Defending restaurant carry... - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: Defending restaurant carry...

  1. Defending restaurant carry...

    Gary Kleck is my new pro-gun spokesperson! Dude can make a good, calm, sensible argument!

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Greenville SC
    Posts
    1,086
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    Gary Kleck is my new pro-gun spokesperson! Dude can make a good, calm, sensible argument!
    What argument did he make?

    Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2
    Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by kerb View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    Gary Kleck is my new pro-gun spokesperson! Dude can make a good, calm, sensible argument!
    What argument did he make?

    Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2
    About restaurant carry? None that I know of. About gun rights in general? Tons! He has one good video about his reasoning behind students being able to carry.

  5. Defending restaurant carry...

    Am I wrong is assuming that under this bill it is illegal to carry in a bar? Their entire business is for the service and consumption of alcohol. If they weren't they would be considered a restaurant. So it seems like all these articles saying it will allow CWP holders to carry in restaurants AND bars is false.

  6. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    Am I wrong is assuming that under this bill it is illegal to carry in a bar? Their entire business is for the service and consumption of alcohol. If they weren't they would be considered a restaurant. So it seems like all these articles saying it will allow CWP holders to carry in restaurants AND bars is false.
    There is a single license authorizing the sale and consumption of alcoholic liquors by the drink, whether you do it in Applebee's or in a gentlemens club.

    So, the stories are wrong because there are no bars, at least as far as liquor licenses go. I'm sure there are other regulations regarding a food service permit, etc. This is the primary reason that some insisted on putting a time restriction in the bill. There is no way to differentiate between Chipotle and The Titty Twister.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by John Canuck View Post
    There is a single license authorizing the sale and consumption of alcoholic liquors by the drink, whether you do it in Applebee's or in a gentlemens club.

    So, the stories are wrong because there are no bars, at least as far as liquor licenses go. I'm sure there are other regulations regarding a food service permit, etc. This is the primary reason that some insisted on putting a time restriction in the bill. There is no way to differentiate between Chipotle and The Titty Twister.
    I talked to the girl who wrote the article and basically told her that her wording of bars is creating a lot of animosity towards the bill because of the way she refers to bars. I basically told her what you just had said (I went ahead and called her before I had a chance to read this). I told her that her statements are false for 2 reasons: 1)because technically there is no such thing as a "bar" (when comparing to a restaurant) in SC and 2) it does not allow anyone to carry in the section of the business primarily devoted to the consumption of alcohol. So if a place were to be considered a "bar", then it would be entirely devoted to the consumption of alcohol therefore deeming it an off-limits establishment.

    Here is a question that I would have though. There is a place called TD's in downtown Clemson. It is a "restaurant" that has a bar, but after 10-o-clock they stop serving food and the only way you're allowed in is if you're 21, and they stay open until 2am serving drinks. So after 10pm, would this place be considered a bar? Because all they do after that time is serve alcohol. Would that place be entirely off limits after 10pm? Because they do have pool tables. So would the area with pool tables be considered an area primarily devoted to the consumption of alcohol or no? What if I was there just playing pool and didn't intend on drinking?

    I'm like you in that I like the bill but I think there is too much vagueness and it's completely unnecessary because it only stems from trying to create regulations that are meant to keep people from doing things which might TEMPT them to drink. They are trying to keep people out of the bar area because there might be that temptation to drink while you're there. Well if you're going to restrict people from doing something that isn't illegal or wrong in and of itself, but might "encourage" or "tempt" illegal activity, then you should probably ban people from going into a bank because they might be tempted to rob it.

  8. #17
    The law refers to "a business which sells alcoholic liquor, beer, or wine for consumption on the premises" so it doesn't matter if they serve food, or not.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by John Canuck View Post
    The law refers to "a business which sells alcoholic liquor, beer, or wine for consumption on the premises" so it doesn't matter if they serve food, or not.
    I know that. But what I'm asking is, where the "shall not enter and remain on any portion of the business' premises primarily devoted to the service and consumption of alcoholic liquor, beer, or wine." section is concerned...what happens when the business suddenly stops serving food at a certain time? Suddenly the "primary service" has changed at that point in time. If you were sitting at a table eating prior to 10pm, the primary service was food related. After 10pm, sitting at that same table would have to be deemed primarily alcohol related since food is no longer served.

  10. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sepra Peratus/Arkansas
    Posts
    1,638
    Quote Originally Posted by kerb View Post
    What argument did he make?

    Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2
    Among Gary Kleck’s findings:

    • For every use of a gun to commit a crime, there are three-to-four cases of guns being used in self-defense of a crime.
    • Assault and robbery rates are lower when victims are armed with a gun.
    • A gun is used in self-defense to protect its owner from crime 2.5 million times per year, an average of once every 13 seconds.
    • Fifteen percent of the gun defenders interviewed believed someone would have died if they had not been armed. If true, that’s an average of one life saved due to firearm self-defense every 1.3 minutes.
    • In nearly 75% of the cases, the victim did not know his attackers. In nearly 50% of the cases, he faced at least two attackers and in nearly 25% of the cases, there were three or more attackers. A quarter of the incidents of self-defense occurred away from the home.
    • Results of Kleck’s Findings
      Kleck’s National Self-Defense Survey findings provided a strong argument for concealed carry laws and keeping guns in the home for self-defense purposes. It also provided a counter argument to other surveys at the time which claimed that keeping guns for the purpose of self-defense was inadvisable due to their overall danger to the gun owner and his family members.
      Marvin Wolfgang, a noted criminologist who was on record favoring a ban on all firearms, even those carried by law enforcement officers, was quoted as saying that the Kleck survey was nearly foolproof, saying: “What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator…I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology.”
    • Dr. Gary Kleck - The Criminologist Whose Self-Defense Research Destroyed Gun Control Arguments
    ~Responsible people who understand that their personal protection is up to them, provide themselves with protection. Those that don't have only themselves to blame.~Proud NRA ~SAF~GoA Member~

  11. #20
    Your concern is valid and I don't know the answer.

    In your example, does the entire inside of the building become a "portion of the business' premises primarily devoted to the service and consumption of alcoholic liquor, beer, or wine." Good question.

    I hope folks can see how many problems there are with this language. If this gets passed, it will need to get cleaned up at some point.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast