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.”