“It’s not unreasonable to imagine a situation in which a patron under the influence in a crowded bar gains possession of someone else’s legally carried gun”

Maybe not in Hollywood. But here in the real world it is entirely unreasonable to restrict the right of legal concealed carry weapons (CCW) permit holders to carry a weapon in a bar based on a theoretical construct without A) any proof that it’s a problem and B) providing context (e.g, the number of CCW holders who have defended their life in a bar). The fact that news. cincinnati.com feels the need to rely on such a literally fantastic argument to come out against “guns in bars” legislation shows you the obvious disconnect between gun control advocates and rational thought. Speaking of context, here’s the whole quote . . .

The bar bill corrects no real problems – just the inconvenience to permit holders who want to enter a bar or restaurant (but not to drink) – but creates the potential for new ones. It’s no surprise the Ohio Restaurant Association opposes it, as do law enforcement groups.

Fortunately, state law prohibits permit holders from drinking alcohol or using drugs while carrying a weapon. But it’s not unreasonable to imagine a situation in which a patron under the influence in a crowded bar gains possession of someone else’s legally carried gun . . .

The one saving grace under the current bill is that the owner of any liquor-serving establishment can choose to ban guns – but it’s not a stretch to assume that some of the establishments with the most potential for trouble might be the ones least likely to ban guns.

Is prohibiting property owners from deciding whether or not to allow otherwise legal behavior on their property simple common sense—because we can’t trust them to do the right thing? Or would I be completely out of line to suggest that the editorial writer is an elitist who doesn’t understand the fundamental notion of liberty? In fact, he seems to find the whole idea, well, unsettling . . .

Now, we believe in citizens’ Second Amendment right, and recognize that legal experts and courts are increasingly taking the view that it is an individual right.

But this is getting a little creepy. As now-Ohio Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor wrote in a 2003 decision, “The police, the state, the legislature have the right to regulate the right to bear arms. It’s not an unfettered right.”

And there I was thinking that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 McDonald decision incorporated the Second Amendment (ruled that it trumps local and state law). And that when the framers of the Ohio’s state constitution (§ 1.04) said that “the people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security” they didn’t mean “except in biker bars.”

comments

  1. avatar eggyknap says:

    “It’s not unreasonable to imagine…”, “it’s not a stretch to assume…” Make stuff up, much? Thanks, news.cincinnati.com, but I have my own imagination and don’t need yours. Your responsibility is facts, remember? The best way to make bad legislation is to get the idea that some perfectly good legislation needs protecting, somehow, with a buffer of further legislation. It’s already illegal to pack heat when you’re baked, boozed, or bombed… and that’s that. Deal with it, Cincinnati. The rest of us do.

  2. avatar Brad Kozak says:

    I don’t drink very often at all, and I can kinda take it or leave it. When I play music professionally, I never drink – I don’t want my playing to be impaired. The one place I’d LOVE to be able to carry is a bar. Not because I think I’m at risk IN the bar – it’s what happens in the loading dock or alley AFTER I play and I’m packing up that makes me wanna go in armed.

    I think ANY law that restricts where I can carry is a bad one (other than maybe on an airplane, because of the pressurized cabin). A bar where I can’t carry legally is really nothing more than a ‘target-rich environment,’ because the guys that wanna cause trouble aren’t going to let a little thing like a gun law stop them.

    1. avatar Lance says:

      Brad, without jumping into the should we carry on planes debate, you are not going to explosively decompress the cabin with any hole you can make with a handgun. Not even Joe’s handguns. Some planes have 1ft x 1ft holes in them and they keep the pressure by using pumps. The biggest concern has far as hitting the plane goes is destroying critical systems such as power or hydraulic lines.

  3. avatar MUNCHKIN says:

    BILL CLINTON, WITH HIS VAST YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AS A MILITARY
    LEADER, DETERMINED THAT THE VERY INDIVIDUALS HE COMMANDED WERE TOO INCOMPETENT TO CARRY A WEAPON ON A MILITARY BASE.
    THESE SAME INDIVIDUALS WERE ENTRUSTED WITH THE MOST HIGH TECH WEAPONS SYSTEMS EVER CREATED BY MAN. THE END RESULT?? A FIGHTING FORCE THE LIKES OF WHICH THE WORLD HAS NEVER SEEN THAT CANNOT PROTECT ITSELF FROM ONE STINKING, LOW-LIFE COWARD AS WAS THE CASE AT FT. HOOD. TO RESTRICT ONE’S RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENCE IS TO SERVE THAT PERSON’S HEAD ON THE PLATTER OF STUPIDITY.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Munchkin, you made a good point — but shouting (ALL CAPS) is not the way to do it.

  4. avatar Blake says:

    Hey, look at that, another politician has created a solution looking for a problem.

  5. avatar Ralph says:

    “Now, we believe in citizens’ Second Amendment rights blah blah blah . . . . But”

    Ah, the word “but,” which is linguistic shorthand for “everything before ‘but’ was bullshit and should be ignored.”

    1. avatar Buuurr says:

      +1

      1. avatar CUJO THE DOG OF WAR says:

        Yep.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email