Guns and Alcohol; Bars, Nightclubs, and Private Property

Feel free to share the meme

Carrying a gun in a place that serves alcohol seems a little incongruous at first. Guns and alcohol can’t mix, one might assume at first. Dangerous objects combined with the intoxicating effects of alcohol could easily lead to disaster. Yet is far more nuanced than at first glance. One might also say that alcohol and cars don’t mix either. The fact is, alcohol is not some sort of mysterious elixir that induces violence or causes irresponsibility; it only reveals what was already there.

Nevada law prohibits anyone who is under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or has a BAC of .10 or greater, from possessing a firearm. No other laws prohibit firearms in bars, clubs, or any other establishment that serves alcohol. Rather than a blanket prohibition, the law is applied on a case-by-case basis against individuals based upon their behavior the same way DUI laws are applied.

 Millions of us routinely drive cars with blood alcohol concentrations less than the legal limit of .08 without problems. Roughly the same numbers of people (in the 10k range) are murdered by guns and killed in DUI accidents yearly. What makes cars different than people? So what makes cars different from guns and that some legislatures prohibit guns in bars, but allow alcohol in drivers? Most Americans would find it absurd that a non-intoxicated driver would be too irresponsible to drive a car after a few drinks.

If we trust citizens to drive vehicles with tolerable levels of alcohol in their systems, why wouldn’t we trust them with their guns? As everyone knows, intoxication is widely variable. One might be unsafe for the first fifteen minutes of a buzz, but fine after four beers two hours later. A small-framed young woman may become legally drunk off one drink whereas an alcoholic who is a big and tall middle-aged man shows no signs of intoxication and two or even three times the legal limit. It’s a fine line.

Everyone's body, regardless of sex or size, absorbs alcohol at a rate of .016 BAC per hour. This is the basic metabolic rate and it is uniform, based on how quickly the liver can process the alcohol and break it down into sugars. The difference is how quickly BAC rises, which is tied to sex, size, and alcoholism, which is why a petite female who seldom drinks will get drunk much faster than a fat alcoholic man. One sip or one drink does not make one a drunk or incapable of exercising good judgement. Having a drink or two does not mean you forfeit your Second Amendment rights the same way you retain your First Amendment right to free speech, all the way to the hospital or jail as the case may be. 

If one were to prevent anyone from driving a car with any measurable level of alcohol in their blood stream or banning parking lots at any place that serves alcohol, American drinkers would become apoplectic. Even with the strict laws regarding DUI, crashes still occur. People still get drunk and fight fist to fist, say nasty things to each other, and make bad decisions that result in children or STDs. We know the dangers of alcohol, yet regardless of the law or consequences, bad things happen by choice.

No Magic Numbers

Take states with 51% laws, such as Texas, where guns are excluded from establishments that derive 51% or more of their gross receipts from the sale of alcohol (generally not restaurants). 51% is the magic number that makes the establishment ‘safe’ for guns? Can’t somebody get just as wasted in a wine bar or at their table as they could if they were getting bottle service? Heaven forbid a drinker is carrying illegally. There is no magic number or set of circumstances that divide the law abiding from criminals, the drunk from the sober, or good behavior from bad.

Bar fights and bad behavior can still erupt without guns as countless news reports and anecdotes can attest. Most crimes happen when the perpetrator is sober (at least from alcohol). There have been several high profile incidents where guns have been fired, either in anger or by accident, in clubs. How often do we find out that the person in question either a, broke the law to bring the gun in, or b, wasn’t supposed to have a gun in the first place (prohibited person, no CCW, etc.)? Does a law dissuade that?

Laws do exist that give business owners and police authority to arrest or remove an armed and/or problematic patron. Trespassing. A business that prohibits firearms will likely tell the gun owner to disarm or leave the property. If that person doesn’t disarm or leave when they are told to “get out”, a trespass occurs. In Nevada, the request must be made orally or in writing. In fact, most ‘no guns’ (even ‘no skateboarding’) signs that are visible cite NRS 207.200, trespassing.

Using state law to prohibit guns in establishments that serve alcohol makes a fundamental judgement based not in fact, but in supposition, on the character of every gun owner and every drinker: that gun owners are too irresponsible to drink while carrying and drinkers are drunks who can’t be trusted with a gun. Interestingly enough, most concealed firearm permittees have a general understanding that if one is going to drink to levels of intoxication, they leave their gun behind.

