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

[Patronus]

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.

Not at all. Lawyers as a class are a burden on a society. As a group they work for the group and not for the people they prey on under the guise of representing. They elevate "law" above right and wrong and justify the outrageous finagling and maneuvering they use to extricate murders and rapists with the sophistry of "serving the law" and representing their clients. Politicians, most of whom come from legal backgrounds are well versed in playing the system that they and their forebears helped to create. They would rather spill their own blood than simplify the tangled knot that is the legal system so that a simple, working man can understand and act within the laws. This is why the idea of repealing old and outdated laws is so repugnant to lawyers and politicians. It is better to keep an obscure law on the books and overwrite it with a new law to encompass the new design than to repeal the old law if there is a chance that with BOTH laws, another layer of legal technicalities can be reflected in the "billable hours". And the sad p[art is that there is almost always a simple, comprehensible way to say everything that lawyers, politicians and judges love to write paragraphs saying in legal-ese.

As for cops. IMO Cops as a breed are the antibodies in the body of society. They fight the bacterium that prey on the healthy tissue of the populace. Sadly, lawyers and politicians and in many cases judges act to prevent those antibodies from doing an effective job. And while it's true that some cops, with power hunger do turn and cannibalize the people they are supposed to serve, most do not. Most are the kind of people that you SHOULD want out there keeping the wolves at bay. There are some people who think(or at least stupidly boast) that they would be just fine without cops and can protect their families al by themselves. They are stupid. Period. Even though cops aren't everywhere, the existence of cops creates a species of "herd immunity". It is not absolute but for the most part it is effective. If you have to work away from home, if your family ever goes in more than one direction at a time(shopping, visiting relatives, getting gas, etc.) if you are not on 24/7 vigilant watch with an iron clad defensive position and weapons ports and turrets armed and manned, if you ever sleep...you fail. You need the relative peace provided not by the actual presence of a guardian on the spot but by the existence of guardians who can be summoned. They act as a deterrent. Or would do if judges and lawyers would stop technicalitying scumbags out onto the streets that should, by rights, be executed.

Government employees...hit and miss. Depends on the person, job, and how much power they have and/or THINK they have. When I lived in KS there was no way in hell I was going to get a tag for my car on the first visit. It just wasn't going to happen. They would ALWAYS find something to make me go home and get before they would let me buy my tax. Here, in GA, in and out and always a smile and y tag in hand. Lovely people. Some people ***** about the IRS. I have spoken to them and not had a bit of trouble from the person...the particular TAX pissed me off but that was a politicians decision, not the civil servant I was speaking to. Postal workers I have met and do business with are wonderful people. The lady that delivers to my home is the second one I'm putting on my Christmas list. Probably a $50 gift card to Longhorn or some such. The nice folks at the post office and always a pleasure to do business with.

Hell, lately the only employees I have had serious issues when dealing with have been at AT&T.

 

[RamRoddoc]

When I start to drink at home I always take my firearms and lock them in the safe...'cause, ya know, when you start to drink you give up your rights to defend yourself...

This is absurd. I carry my 9 (concealed) and get drunker than a skunk at home. When any loud noise startles me I fire a double tap or if not to inebriated a triple tap at it. If it was a false alarm, I just tell the ole lady just a flash back and hearing will come back after a few hours.

I carry a Kahr CW9 because it is "буржуазный" but functional.

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

But you can dang sure know his Georgia Weapons Permit was revoked. And this childrens is why you should not legally carry a firearm into a bar......

 

[alnen]

...The law specifically states that you can ONLY carry in a particular bar IF THE OWNER SPECIFICLY ALLOWS CARRY...

Again, that is wrong. The law used to specifically say that, but does NOT anymore. If you feel I am mistaken, please show me the GA code supporting your viewpoint, as I have done for you.

Of course the law doesn't give people unrestricted carry anywhere at any time, just as it doesn't give anyone unrestricted blue shirt carry anywhere at any time. The private business or person can ask you to leave for absolutelty ANY reason. Don't mislead people into thinking that they are breaking the law by walking into a bar while armed, even if the owner hasn't given permission. Even if signs are posted. You are not breaking any law in doing so. You would be breaking the law if you were asked to leave and did not do so immediately. And that is the beauty of private property rights.

 

[alnen]

I feel I need to clarify something. I am not being condescending when I say this, but is everyone here aware that the words that have the line through them (strikethrough) are parts of the old law that were removed when the new bill passed? They are therefore null and void. That is my fault for not clarifying, but that is exactly what that means whenever you see it pertaining to GA law.

 

[Ken Ford]

Again, that is wrong. The law used to specifically say that, but does NOT anymore. If you feel I am mistaken, please show me the GA code supporting your viewpoint, as I have done for you. Of course the law doesn't give people unrestricted carry anywhere at any time, just as it doesn't give anyone unrestricted blue shirt carry anywhere at any time. The private business or person can ask you to leave for absolutelty ANY reason. Don't mislead people into thinking that they are breaking the law by walking into a bar while armed, even if the owner hasn't given permission. Even if signs are posted. You are not breaking any law in doing so. You would be breaking the law if you were asked to leave and did not do so immediately. And that is the beauty of private property rights.

Hummn the discussion(part) I responded to was not about criminal law, but civil litigation. You said the property owner had no standing to disallow carry. That was the context, in your post, I was responding to.

 

[Ken Ford]

So many misconceptions... First off, carry in a bar is now officially legal, regardless of the bar owner's opinion. They can still eject you for ANY reason, so leave if asked. Drinking while carrying is also legal. Use a little thing called JUDGEMENT for this. This is a rare opportunity where personal judgement is "allowed", so make it count. Set your carry/drink limit beforehand. I like to enjoy a beer or two with my meals sometimes and still have sufficient wits about me. Your results may vary. Self defense while intoxicated is also legal. Discharging your firearm while intoxicated outside of self defense is a big no-no, don't do it! Not only legally, but also logically, it isn't smart.

I concede the owner does not have to give prior permission. But his opinion is paramount. I am a huge second supporter, however I am equally supportive of private property rights. Unless is is illegal property owners rights prevail. I responded to the part of "regardless of the bar owners opinion" portion of this post. Property rights are somewhat a hot button topic with me and I focused on that instead of the balance of the post. I rarely let myself get carried away with portions of topics, instead of taking the whole post in context. After reviewing this post and my follow ups I am sorry for distracting from what are some very valid points. Wish I could blame it on the whiskey but I am sober this weekend.

 

[spencer60]

The whole dividing line between constitutional rights like carry and free speech, and property rights is a tough one to figure.

I guess I tend to look at 'public' private-property, businesses open to the public as less 'private' than 'private' private-property, places like a persons house or car. I would have no issues at all with a person asking me not to bring a gun in their house, and I really don't think I would harbor any resentment over it either.

When it comes to 'public' private-property I see it as a different story. To my mind, the same rules that apply now to public-property should probably apply here as well. For example. if you want to restrict my right to carry in your business, you have a responsibility to offset that with enhanced security.

If you want to make a bar or a restaurant or a store a 'gun free zone', there should be requirements on the security steps you have to take to protect your customers, since you have just signed up for that responsibility by denying them theirs.

As a general rule for carry, I follow the wishes of the property owner (even though they rarely have the force of law). When it comes to 'public' private-property owners who want me to spend money with them, a 'no guns' sign tells me that they don't want 'my kind' in their store, so I oblige them.

This is one reason why stores like Target and Starbucks are so careful not to allow the anti's to force them into putting up 'no guns' signs. They know the economic power gun owners wield.

 

[Patronus]

Ahh the irony.

First off, private property just means privately owned. And that can mean publicly traded ownership in the form of stocks or simply owned by one, or a few people.

Public property is owned by the government...which is SUPPOSEDLY owned by the public(we the people), but in reality is not.

So private property rights trump constitutional rights. Got it. You can neither pray, nor speak, nor carry a gun on private property, without the owners consent(either active or passive). But if the owner of that private property does or says anything that certain elements of society(Ahhh..ahhh...lib****!...'scuse me) deem unacceptable in ANY way, then private property rights are no protection. Look at all the **** they give Chick-Fil-A, Hobby Lobby, et al. Oh and private property can be snatched away for any reason under the pretext of the public good under eminent domain.

But here's the great irony:

Public property, which IS owned and managed by the government who is SUPPOSEDLY limited and guided by the constitution has, in most places, standing gun bans in direct violation of the constitutional right to keep and bear without infringement. I'd say a ban from possessing is an infringement. The U S Corps of Engineers OWNS most of the lakes and millions of acres in the US. But in contravention of the constitution, the flat out ban the carry of both guns and ammunition with the only exceptions being very specific rifles and shotguns during very limited hunting seasons. How, you might ask can they get away with wiping their asses with the constitution? Ask a lawyer. It was lawyers who twisted the law into the mess we have before us.

And another irony that always itches like poison ivy:

The 10th amendment to the constitution states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The 2nd amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." By specifically addressing the issue of arms, the constitution "delegates to the United States" the power. This, by default, prohibits the power to regulate weapons from the states. And yet, here we are, arguing over which infringement is the one we have to follow now.

