Actually, it’s 41 now
Nate Rau says he brings the truth about the claim that 40 states do not prohibit guns where alcohol is served:
Based on extensive legal research conducted by Nashville attorney David Randolph Smith of the local firm Smith and Schmidt, the actual figure is nearly the inverse.
I’d love to see the research because my extensive research (which consists of googling) confirms 41. I scanned a few states for relative statutes and for those I checked, that source was right. Generally, criminal codes are written to prohibit something. He is correct that Tennessee law is unusual in that it explicitly allows carry instead of just not prohibiting it. I would have thought the solution would have just been repeal of existing law, which most states have done. As to the research:
There ARE 37 states according to Smith that have laws mandating the issuance of concealed weapons permits. But of those 37 states, 27 explicitly prohibit guns in places where alcohol is served.
In fact, there are only 15 states in the country which have circumstances remotely similar to the one Tennessee will be in on July 14 when the law goes into effect. Those states issue concealed weapons permits, but do not explicitly ban guns in places serving alcohol. They also preempt local governments from regulating firearms.
In effect, a person with a handgun in a bar in any of those 15 states is not committing a criminal act. But Tennessee’s new law goes one step further than that. It is the first state in the entire country to expressly allow handguns in places that serve alcohol.
I’d love to see this alleged extensive legal research. Because it is not consistent with anything I have read on the issue. I wonder if it’s because of how states define bars and carry. For example, in Texas, you cannot carry in a place where half the revenue comes from alcohol sales. But going strapped in Applebee’s is OK. Another example is Virginia, where it is unlawful to carry a concealed firearm where alcohol is served. But you can carry one one if you do not conceal it. I wonder which column those two states show up in.
Anyway, the extensive legal research sounds made up to me. Or at least heavily spun.
But I’d love to see it.
Update: Email sent to Mr. Smith:
I read the bit at the City Paper on your research. I would love to see it. May I get copy?
Regards
June 18th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Alcohol service in Oregon in now way prohibits carrying in that premises. I go to restaurants, bars, nightclubs (can’t grind though), strip clubs (no lap dances), and brew pubs with impunity.
June 18th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Count of times I’ve shot someone there: 0
Count of anyone knowning I’m packing: 0
Count of premises I’ve been packing in and had a beer: 1000+
June 18th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Of course the attorney who did the “research” also seems to believe the “gun possession = gun violence” idiocy:
“The ultimate victory, if it would ever happen, would be for the court to recognize a constitutional right to be free from gun violence, public or private,” Smith said.
Somehow, I get the feeling his “research” results are just a teeny bit biased.
June 18th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Yeah, and I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for that “research”, either.
June 18th, 2009 at 11:05 am
“The ultimate victory, if it would ever happen, would be for the court to recognize a constitutional right to be free from gun violence, public or private,” Smith said.
I think that would be covered by the 9th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Also covered by statute in most (all?) states.
Still, anybody who believes “gun possession = gun violence” _is_ an idiot.
June 18th, 2009 at 11:20 am
“The ultimate victory, if it would ever happen, would be for the court to recognize a constitutional right to be free from gun violence, public or private,” Smith said.
But hammer violence… I guess there’s jsut no right to be free from that.
June 18th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Well, Unc, I bet I know how he is getting this result. He looked for laws prohibiting firearms in bars. There is no such thing here in TN as a legal matter. In order to serve liquor or wine, you must be a restaurant. You must make 51% of your revenue from food, be open at least 5 days, and have a real kitchen. If you do not, you cannot serve. You can serve beer without being a restaurant, but under the new law you cannot carry there.
I have only looked at the laws that pertain to restaurants that serve alcohol, not bars, in other states, and there are 41 that currently allow carry. I would suspect that many of those states have ‘bars’ defines under law and prohibit carry there.
I think that this lawyer is knowingly using deceptive language to confuse the issue.
Regards,
Pol
June 18th, 2009 at 11:28 am
So what if he is correct, or close to correct, or even half correct? The fundamental point is that he is arguing that law abiding persons will become crazed killers when they wipe their feet on the mat inside a restaurant door, when they were nice, normal people just a few feet outside the restaurant. This is the insane part of his argument. It should be emphasized that he is making an insane argument.
Has any state that allows carry into either restaurants where alcohol is served, or into bars, or allows carrying licensees to drink (Florida, I believe) experienced a problem with it? Not that the anti-gun folks could find, or I think it would have been publicized.
Illogical (insane) arguments are not supported by data not related to the insane part of the argument.
June 18th, 2009 at 11:29 am
The problem with the analysis Rau cites is that the analysis in no way matches the premise. Here’s the first paragraph of Rau’s article:
“So, do 37 other states have laws similar to the one Tennessee’s legislature passed this month allowing guns in establishments that serve alcohol?”
The analysis he cites only considers states that have shall-issue concealed carry permits.
Here’s why the analysis fails. There are states (like California) that are may-issue but that allow guns to be conceal carried in restaurants that serve alcohol. Likewise, there are states (like Montana) that allow guns in restaurants that serve alcohol if the guns are carried openly, rather than concealed.
Lau totally blew it.
June 18th, 2009 at 11:53 am
For the cynics who say he’ll never get the research, I wouldn’t be so quick to judge. In my experience, alternative papers are the most demanding when it comes to having the information backed up. Based on what I’m reading here, it looks like it might be accurate, but not appropriate for the argument. That’s a different battle.
When I have written and submitted op-eds for alternative papers, I usually have to send tons of background information because they don’t take much on face value. (It’s rather refreshing even though most PR people would consider it a waste of time.) When I’ve done interviews with alternative paper reporters, I found they went and researched almost every source I gave them for more facts. In all honesty, I believe you get a more fair shake from the average alt weekly reporter than you do from MSM reporters. Sometimes they get it wrong, but I’ve found it’s usually based on interpretation or misunderstanding. From the sounds of the people who looked into it, it would seem the error might fall into one of these areas. But good for Uncle for having a little faith to make the request.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
In Bitter’s more sensitive words, the accuracy of his data is “not appropriate for the argument.” The anti-rights side of the argument is using BS to argue. The BS is: large numbers of law-abiding persons will break the law while carrying in a restaurant, by drinking to the point that they become trigger happy buffoons. That is an insane argument.
It is very silly to have to argue details of the type of paint used, when the big picture shows only a unicorn, and the subject under discussion is not unicorns, but horses. And the picture is not just a unicorn, but one with zebra stripes and feathered wings, ridden by drunken gun wielding licensees.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Missouri law allows carry in places that serve alcohol – no problems reported.
*Bars* – less than 51% of revenue from non-boozed sales are also allowed with permission from the owner / manager. Once again, no problems.