What's your opinion? How does it work in other states with lax gun laws? Are folks permitted to carry concealed at sporting events in say Florida or Arizona?Fortunately, Lambeau Field officials will have ample time to interpret the law for the new Wisconsin concealed gun law that should be passed this October. Green Bay police aren't aware of how the law impacts their ability to prevent fans from entering the stadium with a handgun.
The NFL prohibits fans from carrying guns into any stadium. However, they could be prohibited from enforcing their own policy on Lambeau Field. The NFL doesn't own the stadium, therefore can't impose their anti-gun policy. Pat Webb, the stadium's executive director, stated, "I don't know enough about Wisconsin's specific law to know if the stadiums are exempt or not or can be exempt."
I wouldn't be comfortable with people carrying guns in an environment of 50,000 people or greater. Post-game driving is hardly safe with the alcohol that's consumed at these sporting events. It only takes one person to create a chaotic scene. I'd be worried about someone trying to pry the gun away from the holder. Some people make irrational decisions when angered. That irrationality is magnified under intoxication.
I would think the fanaticism of some sports fans is even worse when mixed with guns than your general bar and drinking environment. At huge sporting events some of those sports nuts might also be CCW permit holders and some of them might decide to drink a few beers, you know, bad-rules-be-damned and all that.
What do you think? Good idea or bad idea?
Please leave a comment.
Obviously it has not been a problem in other states.
ReplyDeleteWhy on earth do they allow 50,000 drunk people to drive home? Who thought it was such a good idea to provide so much alcohol and parking in one place?
ReplyDeleteWho thought it was such a good idea to provide so much alcohol and parking in one place?
ReplyDeleteJuly 3, 2011 6:31 PM
The people who own the moneymaking teams. No booze at the stadium lowers attendance.
Gunzloonz who think being strapped in a crowd of partisan sports fans who might get a little crazy (Hello, Vancouver!) after their heroes lose is a good idea are not the ONLY morons out there.
"Post-game driving is hardly safe with the alcohol that's consumed at these sporting events."
ReplyDeleteI thought this was the most telling quote of the article. Don't the police prevent this rampant illegal activity?
So, you guys want to add guns to the mix? That sounds self-defeating to me.
ReplyDeleteMike - if rampant drunk driving is not being stopped despite it being illegal, what makes you think that guns are not already in the crowd?
ReplyDeleteJim said...
ReplyDelete"Post-game driving is hardly safe with the alcohol that's consumed at these sporting events."
I thought this was the most telling quote of the article. Don't the police prevent this rampant illegal activity?
So, your solution Jim is to have no legislation, regulation / enforcement of either prohibitions on drunk driving or drunken firearm activity?
Perhaps you are on to something, perhaps what we need are the gun-equivalent of the dram shop laws where those who sell guns are liable if those guns are used to harm someone, the way that the provider of alcohol is liable for damages if they serve someone who then has an alcohol related vehicle accident.
Wow, I bet that like risking losing their liquor license if they sell alcohol to a minor, or sell alcohol to someone already drunk were in place for gun sales, that we'd be seeing those who sell firearms being a lot more careful who got them, and caring a lot more about what happened after the firearms were sold.
FYI, Green Bay and the Packers have a very pro-active effort to avoid drunk driving, and to very vigorously control their alcohol sales so as to not serve anyone they shouldn't.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't find specific statistics for drunk driving in connection with the Green Bay Packers, but I did find they have sobriety checkpoints, which is associated with reducing drunk driving incidents by 20%. The sobriet checkpoints, also called DUI checkpoints in some of what I read, has been determined to be constitutional, and is in fact encouraged by the SCOTUS.
Gee, I wonder if our 2nd Amendment fans would endorse something like that for carrying firearms?
Jim, This is why I hate car comparisons. Drunk driving is being stopped because of its being illegal. If it weren't against the law, do you really think there'd be exactly the same amount of it?
ReplyDeletemike - it is not being stopped or there would be no arrests for drunk driving.
ReplyDeleteAn estimated 1.2 million adults aged 21 or older (0.6 percent of drivers in that age group) were arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol or illicit drugs during the past year.
http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k5/DUIarrests/DUIarrests.htm
I can see why you hate car comparisons... it goes to show that while you may make something illegal it does not prevent that from happening. The criminals will continue to do what they want be it drunk driving or carrying a gun. When it comes to the gun, the laws end up putting the law abiding citizen at a tremendous disadvantage when confronted by an armed criminal.
Jim, Nobody's talking about eradicating the illegal activity 100%. No one expects that. But, if not for the laws against drunk driving, don't you think the incidents of it would be higher, maybe a lot higher?
ReplyDelete