• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Guns allowed in Arizona bars starting Wednesday

Goobieman said:
Exactly. He walks to the car and does what he was going to do anyway.
Click to expand...

Nuts are going to be nuts. But I see no reason to put another liability on bar owners in regards to carrying weapons. Bars will get sued should something happen. They are not supposed to serve people with weapons. The solution is to search people just like they have to id people to make sure they are of age.
 
winston53660 said:
Nuts are going to be nuts. But I see no reason to put another liability on bar owners in regards to carrying weapons. Bars will get sued should something happen. They are not supposed to serve people with weapons. The solution is to search people just like they have to id people to make sure they are of age.
Click to expand...
Like I said, if the bar owner whats to prohibit guns and makre sure there are none by searching, that's his right.

HOWever... under the same argument, shouldn't the bar owner be searching people now?
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Like I said, if the bar owner whats to prohibit guns and makre sure theere are non by searching, that's his right.

HOWever... under the same argument, shouldn't the bar owner be searching people now?
Click to expand...

Yeah, theoretically now the gun owner is just as responsible as he would be under this new law..

They should be getting sued left and right because of people getting shot / stabbed / otherwise assaulted in their bars.

Cause ultimately the bar is responsible for a legal adult's decision that happens to be there. :doh
 
winston53660 said:
Okay so you did not appreciate it no skin off my nose and hopefully not yours. Let's let by gones be by gones after all it is just a message board. BTW here in Texas I can carry a gun down the street w/o any kind of permit beyond fed regs.
Click to expand...

Carry as in in your hands (up in a firing position) or carry as in wear it?

Cause I believe you can wear it openly here in Virginia as well. But if you start brandishing it, you are breaking the law.
 
Zyphlin said:
Carry as in in your hands (up in a firing position) or carry as in wear it?

Cause I believe you can wear it openly here in Virginia as well. But if you start brandishing it, you are breaking the
law.
Click to expand...

Just carry not brandishing. Sorry my phone is about die and my brakes are about fixed otherwise I would be more cleare
 
Ikari said:
I would feel the same as I do now. Nothing really prevents one from bringing a gun into a bar. There's not much one can do if you're carrying concealed, they're not going to know. If they allow it, not much is going to change. Dollars to donuts say that most people choose not to carry to a bar regardless. And if something happens, well there was no guarantee against it in the first place. And hell, maybe someone will have a gun there and can help quickly end the situation.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you're saying about not knowing if someone has a gun or not, and in light of that fact this law is kind of redundant. If you already have a CCW then it was already a secret to begin with, and only a bar search would reveal it (as it still would).

My main thing with guns is that they are easier to kill with. If someone pulls a knife, as was mentioned in the OP article, you can pick up a chair or put something between you two. With a gun you are screwed.
 
Orius said:
I agree with what you're saying about not knowing if someone has a gun or not, and in light of that fact this law is kind of redundant. If you already have a CCW then it was already a secret to begin with, and only a bar search would reveal it (as it still would).

My main thing with guns is that they are easier to kill with. If someone pulls a knife, as was mentioned in the OP article, you can pick up a chair or put something between you two. With a gun you are screwed.
Click to expand...

Its been a while since I researched the statistics, but I believe at close range a Knife actually carries a higher fatality risk rate than a gun does.
 
winston53660 said:
Nuts are going to be nuts. But I see no reason to put another liability on bar owners in regards to carrying weapons. Bars will get sued should something happen. They are not supposed to serve people with weapons. The solution is to search people just like they have to id people to make sure they are of age.
Click to expand...

SB 1113, page 9, lines 15-20


Check that out... it's the part of the bill that removes liability from the owner of the establishments.
 
stevenb said:
SB 1113, page 9, lines 15-20


Check that out... it's the part of the bill that removes liability from the owner of the establishments.
Click to expand...

Can you link it? BTW IMHO it is not my job to do your google search.
 
Kind of going to go off on a tangent here..sorry but I've got to.

For the most part most people in this thread seem to agree that people have a right to carry a gun into a bar. If the owner doesn't want people to be carrying a gun into their bar then they have the right to tell them to "leave it outside" or to have a place to put it while the person is in the bar.

