguments for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment that note that for over a century, the US hasn’t required or even allowed soldiers to bring their personal guns with them upon enlistment, nor had difficulty procuring enough guns, invalidating the Amendment’s justification of people having guns. However, I think this reasoning is flawed, because it assumes the government will always have this ability. Present day events such as in Iraq show that even once high-budget militaries may collapse, and significant armies be formed of people equipped with their own guns, heavier weapons, explosives, etc.

[Moontanman]

Since I have shown that the chances of being shot accidentally by a person carrying a licensed concealed weapon is almost non-existent. I would like to ask why is restaurant included with bar in this proposed law. In my state carrying a concealed weapon into a bar is almost a no brainier. If you drink while packing heat you loose your permit, no questions asked, it doesn't really matter where you are. But why is a restaurant such a hot button? Do they require a two drink minimum in some states? many restaurants here do not even sell alcohol and eating doesn't require the consumption of alcohol, so why is the idea of concealed carry in a restaurant a problem?

[REASON]

Present day events such as in Iraq show that even once high-budget militaries may collapse, and significant armies be formed of people equipped with their own guns, heavier weapons, explosives, etc.

 

And if you'll let me indulge a little more off topic commentary, the above statement raises the other important question regarding the 2nd Ammendment which is: What exactly is meant or intended by the word "arms?" That question may have been relatively easy to answer in 1791, but in today's world, wouldn't 50 cal. Machine Guns, M1 Tanks, and Hellfire Missles be considered "arms?" Does the phrase, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infreinged" include these types of weapons?

 

If it is clear in our minds that regular citizens should be restricted from keeping and bearing these types of "arms," then it is clear that there can be restrictions to our 2nd Ammendment rights in the modern world.

 

The only question left is whether we can agree on where the lines shoud reasonably be drawn.

 

 

As for the OP, I did not answer the poll question because it is not specific enough. Essentially I feel that the rights of a gun owner to carry a concealed weapon in public should not supersede the rights of a property owner to restrict "arms" from his property. By definition, once a person enters private property, they are no longer in public.

 

So the right of an individual to carry a gun into a restaurant or bar is dependent on the state law regarding concealed carry rights, and the tolerance of the property owner.

[Moontanman]

 

As for the OP, I did not answer the poll question because it is not specific enough. Essentially I feel that the rights of a gun owner to carry a concealed weapon in public should not supersede the rights of a property owner to restrict "arms" from his property. By definition, once a person enters private property, they are no longer in public.

 

So the right of an individual to carry a gun into a restaurant or bar is dependent on the state law regarding concealed carry rights, and the tolerance of the property owner.

 

I do not think a law is necessary, simple rights of the property owner should be paramount in this. If I had a bar i would want the only person in to be armed to be me! It's amazing how the sound of a 12 gage slide being pulled back and forth gets even drunken peoples attention.

 

How ever a restaurant is not the same as a bar, and if I owned a restaurant I would have no problem with people being armed inside it.

 

BTW in my state the owner of any business has the right to be armed inside his business. Many business owners who work in their own business keep a gun under the counter near the register.

[REASON]

I do not think a law is necessary, simple rights of the property owner should be paramount in this.

 

Both the rights to concealed carry and the rights of property owners are protected by state laws.

 

 

If I had a bar i would want the only person in to be armed to be me! It's amazing how the sound of a 12 gage slide being pulled back and forth gets even drunken peoples attention.

 

That should be your prerogative.

 

 

How ever a restaurant is not the same as a bar, and if I owned a restaurant I would have no problem with people being armed inside it.

 

Again, that should be your prerogative in a concealed carry state.

 

 

BTW in my state the owner of any business has the right to be armed inside his business. Many business owners who work in their own business keep a gun under the counter near the register.

 

While this may be legal, there is no guarantee that it is wise to brandish a weapon in any given circumstance. It may be what actually gets you killed.

[Moontanman]

I had a good friend that was killed execution style, the robbers made her get down on her knees and they shot her in the back of the head, they did this to keep from having a witness when they robbed her pet shop. Killed her for a few dollars. If I was working alone in a small business i would have a weapon at hand....

[Larv]

If I was working alone in a small business i would have a weapon at hand....

So would I, but that's not what constitutes a concealed weapon. It's about the same thing as keeping a gun at home for protecton.

[lemit]

For what it's worth, I just noticed on the following onscreen TV listings for consecutive half hours on one of the sports channels:

 

TED NUGENT | DUCK . . .

 

Sounds like good advice.

 

--lemit

[UncleAl]

We trivially see the results of a disarmed citizenry - murder, rape, assault, robbery, theft; gangs, prostitution, drug pushing in the streets. I can see no loss attributable to a voluntarily armed and vigilant citizenry other than massive unemployment in the criminal sector and a modest downturn in police employment. Cities will be self-cleaning toilets.

[Larv]

Hey, all you gun-totin' Amerikkkans out there who like to carry heat into restaurants and bars, you shoulda been at this bar in Toledo, Ohio. You coulda shot a little pool and a few patrons, too, if you were lucky.

[Moontanman]

I clicked on it larv, I didn't get anything. Check your link