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

[Sharpsburg]

You got it mostly right. However, the incident started the night before the actual shooting at same bar. The shooter came back on the next night and shot the victim (term used loosely as he was a local gang banger). This was a case of murder and how the shooter was found innocent, I will never know.

Edited: since y'all all love sources: http://www.times-herald.com/local/20120303Tavern_MurderCharg-MOS

Wow. I had no idea the guy ended up not getting found guilty. I was not on the jury so I guess my opinion is not relevant. But wow.

 

[Ken Ford]

Wow, did this go sideways fast!First of all, I didn't mean to start a legal battle. While it may be legally OK to drink while carrying, that's not something I would be comfortable doing. I had actually always followed the 'rules' the no-guns sign laid down, and left my EDC in the car. I was really more curious about if anyone had seen other signs like this pop-up since July 1st. There seems to be widespread confusion on how the new law works (driven by the media and the gun control groups I'm sure). The whole fact that's it's 'opt-in' seems lost on literally everyone. Everything I see implies wrongly that it's perfectly OK to carry in any bar you want to now.

Media is defiantly driving that perception, in what I belive is an attempt to reverse public opinion. I don't ever trust the media, even if it's "on our side"

 

[Sharpsburg]

Yes. And you can thank an attorney for that very situation. You see...personal responsibility is not profitable. Suing a drunken idiot for damages is no where near as profitable as suing a business and their respective insurance company for the acts of an unrelated third party. This is why, the root of the gun control problem in the country is actually at the feet of lawyers. Personally, I despise the whole profession and the many offshoots from it. Law school is a breeding ground for maggots. They grow up into lawyers, judges and politicians. Not one of those groups EVER does anything to reduce the power of the breed or actually simplify what should be an obvious system. No job security if people can read, understand and obey a simple, clear cut set of laws. Nooo..the law has to be convoluted, overly verbose and obscure so that only a trained two-tongue can argue it successfully.

Yep. I hear that a lot. Every attorney is bad. Every cop is bad because some are bad. Every government employee sucks because some are lazy. Every politician is bad.

 

[patricio2626]

Yep. I hear that a lot. Every attorney is bad. Every cop is bad because some are bad. Every government employee sucks because some are lazy. Every politician is bad.

Yes, this was over the top from our friend Patronus.

 

[MRM]

So you agree with his statements then?

 

[alnen]

Yes there is misconception... This particular post being one.The law specifically states that you can ONLY carry in a particular bar IF THE OWNER SPECIFICLY ALLOWS CARRY. So it would seem that the bar owners opinion does mean something after all.

You're wrong. Here is what the law says, no paraphrasing, no confusion: http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20132014/144825.pdf

Lines 175 and 176 will put this matter to rest. There is no room for interpretation or confusion, bars are completely removed from the list of off limits locations. We gained a lot from hb60. I encourage EVERYONE who carries to be very familiar with the law.

 

[alnen]

Ken Ford, if I am remembering correctly, you are law enforcement. Is that correct? If so, you've got some studying to do! We'll make this into a training opportunity if you'd like.

 

[Ken Ford]

You're wrong. Here is what the law says, no paraphrasing, no confusion: http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20132014/144825.pdf Lines 175 and 176 will put this matter to rest. There is no room for interpretation or confusion, bars are completely removed from the list of off limits locations. We gained a lot from hb60. I encourage EVERYONE who carries to be very familiar with the law.

Keep reading...Except the bar is private property and the owner can restrict carry on/in any property owned or controlled by the proprietor. The law is not and was not intended to be a law that allows unrestricted carry on private property.Anyone that has or controls property assumes liability for decisions on makes on that property.

 

[Ken Ford]

Ken Ford, if I am remembering correctly, you are law enforcement. Is that correct? If so, you've got some studying to do! We'll make this into a training opportunity if you'd like.

Yes is can be a training moment, but I doubt you will be the one to do the training. You are cherry picking the parts you want. You cannot do that with law. You must use ALL parts of the law as a whole to make a proper interpretation of said law.This whole discussion was about the owner restricting carry in his bar, and if we should consider this a restriction on our 2nd amendment rights. Or is we might understand why the owner might have made his decision. You interjected that anyone can carry in any bar unrestricted and you said that the owners opinion did not matter. Sorry you are wrong.

 

[Ken Ford]

I will concede that you do not have to have specific permission to carry in the bar first. However the owner can ban the carry if he chooses.