Is the Tennessee Legislature on acid?

NM just passed a similar law… they way they ‘defended’ passing it was because it was only at place that serve beer and wine, no hard liquor…. hahaha as if that make a difference!

I said we will just have to wait for one of our State Reps to ‘accidentally feel the repercussions of their decision!’ (i.e. someone is gunne be drunk and shoot them, woops!)

No, I think you’re right, they are on acid. What the hell are they thinking? Now every bar room brawl and bar parking lot altercation has a reasonable chance of turning into a gun fight. If only all the idiots would just shoot each other. But thanks for the heads up, though. I’m staying out of the bars in Tennessee.

The old west actually had less violent crime than Chicago or NYC in the same era. I doubt this law will increase the homicide rate. It makes it legal for the guy to go into a C store that also sells beer to pay for his gas.

I agree that alcohol should not be consumed while armed. But saying that everyone that takes a gun into a bar is gonna get drunk and shoot up the place is paranoid.

Look, people who wanted to be armed and didn’t care about the law against concealed carry… were already armed. Those are the people who hold up liquor stores, bars and convenience stores. This merely puts law-abiding people on the same footing.

I hardly see what’s wrong with that.

The issues of people controlling their inebriation and being responsible for their actions (both in driving and in handling firearms) are separate from the right of self defense.

It is appalling.

I think this is putting a monkey with matches in a room full of gunpowder.

I can’t say enforcing gun control laws or creating new ones would work though considering how passionate people get about guns (Charlton Heston’s cold-dead hands not withstanding) but I though of how to get around that and figured if you could make the cost of ammunition prohibitive… say, $800.00 Dlls per bullet, people would be less likely to waste them or to purchase them at all. If you got pissed (figuratively and literally) enough to want to shoot somebody… wouldn’t having to shell out 800 bucks per bullet (taking into account you might miss with a couple of shots) make you think twice?

I find that the responsibility that goes with being lawfully armed has a moderating effect on my behavior, even when drinking. Previously, the only armed drinkers were those carrying illegally, this just evens things up for the good guys and gals. I don’t drink much in public places anymore, but I want my weapon at hand in situations where I’m most apt to need it.

@stranger_in_a_strange_land but if you are intoxicated, who says you would be able to use that weapon effectively? what if you aimed, missed and hit an innocent someone?

places like apple bees and chilis and other family restaurants serve alcohol. young kids could be around.

@alive At bar room ranges (a few meters at most), I can make K-zone hits in my sleep. I’m never so intoxicated in public that I can’t control my weapon. Off-duty cops have been carrying in bars for centuries, and I’m a better marksman than the vast majority of them. I’m not going to do anything an off-duty cop wouldn’t do.

@stranger_in_a_strange_land so says sober you… i’m not trying to insult your character at all. i am just saying alcohol impairs everbody’s judgment

@alive It sure does, reaction time as well. That’s why I don’t get drunk in public.

Like i stated in my question, my main concern is the availability of a weapon on a persons body. intoxicated people sometimes are not in control of their faculties, when drunk. drunk drivers are a classic example. the alcohol interfered with their rational and defensive driving. the same would apply to an intoxicated person in a bar. i have seen too many incidents outside of bars, involving drunks and weapons. its bad enough outside the bar. it should be kept that way. as you can tell i am strongly against this new law as well as most police officers. it reaks of nothing but trouble.

@john65pennington look at it this way, then.

We already know that there are irresponsible gun owners in society. That is, they carry when they shouldn’t, either because of prior convictions that specifically prohibit that, or they have bad intent (to rob, assault or threaten, for example), or they simply flout laws that say (prior to this one) that they may not carry just because it’s not permitted. Those people are going to do their bad acts regardless of what the law says. Responsible gun owners like @stranger_in_a_strange_land tend to obey the law. And if they’re in places where being armed is illegal, then more often than not they’ll be unarmed. How does that make sense?

If some of those irresponsible people actually commit bad acts with their weapons, whether sober or not, what can an unarmed person or group do against them? Not much, as a rule. Call the cops? Sure, I suppose. And then wait and hope that something can be done effectively and in time. Maybe.

When I go to bars (infrequently) most of the people there are well-behaved… and not drunk, either. If I knew that most of the people there were also armed (or could be), then I’m going to evaluate the crowd. If it’s the type of people that I normally associate with anyway, then I’m not going to worry much, whether I’m armed or not. If anything happens that shouldn’t: a drunk starts threatening or waving a gun around, or a robber tries to take the till, I suspect that the responsible, sober and armed people there would make short work of that.

And I wouldn’t be armed myself unless I went the way @stranger_in_a_strange_land says that he does: armed and trained effectively, and always responsible for my own conduct and handling of the weapon. I expect that most people are responsible until proven otherwise. That’s the whole underpinning of our entire republic, not just the Second Amendment.

Wasp, excellent answer. i guess i see this law in a different perspective, simply because of being a police officer for so many years. lets face it, not all the people that associate with bars, are good people. safety for the good people is foremost. can you imagine someone pulling and firing a weapon inside a bar? a Glock 40 has the power to stike not just one person, but many when fired just one time. and, it will happen. no matter how you cut it, alcohol and guns do not mix, just like alcohol and driving an automobile. i expect many lawsuits against Tennessee, if this occurs.

@CyanoticWasp i do see your point, but i also think that is sort of a “best case scenario.”

responsible gun owners aren’t really the type to just carry a gun into a bar, because responsible gun owners know as @john65pennington put it, “no matter how you cut it, alcohol and guns do not mix.”

plus just because one drunk dude has a gun, starting a gun fight to “stop” him is probably more dangerous than him just having a gun.

before the law (at least in my state) a person could be charged with a felony for carrying one into a place that serves alcohol, now it is just totally legal. i totally disagree with the law. the law is meant to protect people, this is just opening up the door for more dangerous behavior.

I am very pro gun ownership (having been shot while defenseless by law). But I have to say gambling, alcohol and guns never mix well. What is their motive. Follow the bribe money and that will reveal the agenda for such stupidity. Someones being paid somewhere.

They made you check your gun before entering in the old Westerns. I think that it is pretty strange for a state to say that you cannot drive while drunk but it is o.k. to be armed. There is very little sanity left in the right wing. It just proves that listening to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh will rot your brain. I suspect listening to right wing radio is more damaging to brain cells than drinking alcohol.

@alive I still disagree. I know—we all know—that irresponsible people abound. But that shouldn’t be our model. I don’t get drunk and out of control at any time, so it wouldn’t really matter whether I were armed or not. Except for the fact that I don’t own a handgun and haven’t been trained in effective use and care—don’t care to assume that responsibility, that is—I wouldn’t have a problem with being required to be armed.

Insanity at it’s finest.

Talk about a smoking gun, both alcohol and firearms are lethal in their own right, mix the two for those that already have serious emotional/mental health issues and it’s an accident just waiting to happen.

I live in a rural mountain community and have many bad experiences with alcohol and firearms.

I have had a drunk neighbor drop tree limbs over my head taking pot shots at wildlife with a high powered rifle, I have been shot at by a drunk bow hunter that thought my horse was a deer while riding in the woods. I have a friend whose horse was shot in the neck while riding by a drunk hunter and I have had the wonderful experience of having to turn away 3 drunken hunters from chasing a deer onto my property and their very aggressive and verbally assaulting behavior when I told them that no, they could not follow the animal onto my property.

Insane.

I see that a number of people support the law because they and the people they know are responsible gun owners. The real issue is that if a person is in a bar and starts threatening people or tries to robe the place, there is likely to be a gun fight. Now we have responsible but slightly drunk people trying to protect others shooting at a really bad person. I don’t see a happy outcome under any circumstances. @john65pennington is right guns, like automobiles, do not mix with alcohol.

Not a good idea. I would like to read the pro arguments that led to this decision. Even in Florida, which has one of the most liberal gun laws in the US—the Stand Your Ground Law—taking a gun into an establishment that serves alcohol is the quickest way to lose both your gun, your concealed weapon carrying permit and probably your freedom. Without the CWP, you will go down twice as hard.