Public Execution of Private Policy

If bars, clubs, and other businesses choose to exclude patrons who are armed, that is their affair. Every business has a right, within limits, to exclude anyone they want. Trespassing does not necessarily criminalize the why someone did what they did; it criminalizes the violation of private property rights that occurs when one ignores the owner’s request.

Specific statutes, like Texas’ 30-06 and 30-07 gun laws, that exclude gun owners from posted properties are an example of government executing private policies. The business owner made a choice to exclude armed citizens, the same way a private property owner can choose to do pretty much anything that’s legal with their property. That is the business owner’s choice; the government arguably shouldn’t add weight under the penalty of law to that choice.

Taken to an extreme, should governments pass a law allowing bars to limit the ideology of the patrons so a blue collar, union bar can ban Republicans and lessen the chance Debate Night turns into a barroom brawl? Such a law would be an unconscionable abuse of the First Amendment; the Second should be no different. Shoe on the other foot, a law mandating business to admit armed citizens would be a wholesale violation of private property rights.

Pointless

Also, what’s the point of such a law? Open carriers can be detected, but concealed carriers would presumably remain invisible. If they used their gun in lawful self-defense, what does it benefit society to charge them with a misdemeanor of carrying in a bar? The alternative quite possibly have been a dead innocent person and a murder trial. Or, if a bad guy uses a gun while drinking, is he really concerned about another charge on top of a felony, if not several more?

If someone is a hothead who suffers from lapses of judgement, is the kind of person who will be deterred by a law he isn’t even thinking of? And let’s say there is a law and that hothead leaves his gun in the car. What stops him from going outside to get it? Suddenly, you have a victim faced with a gun and no defense other than raising his hands and hoping for the best.

If bars and clubs want to prohibit weapons they have every right do so. Yet time and time again we have seen killers take advantage of a gun-free zone to kill. Both men and women have been attacked and killed after leaving bars, often on the way to their cars, hypothetically before they might reach their gun. Should non-drinkers carrying guns be disarmed too? Or those who know they can handle their alcohol and carry their gun at the same time? Bartenders show discretion on who not to serve at a certain point, so staff can show the same level of discretion to armed club goers.

Frankly, some establishments are patronized by gang members and thugs where a multitude of past incidents have occurred. One can make an argument that disarming patrons, with a capable armed security force, is an effective deterrent to would-be murders and terrorists. But note that an effective screening process is required to detect weapons and capable armed force able to respond. A half-assed wanding and a single security guard with no more than the basic state required training won’t do. If everyone coming in is disarmed, there must be a plan and credible resources to stop a worst-case threat like in Orlando.

For establishments without security screening, just how the heck will they detect a concealed firearm? In Nevada and most states, private persons have no right to demand to see a permit. In most cases, concealed weapons go undetected without incident at a dramatically higher rate than anyone would believe. Many bars and restaurants in Nevada also have no problem with patrons openly carrying. This once again goes to show the problems are with the person, not the gun.

Alcohol does have the ability to impact judgement, but is that impact so severe we must set a ‘zero’ level for carrying guns, far lower than we do with driving? Laws do not prevent crime and a law that criminalizes what is now ordinary, innocent behavior would only serve to punish those who seek to protect themselves. The mere appearance of guns and alcohol being incongruent doesn’t mean the actually are. Discretion on both the part of the citizen carrier and staff/security is key to keeping everyone safe while respecting the right to armed self-defense.

Local Pols on Orlando: Dems Mostly Wrong

I’m not going to editorialize too much. What happened in Orlando was a total failure of the federal law enforcement and intelligence community. Florida law disarmed bar patrons, putting them in a perfect defenseless kill zone, where the local SWAT team failed to act immediately and decisively, needlessly costing more lives. Because the shooter’s family, Islamic community, and employer failed to act on his warning signs, 49 people (perhaps more in the future) are dead. 102 families are devastated.

The focus on this being a crime only against gays is wrong; while it obviously was targeted against homosexuals, the factors are too complex to label this as simply a gay hate crime. The shooter’s messed up ideology (of course, he was only following the ways of Islam) and possibly some personal conflict over his sexuality both contributed to this act. This was not just an attack on a gay bar. It was an attack on the tolerant and inclusive American way of life.

Thankfully, many people, gay and straight, are waking up to the reality that the only way to stop a terrorist with a gun is a good guy, preferably several, also with a gun.

Senator Reid-D, who hasn’t met a gun control law he doesn’t like, has a litany of press releases that denounce the NRA, gun owners, and anyone but Islamic terrorists. This one example pretty much sums them all up.

“We are still waiting for Republicans to find the courage to stand up to the National Rifle Association and join with Democrats to keep guns out of the hands of terror suspects. Unfortunately, the so-called negotiations that took place today were little more than a smokescreen by Republicans trying to give themselves political cover while they continue to march in lock-step with NRA’s extreme positions. Democrats are always happy to engage in negotiations, but the talks must be serious and aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists.’

What he meant: It’s the Republican’s and NRA’s fault we can repeal due process and ban guns too! In virtually all of his statements on the topic, everything harkens back to the fact that the ‘solution’ is to ban guns and the Republicans and the NRA are keeping him from doing so. To support his wicked position in total conflict with the Constitution, he quotes Al Qaeda and lies.

Mike Prevatt wrote in the Las Vegas Weekly about a memorial service at the Gay and Lesbian Community Center of Southern Nevada. Current and former members of the state legislature were among the speakers who preached a message predominantly about the need for gun control. Some of the speaker’s comments from various sources, including the memorial, follow.

State Senator Pat Spearman-D said “We can honor the innocent victims of these hate crimes by committing our lives to continued activity to enact common sense gun safety legislation…” She also shared this whopper on social media demonstrating her total ignorance and hatred of guns.

Kelvin Atkinson-D posted this absolutely wrong and incredibly stupid statement on Facebook, showing that the truth is so ill-relevant to his intolerant and hateful worldview that he can’t be bothered to spend two minutes searching on Google.

 Assemblyman James Healy-D said on Facebook “It's critical that we only allow representatives in office that believe in equality and believe in responsible gun ownership.”

Congresswoman Dina Titus-D, blamed ‘gun violence’ and ignored Islamic terror. Titus has a history as a Nevada state legislator of being anti-gun and missing the whole point of armed self-defense. I will say that she is one of the very few Democrats I've seen that has a general sense of dignity, compassion, and tenderness. Shame her beliefs suck.

Chaplain Sandy Marks said he has “seen the damage that an AR-15 can do. I’ve been there … I’ve been devastated.” While Marks volunteers with LVMPD as a chaplain, there is no mention of military service available on his LinkedIn profile, so one wonders exactly where he saw those kinds of wounds, considering AR-15s are seldom used in murders. Perhaps he meant people shot by LVMPD officers, though chaplains usually don’t have much to do with a criminal’s body.

Las Vegas Mayor Carolyn Goodman was drew intense heat because she didn’t pander and denounce guns. Apparently, telling the truth—that gun laws aren’t the solution to terrorism—was “rebutting” the community. The audience then literally booed her from the stage because she didn’t tell them what they wanted to hear. Perhaps she could have avoided the topic altogether, but in an evening when it seems like all the speakers preached for gun control, this supposedly open, inclusive, and tolerant community should have tolerated another opinion. But when has logic and facts every mattered to the hardcore left?

The Republican side seemed a little more grounded in the reality of the situation.

Congressman Cresent Hardy-R, called the shooting “the worst terrorist attack since 9/11” and said “Last night’s attack is a reminder that we must remain vigilant against the clear and present danger of radical Islamic terrorism.”

Attorney General Laxalt characterized the whole thing properly.

“Yesterday, Omar Mateen, an Islamic terrorist, attacked a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. He murdered fifty Americans on American soil in the name of the Islamic State. The Islamic State called Mateen ‘a soldier of the Caliphate.’

“Calling this attack a hate crime, a mass shooting or an act of violence fails to properly characterize what yesterday’s shooting was--a terrorist attack perpetrated by radical Islamists. Minimizing the attack neither clarifies our duty as a nation, nor targets the enemies that are responsible. It goes without saying that yesterday’s terrorist attack was a hate crime, a mass shooting and an act of violence, in the same way that September 11th was a hate crime, a series of deliberate airplane crashes and also an act of violence. Nevertheless, September 11th was not about generically preventing hijacked plane crashes and acts of violence. Islamic terrorists threaten the American way of life. Our enemy seeks to kill Americans simply for being Americans, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. Our duty is to unite as a nation, properly name the enemy and then destroy that enemy.

“President Obama and the political left continue to confuse and distort reality, thereby endangering American lives here and abroad. Leaders must unite – not seek to divide – Americans and Nevadans over the second most deadly terrorist attack on American soil in history.” 