So...since it is ok for the owner to say weather or not to allow guns into his bar why can the same not be said for smoking? People that go to the bars in Arizona will know that there is a chance that the bar they go to will have guns in it. And will go to that bar or not based on that. Would the same reasoning not also apply to smoking? Those that are against smoking won't go to that bar. Those that don't care will.

To me this law shows that the owners of an establishment have the right to allow or not allow something to happen in their place of business.
 
winston53660 said:
Can you link it? BTW IMHO it is not my job to do your google search.
Click to expand...

You're the one not doing the research in implying that a establishment owner would be liable.


I'm simply helping you get the facts straight.




Format Document

AZ SB1113 said:
Section 4-301

A. A person other than a licensee or an employee of a licensee acting during the employee's working hours or in connection with such employment is not liable in damages to any person who is injured, or to the survivors of any person killed, or for damage to property, which is alleged to have been caused in whole or in part by reason of the furnishing or serving of spirituous liquor to a person of at least the legal drinking age.

B. An on‑sale retailer who does not post a sign that prohibits weapons on the licensed premises pursuant to section 4‑229 is not liable in damages to any person who is injured, or to the survivors of any person killed, or for damage to property, which is alleged to have been caused in whole or in part by another person's actions involving a handgun on the on-sale retailer’s licensed premises unless the on‑sale retailer is grossly negligent or acts willfully and maliciously with intent to harm.
Click to expand...

Don't let facts get in the way though!
 
Kal'Stang said:
Kind of going to go off on a tangent here..sorry but I've got to.

For the most part most people in this thread seem to agree that people have a right to carry a gun into a bar. If the owner doesn't want people to be carrying a gun into their bar then they have the right to tell them to "leave it outside" or to have a place to put it while the person is in the bar.

So...since it is ok for the owner to say weather or not to allow guns into his bar why can the same not be said for smoking? People that go to the bars in Arizona will know that there is a chance that the bar they go to will have guns in it. And will go to that bar or not based on that. Would the same reasoning not also apply to smoking? Those that are against smoking won't go to that bar. Those that don't care will.

To me this law shows that the owners of an establishment have the right to allow or not allow something to happen in their place of business.
Click to expand...

I'm very against the smoking laws that AZ passed.
 
An 8 1/2-by-11-inch sign that says "No Firearms Allowed" and shows a red slash over a gun now hangs next to Henrich's liquor license. If a bar owner does not post such a state-approved sign, people with concealed weapons are allowed in with their guns.
Click to expand...

This I do not approve of at all. That's a violation of the owner's property rights. He does not need a "state-approved sign" in order to refuse people entry or service.
 
Ikari said:
My favorite Franklin quote is when he was asked by a reporter after the delegation came up with the Constitution as to what we have. He responded, "A Republic, if you can keep it". I like it and remind myself everyday that it is our responsibility to keep the Republic. To fight for those ideals the founders had, to do what we can to keep the Republic intact and thriving.
Click to expand...



My favorite Franklin quote, which is also wonderfully on topic here: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security."
 
Ethereal said:
This I do not approve of at all. That's a violation of the owner's property rights. He does not need a "state-approved sign" in order to refuse people entry or service.
Click to expand...

You're right he doesn't.. but if he wants to get bitchy about someone exercising their second amendment rights in his business.. then he does.
 
TheNextEra said:
The probable cause is that think they are drunk and concealed carrying. All an officer has to do is say that and they can search anyone.
Click to expand...

And get the case thrown out when they can't say why they thought the person had a CONCEALED weapon, because it was.... wait for this.... CONCEALED! :shock:
 
winston53660 said:
So would waving a gun around in a bar be okay even though it scares the **** out patrons?
Click to expand...

That would be bradishing a fire arm.... a big no no everywhere.
 
If someone is going to get drunk and pull out their concealed weapon and start shooting then how does a law making it illegal to carry in a bar stop that from happening? Especially if its already illegal to drink and carry.

Laws don't stop people from doing anything. They only punish people after the fact. Therefore, punishing someone who does NOT drink while in a bar is NOT sensible and does NOTHING to combat any type of gun violence.

