So... who has lost a favorite watering hole due to new 'no guns' sign?

[Badger]

I don't let anyone's signage change my normal habits, on the other hand , I do not flaunt the fact that I carry and I don't conduct myself in a manner that attracts attention.
If you don't contribute to the causative factor of problems , you usually don't have very many at all.

 

[twobogie]

When most all responsible gun owners agree that it is not prudent to carry while drinking, I don't understand while someone would punish them selves by removing something they like from their life.

Not like it was some store or food joint where it would be an inconvenience to disarm and rearm.

I understand the sentiment most if the time and have told buisness owners that I would not be back because if this policy, but I don't have a problem with a bar taking this postion.
I've worked bars before and I know that some, usually good people turn into an "instant asshole-just add alcohol"

The bar owner would assume a large liability if he allowed guns in the bar.

Would you mind citing some law to prove this statement? I'm serious about the question since I need to share this with a legal drug distributor, ie on-site liquor by the drink license holder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The corporation is under the impression that laws are made and enforced by outside agencies and their responsibility is not to enforce but to comply. If this is not correct tell me since a lot of money has been wasted on legal consul.

 

[Sharpsburg]

It's already illegal to drink in a bar when carrying a firearm in Georgia; the owner just added insult by alienating his customers who eat there and don't drink alcohol because they are carrying.

That isn't true. Bars have to opt in based on my understanding. And that sign ain't opting in.

 

[Sharpsburg]

Would you mind citing some law to prove this statement? I'm serious about the question since I need to share this with a legal drug distributor, ie on-site liquor by the drink license holder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The corporation is under the impression that laws are made and enforced by outside agencies and their responsibility is not to enforce but to comply. If this is not correct tell me since a lot of money has been wasted on legal consul.

Why do people on ODT always ask others to post case law. Hire an attorney and find it yourself. Legal research takes time and gets billed by the hour. There are countless of millions of cases in this country touching on virtually everything your mind can think of. Find it yourself or pay your attorney to do it.

And if your attorneys are telling you that a business owner has no potential liability for its choices under laws of negligence, then you really need a new lawyer. Ga law allows certain entities to decide if guns are allowed. So it is in fact the business owners decision, not an outside agency, if guns are allowed. And if you think for one second that a seasoned plaintiffs attorney is not gonna score a nice settlement from a bar if a drunk patron shoots another patron in what would have otherwise been a fist fight -- when that gun was allowed there based on a conscious and calculated decision by the bar owner to mix guns and drunks -- then you just don't understand our legal system.

I get the "don't trample on my rights" thing, but of all the businesses that I could understand banning weapons -- it's a bar.

If driving a car was a constitutional right, would you all be pissed at drunk driving laws too?

 

[Ken Ford]

Do they also assume this liability should something happen when they disarmed me with that sign?

It would give you standing I suppose, but I don't know if you will win.

 

[Ken Ford]

Would you mind citing some law to prove this statement? I'm serious about the question since I need to share this with a legal drug distributor, ie on-site liquor by the drink license holder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The corporation is under the impression that laws are made and enforced by outside agencies and their responsibility is not to enforce but to comply. If this is not correct tell me since a lot of money has been wasted on legal consul.

There does not need to be a "law" to be sued.Anyone can be sued for anything at any time for any reason. The liability is because a jury would more than likely find that if someone was hurt because a person hurt someone and the proximate cause was possibly his decision to allow guns in his bar. Civil court cases do not have to have a "law" to make the case. In a civil case all you have to have is a majority vote of a jury, to cost someone millions.

 

[Ken Ford]

You sure can. Go to GACarry.org and look at the case that happened in Paulding. cliffs notes version ~~> Two guys were in a bar, one dude had a piece. They got into a fight and both were drinking. Dude with the piece was "arrested for having a weapon on his person, while schwasted." Went to court, GAcarry.org was there, helped with representation and got the whole thrown out. Done. Just ere on the side of caution. Errr body gets liquid courage when dey kiss da bottle

And he still had to pay an enormous amount if money to fight it.

 

[Sharpsburg]

And he still had to pay an enormous amount if money to fight it.

Maybe not if ga carry took the case for him. And if they got it knocked out as a bad arrest, it is possible ga carry got its legal fees paid.

But that instance is not analogous to the liability that could be faced if someone got shot in a bar where the bar owner allowed guns. I think the case backwoods described involved a guy getting arrested for possessing the gun. Not actually using it.

And if the drunk guy did use his gun, I believe his state of mind and judgment in assessing whether he was justified in using the gun would be undermined in criminal court if the blood alcohol level was used against him.

 

[Patronus]

Well, for me it's real simple. I don't drink and drive. And if I'm not home, I drove there and will need to drive back. So if I'm in a place that serves alcohol, I'm there to eat. And, yes, I'm armed. If I can't be armed I'm not there. See how simple that is?

 

[Sharpsburg]

Well, for me it's real simple. I don't drink and drive. And if I'm not home, I drove there and will need to drive back. So if I'm in a place that serves alcohol, I'm there to eat. And, yes, I'm armed. If I can't be armed I'm not there. See how simple that is?

That I agree with. I eat at a few bars for lunch. That is where the good wings are! And I'm always armed too. But it's a tricky issue at night with the drinkers. All I'm saying is that I understand why some bars would be uneasy about guns.

One bar where I have had lunch in newnan (corner tavern) had a shooting about two years ago. Some guy was messing with some dude's girlfriend so the dude put a couple 40 cal rounds in the guy and killed him. I just don't see that incident unfolding like that absent alcohol. When I was going to bars 20 years ago, that situation would be handled with a good old fashioned fist fight and beat down.