As always, it’s not about the truth, it’s about the agenda. It’s a shame that the poor victims of this tragedy are being exploited to advance gun control and promote political careers. And of course the left ignores the gay man arrested for suspected terrorism in Los Angeles the same day. Doesn’t fit the agenda. I’ll leave you with the following: 

The gun debate is frustrating b/c anti gunners won't hesitate to lie while pro gunners spend hours researching to make sure we are accurate.

— Colion Noir (@MrColionNoir) June 16, 2016

Quit the NRA

The NRA released a statement today that it believes that those on terror watch lists deserve to have their constitutional rights denied, specifically the right to buy a gun. Such a statement should be condemned by those who support freedom because the NRA took the politically expedient route.

I take specific exception to the part where the NRA believes that a sale should be delayed while the investigation is completed. Do they mean the up to three day delay that currently exists when someone has an old parking warrant on their record? Or do they mean the sale is indefinitely postponed until the FBI gives the go-ahead? What exactly is their plan for 'due process'? No one should be added to a watchlist that has no real criteria for being placed on. Kids, senators, and congressmen have been on it for heaven's sake!

The Constitution is meant to protect against a tyrannical government, one that will label citizens who oppose it terrorists or traitors. The Bill of Rights was intended to check the unlimited powers that Great Britain used to brutally suppress the colonists who cried aloud against the abuses of their deaf government. We face a threat from Islamic terrorism; a religion and a mentality that is hateful to the central tenets of its doctrine. We are faced with a war upon our people and our culture. More laws are not the answer.

The murderer in Orlando was under FBI surveillance, but that investigation was apparently pulled at the request of Hillary Clinton's State Department. His father visited the White House and may have met with the president. His ex-wife knew about this plot, yet did nothing. His employer was afraid to discipline him because he was a Muslim. He was not on any watchlist at the time he bought his gun legally, with a background check. This 'solution' would not have prevented this atrocity. 49 people are dead and 102 families torn apart because the government failed to identify and stop a terrorist.

More laws and 'checks' are not the answer. Admitting we have a problem with Islamic terror and utilizing the law enforcement resources we already have are the solution. Additionally, end gun free zones and allow people to defend themselves. No one should have to cower in a bathroom and wait to be shot. You may not succeed, but you deserve the chance to fight back effectively.

The Second Amendment is about the slippery slope. The NRA institutionally does not understand that. They have never understood that, instead willing to give in for the few instead of the rights of the many.The NRA has for too long supported compromise, allowed state-by-state Bloomberg assaults on gun rights, and too often supported outright racist gun laws. Until the NRA gets active in stopping all forms of infringement, it does not deserve your support. An organization that does so little and compromises so much is not worthy of your time and money.

When the time comes for gun owners to be treated as seditious and terrorists, the NRA will support the round-up. Due process means nothing to the NRA; they prefer to allow unchecked government power to say who can and can't own a gun.

While terrorism is a serious concern, putting names on a list or starting investigations without probable cause is a slippery slope. What is to stop the Federal government from declaring all gun owners to be domestic terrorists? Did you click 'Like' on a post about the Bundy Ranch? Now you are a terrorist supporter. Donate to a 'radical' gun rights group like the Second Amendment Foundation? Now you are a financial backer of terrorism. Think that's not likely? How many Japanese-Americans in the late 1930s thought that they would be put in concentration camps by their own country?

Nevadans, we have accomplished MUCH without the NRA. Leave them behind, cancel or don't renew your memberships. Donate to the Nevada Firearm Coalition, Nevadans for State Gun Rights, or work on your own to further gun rights. As individuals banding together, we can succeed at our goals without a bloated, political, and compromised organization. 

For those that criticize me calling out the NRA: What have they done for you lately? Where were they early on when Bloomberg was collecting signatures to ban private gun sales? Why did they trash open carry in 1995? Why didn't they fight harder in 2015 for school carry and constitutional carry? What kind of gun rights organization is this? It's not. It's a political, 'feel good' club for good ol' boys. If you like a $35 magazine to read on the toilet, you can give them your money, but that's all they're worth.

For those that argue we aren't doing anything to stop terrorists from getting guns: How would the proposed laws have stopped this massacre? Answer that question first. Tell me how someone not under active investigation or a prohibited person can be detected and stopped if his friends and family say nothing.

No compromise.

#QuitNRA