The only valid criticism of this law is that law abiding citizens who otherwise wouldn't carry in a bar may carry now. So what? Its still illegal to drink while carrying.
 
liblady said:
it's not nonsense. how many gun deaths does japan record?
Click to expand...

A better question is what is the muder rate per capita in Japan. Studies show that the easyer guns are to own and carry, the lower the crime rates... of course they also show the inverse.

Question: What does the title mean: More Guns, Less Crime?

John R. Lott, Jr.: States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. Thirty-one states now have such laws—called "shall-issue" laws. These laws allow adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness.
Click to expand...

Interview with John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime

Gun Ownership at All-Time High, New FBI Report Shows
Violent Crime at a 35-Year Low, Murder at a 43-Year Low



Over the last two decades, many “gun control” laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive at the federal, state, and local levels. Numbers of privately-owned guns and Right-to-Carry states have risen to all-time highs. Every step of the way, “gun control” groups have predicted violent crime would increase. Instead, the nation’s violent crime rate has been declining since 1991, and in 2008 fell to a 35-year low. In the same period, the nation’s murder rate fell to a 43-year low.

Less “Gun Control”: The Brady Act’s handgun waiting period expired in 1998, in favor of the NRA-supported National Instant Check System. Some states thereafter eliminated waiting periods or purchase permit requirements. The federal “assault weapon” ban expired in 2004. Since 1987, 30 states have eliminated prohibitory or restrictive carry laws, in favor of Right-to-Carry (RTC) laws; there are now 40 RTC states, an all-time high. All states have hunter protection laws, 48 have range protection laws, 48 prohibit local jurisdictions from imposing gun laws more restrictive than state law, 44 protect the right to arms in their constitutions, and Congress and 33 states have prohibited frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry.1 Studies by or for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that “gun control” reduces crime.2

More Guns: There are 250+ million privately-owned firearms in the United States.3 The number of guns typically rises by about 4.5 million every year,4 though between 2007-2008, firearm transactions cleared by the National Criminal Instant Background Check rose 14 percent.5

Less Violent Crime: Since 1991, the nation’s violent crime rate has decreased 40 percent (murder, 45 percent; rape, 31 percent; robbery, 47 percent; and aggravated assault, 37 percent. From 2007-2008, the violent crime rate decreased 3 percent (murder, 5 percent; rape, 2 percent; robbery, 2 percent; and aggravated assault, 3 percent.) States with Right-to-Carry laws have lower violent crime rates, on average, compared to the rest of the country: total violent crime by 31 percent, murder, 39 percent; robbery, 55 percent; and aggravated assault, 19 percent. States that have the most restrictive gun control laws tend to have the highest ratios of robberies (confrontational violent crimes) to non-confrontational property crimes. 6
Click to expand...

NRA-ILA :: More Guns, Less Crime (Again) in 2008

Any questions?
 
stevenb said:
You're right he doesn't.. but if he wants to get bitchy about someone exercising their second amendment rights in his business.. then he does.
Click to expand...

He can get bitchy about whatever he wants, since its his property. You have no right to be there.
 
That is completely crazy.
All we need are more drunks with guns.
 
Ethereal said:
He can get bitchy about whatever he wants, since its his property. You have no right to be there.
Click to expand...

Actually, up until the point that he kicks me off of his "property" that's open to the public.. I have every right to be there.
 
Orius said:
On properties that don't want the guns, this will just lead to more searches of people as they enter the bars. It's true that you can just leave the bar and go somewhere else, but if you live in a small area with one or two that have the same policy, then your rights are pretty screwed anyway.

I'm all for people defending their homes and their property, but I would feel less safe at a bar with so many people carrying. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible carriers, but it doesn't change the fact that one crazy drunk person at the bar who decides to go kamikaze will do a lot of damage. For me the issue has never been about people abusing guns en mass, but it's about the efficiency that guns have at killing as compared to knives or other instruments. You can kill someone much easier with a gun.

I only know a couple of bartenders in the U.S. and they both have guns behind the counter. If something goes down, my instinct would not be to reach for my gun but to get out of dodge.
Click to expand...





How would you know if someone was carrying?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom