So, they're going to keep the one-gun-a-month restriction but allow folks to keep guns in cars. What's your opinion? Is that a safe thing to do?The Virginia Senate today approved two controversial House of Delegates gun bills that will allow permit holders to carry concealed handguns into bars and non-permit holders to conceal their firearms in cars.
House Bill 505 (bars) and House Bill 885 (cars) were essentially identical to two Senate-sponsored bills that had already passed the chamber and were approved by the House. All four bills now head to the desk of Gov. Bob McDonnell, who has indicated he will likely sign the legislation.
The Senate votes on the House bills were split, with several rural Democrats siding with Republicans. House Bill 505 passed 25-15, while House Bill 885 passed 24-16. Democrats hold a 22-18 majority in the 40-member Senate.
They're going to allow guns in bars even though everyone agrees guns and alcohol don't mix? What's your opinion? Is that a safe thing to do?
Please leave a comment.
"They're going to allow guns in bars even though everyone agrees guns and alcohol don't mix?"
ReplyDeleteYou still won't be allowed to drink.
Current law allows gun in restaurants that serve alcohol, only presently your gun must be carried open. All this bill does is allow you to conceal just like you can outside. Still no drinking.
ReplyDeleteOne of the anti-gun arguments is that even though a patron does not imbibe, there are scads of rowdy drunks just waiting for the opportunity to take a gun and shoot the place up. Wouldn't this bill take you one step closer to protecting from that as the gun is not open and drawing their attention? Shouldn't you support this bill MikeB, you know, incremental-ism and all?
What AztecRed said. I'd also like to add that the standard for being considered a "bar" is pretty loose. An Applebee's would typically be considered as a bar with regards to concealed carry laws.
ReplyDeleteVa.’s Bad Gun Laws
ReplyDeleteA Cheap Shot From New York
If you want to know how obsessed The New York Times is with gun control in Virginia, take a look at the Web version of its story on John Patrick Bedell, the ill-fated Pentagon shooter.
In one of its first stories on the subject, the writers shoe-horned the gun control issue into it to no seeming purpose. Of course, the Times did have a purpose: slapping the backward yahoos down South.
“Virginia, which has some of the most lax gun laws in the nation and has been pushing to expand gun rights, has been criticized lately by gun control advocates,” the Times declared. “The state’s General Assembly approved a bill last month allowing people to carry concealed weapons in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, and the House of Delegates voted to end a 17-year-old measure barring people from buying more than one handgun a month.”
Problem was, the story didn’t report where Bedell bought his guns and ammo. Nor did the story reveal whether the reporters asked and couldn’t find out. And it didn’t report that Bedell was from California until after it fired its shot about Virginia’s gun laws.
The Associated Press divulged that Bedell purchased guns and ammo at a gun range in Sacramento. The Washington Post found a store in Silver Spring. Geography lesson for the Times: Those cities are in California and Maryland, which have “some of the most strict gun laws in the nation,” to borrow the Times’ phraseology. They also have some of the nuttiest liberal public officials in the nation. Anyway, the Times published information about Bedell’s purchases in California a day or so after it misfired on Virginia’s gun laws.
The Times writers may not have known where Bedell bought his guns and ammo when they filed their report. But that invites the obvious question of why they mentioned Virginia’s gun laws. Answer: To pin blame for the shootings on the state’s gun laws, which aren’t strict enough either for the Times or New York City’s liberal mayor, who has spent the last several years blaming crime in his polyglot and benighted city on Virginia.
Here, for instance, is a recent salvo from the Times editorial page: “Richmond lawmakers have callously rejected a gun control proposal sought as a memorial to the 32 students slain in the Virginia Tech massacre. Once more, state senators proved more beholden to the gun lobby’s propaganda and campaign money than to public safety.”
So, because Virginia’s lawmakers do not agree with the Times’ seize-the-guns ideology they are “callous.” And now, this latest little dig: Those crazy Virginians want to let law-abiding citizens carry weapons! No wonder a maniac shot up the Pentagon.
Virginians aren’t “callous” or crazy, of course, and the Times deserves to be called a few things itself. “Left wing” would be a good start, followed by “hopelessly biased.” That is why it publishes ridiculous editorials, and why it permits reporters to editorialize about subjects they know nothing about.
Of course, the Times is perfectly within its rights to editorialize about guns in Virginia. It can permit reporters to editorialize by inserting slickly worded anti-gun propaganda into their stories. But they shouldn’t call the latter news.
And maybe the Times should holster its rhetorical revolver. Virginians who actually know something about guns and crime can debate the issue without its help.
http://www.dailynews-record.com/opinion_details.php?AID=45309&CHID=36
Good. Car carry restrictions are ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteVA's laws regarding guns in places that serve alcohol were just dumb. Having to unconceal if I happen to walk into an establishment that serves alcohol. The law made no sense. It needed to be changed to be more like the rest of the country.
2/3'rds of the small pizza shops around here serve alcohol. Laws requiring me to constantly conceal & unconceal serve NO legitimate purpose.
AztecRed cleared it all up with this: "You still won't be allowed to drink."
ReplyDeleteWho goes into a bar and doesn't drink? What the hell good is something like that?
Who goes into a bar and doesn't drink? What the hell good is something like that?
ReplyDeleteyou are swallowing the media slant. This bill is for restaurants. Plenty of people go into a restaurant without drinking.
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteWho goes into a bar and doesn't drink? What the hell good is something like that?
Designated drivers. Now, I suppose one can assume the role of designated driver/security.
As has been pointed out, though, the only change in the law is that now, the gun won't have to be worn openly--you know, open carry--which has Helmke's pretty, pink panties in a bunch, will no longer be mandated. The Brady Campaign should be thrilled.
It's not "guns in bars" it's "guns in places that serve alcohol"
ReplyDeleteAround here that's at least 2/3rds of the places I go out to eat.
Just because a place serves alcohol doesn't mean you have to be drinking. Hell, I did it today. Carried & ate pizza while sitting at the bar with a coke.
Also, ever heard of a Designated Driver?
Mike W., You're right, I forgot about the eating places that serve alcohol. I was thinking only of bars when I said what's the point of going there.
ReplyDeleteI guess it gets back to what percentage of you guys is trustworthy and responsible. I've been using 90% as a ball park figure, which is not good enough.
I guess it gets back to what percentage of you guys is trustworthy and responsible. I've been using 90% as a ball park figure, which is not good enough.
ReplyDeleteHow many incidents of concealed carry patrons shooting up the place have happened since the law went into effect? You're right about your 90% figure not being correct. It would appear that it is much closer to 100%.