And, yes, I have a Georgia issues weapons carry license(which is an infringement). And, no, I will not carry where it is "illegal" under the laws of the state of Georgia(another infringement). Although I believe constitutional carry(un-documented, un-registered, Un-BoSed and un-questioned) is the true and legal right to keep and bear, I'm not going to jail to lose an argument with a bunch of lawyers in front of a judge(Ex-lawyer) over a law written and agreed on by a bunch of politicians(A whole different batch of ex-lawyers) all of whom are perfectly sure that they know the law, the constitution and the best thing for all parties concerned, in spite of the glaring errors of the "benign" slavery" they work so hard to keep us all in and keep us all blind to.

 

[hseII]

I concede the owner does not have to give prior permission. But his opinion is paramount. I am a huge second supporter, however I am equally supportive of private property rights. Unless is is illegal property owners rights prevail. I responded to the part of "regardless of the bar owners opinion" portion of this post. Property rights are somewhat a hot button topic with me and I focused on that instead of the balance of the post. I rarely let myself get carried away with portions of topics, instead of taking the whole post in context. After reviewing this post and my follow ups I am sorry for distracting from what are some very valid points. Wish I could blame it on the whiskey but I am sober this weekend.

There is nothing to Apologize For.

The whole dividing line between constitutional rights like carry and free speech, and property rights is a tough one to figure.

I guess I tend to look at 'public' private-property, businesses open to the public as less 'private' than 'private' private-property, places like a persons house or car. I would have no issues at all with a person asking me not to bring a gun in their house, and I really don't think I would harbor any resentment over it either.

When it comes to 'public' private-property I see it as a different story. To my mind, the same rules that apply now to public-property should probably apply here as well. For example. if you want to restrict my right to carry in your business, you have a responsibility to offset that with enhanced security.

If you want to make a bar or a restaurant or a store a 'gun free zone', there should be requirements on the security steps you have to take to protect your customers, since you have just signed up for that responsibility by denying them theirs.

As a general rule for carry, I follow the wishes of the property owner (even though they rarely have the force of law). When it comes to 'public' private-property owners who want me to spend money with them, a 'no guns' sign tells me that they don't want 'my kind' in their store, so I oblige them.

This is one reason why stores like Target and Starbucks are so careful not to allow the anti's to force them into putting up 'no guns' signs. They know the economic power gun owners wield.

Ahh the irony.

First off, private property just means privately owned. And that can mean publicly traded ownership in the form of stocks or simply owned by one, or a few people.

Public property is owned by the government...which is SUPPOSEDLY owned by the public(we the people), but in reality is not.

So private property rights trump constitutional rights. Got it. You can neither pray, nor speak, nor carry a gun on private property, without the owners consent(either active or passive). But if the owner of that private property does or says anything that certain elements of society(Ahhh..ahhh...lib****!...'scuse me) deem unacceptable in ANY way, then private property rights are no protection. Look at all the **** they give Chick-Fil-A, Hobby Lobby, et al. Oh and private property can be snatched away for any reason under the pretext of the public good under eminent domain.

But here's the great irony:

Public property, which IS owned and managed by the government who is SUPPOSEDLY limited and guided by the constitution has, in most places, standing gun bans in direct violation of the constitutional right to keep and bear without infringement. I'd say a ban from possessing is an infringement. The U S Corps of Engineers OWNS most of the lakes and millions of acres in the US. But in contravention of the constitution, the flat out ban the carry of both guns and ammunition with the only exceptions being very specific rifles and shotguns during very limited hunting seasons. How, you might ask can they get away with wiping their asses with the constitution? Ask a lawyer. It was lawyers who twisted the law into the mess we have before us.

And another irony that always itches like poison ivy:

The 10th amendment to the constitution states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The 2nd amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." By specifically addressing the issue of arms, the constitution "delegates to the United States" the power. This, by default, prohibits the power to regulate weapons from the states. And yet, here we are, arguing over which infringement is the one we have to follow now.

And, yes, I have a Georgia issues weapons carry license(which is an infringement). And, no, I will not carry where it is "illegal" under the laws of the state of Georgia(another infringement). Although I believe constitutional carry(un-documented, un-registered, Un-BoSed and un-questioned) is the true and legal right to keep and bear, I'm not going to jail to lose an argument with a bunch of lawyers in front of a judge(Ex-lawyer) over a law written and agreed on by a bunch of politicians(A whole different batch of ex-lawyers) all of whom are perfectly sure that they know the law, the constitution and the best thing for all parties concerned, in spite of the glaring errors of the "benign" slavery" they work so hard to keep us all in and keep us all blind to.

Thank Ya'll for the intelligent, on topic Logic.

HEath

 

[Bass Akwards]

I might be crazy, but I choose where I eat based on what the restaurant/bar thinks it food should taste like.