The hypocrisy of the anti-gun movement

The hypocrisy of the anti-gun movement

http://www.examiner.com/article/bloomberg-group-used-heroin-abusing-actor-hoffman-anti-gun-video

If you listen to Bloomberg, Pelosi, Giffords and other anti-gun superstars out there the sure fire way to end so called “gun” violence is to ban guns. Take them away. Make them illegal to own. They’ve even produced commercials using some of the biggest names in Hollywood to push their cause. It’s interesting to see, that the people they use to push their agenda on the public prove that just because you make something illegal, that it means it’s use or abuse is going to end.

Laws concerning the use of drugs started showing up in 1935 (if you don’t count alcohol as a drug) when President Roosevelt hails the International Opium Convention and application of it in US. law and other anti-drug laws in a radio message to the nation. By 1970 the manufacture, importation, possession, use and distribution of certain substances was regulated and the Controlled Substances Act was passed by Congress.

So for the past 43 years, manufacture, importation, possession and use of heroine, cocaine, LSD, and other opiates has been illegal. What has that ban done? Well according to the National Institute of Drug Abuse, those bans and laws have pretty much done nothing. A 2010 study shows that 22 million Americans still use illegal drugs. At least $181 Billion a year is spent on enforcement, heath care, incarceration and productivity loss due to illegal drugs.

I’m not even going to talk about the fact that the illegal drug trade is responsible for a large percentage of the violent crime, the so called “gun” violence. But it’s pretty obvious that bans and more laws will not do a thing for any crime.

Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should….. OC causes chain to ask customers to leave guns behind

Over the past few years Starbucks has become sort of the retail symbol of Second Amendment rights. The first “Starbucks Appreciation Day” was formed in response to a planned boycott by anti-gun groups because the American coffee chain allowed, were legal, open carry of firearms in their stores. Tens of thousands of faithful gun owners marched into local shops with a handful of two-dollar bills and their sidearms and the “I love guns and coffee” movement was born. But the movement was supposed to show our support to a business that allowed us to exercise our rights, not shove a company into the spotlight with negative press.

The first year of the “Starbucks Appreciation Day” the employees didn’t even realize what was going on. I asked if they knew about the event, and they said that they wondered why everyone was paying with $2 bills but never noticed the guns.

Even with much protest from the gun-haters, Starbucks took a stance I considered neutral, their policy reflected local and state law. I can’t imagine how much increase in business the “I love guns and coffee” movement has translated into for the company, but no profits can compensate for piss-poor behavior and plain stupidity shown by some in a certain faction of the gun-rights movement.

Our company’s longstanding approach to “open carry” has been to follow local laws: we permit it in states where allowed and we prohibit it in states where these laws don’t exist. We have chosen this approach because we believe our store partners should not be put in the uncomfortable position of requiring customers to disarm or leave our stores. We believe that gun policy should be addressed by government and law enforcement—not by Starbucks and our store partners.

Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening.

This is from an open letter addressed to Fellow Americans, by Howard Shultz, Starbucks chairman, president and chief executive officer. Obviously, while the great many of us went into our local shops with our “I love guns” patches on our hats and our two-dollar bills, and discreetly  showed our thanks to a business, some decided that it would be a great idea to walk into a coffee shop filled with soccer moms and college students obnoxiously open carrying not only sidearms, but long guns as well. Again JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN, DOESN’T MEAN YOU SHOULD.

Friends that know me ( and some people have decided not to be my friend because of my stance) know that I’m not a big fan of OC. I’m not going to get into tactics or even politics of my reasons. I’ve tried to be supportive because I believe that as gun-owners, we need to stand together to keep our right. But more and more, I see actions by open carry activists that are not only rude and unnecessary, but downright damaging to our cause of protecting the Second Amendment. You are not doing us (Americans who value our rights) any favors or promoting our cause by getting into confrontations with law enforcement officers just so you can play internet attorney on YouTube.  You are not educating the public, or making people feel more at ease around guns (love when I hear that line) while you are walking through Walmart with your SKS hanging over your back. You are creating fear. You are causing more citizens to support more gun laws. And you WILL be the cause of more restrictions of our rights.

To Starbucks, I offer my sincere apologies for the actions of a few who are putting you in this situation. I will continue to patronize our local stores and, as always, no one will know whether I am armed or not. I ask my fellow gun-owners to do the same. Don’t stop patronizing Starbucks because they were forced to make this decision.

Posted by Howard Schultz, Starbucks chairman, president and chief executive officer

Dear Fellow Americans,

Few topics in America generate a more polarized and emotional debate than guns. In recent months, Starbucks stores and our partners (employees) who work in our stores have been thrust unwillingly into the middle of this debate. That’s why I am writing today with a respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas.

From the beginning, our vision at Starbucks has been to create a “third place” between home and work where people can come together to enjoy the peace and pleasure of coffee and community. Our values have always centered on building community rather than dividing people, and our stores exist to give every customer a safe and comfortable respite from the concerns of daily life.

We appreciate that there is a highly sensitive balance of rights and responsibilities surrounding America’s gun laws, and we recognize the deep passion for and against the “open carry” laws adopted by many states. (In the United States, “open carry” is the term used for openly carrying a firearm in public.) For years we have listened carefully to input from our customers, partners, community leaders and voices on both sides of this complicated, highly charged issue.

Our company’s longstanding approach to “open carry” has been to follow local laws: we permit it in states where allowed and we prohibit it in states where these laws don’t exist. We have chosen this approach because we believe our store partners should not be put in the uncomfortable position of requiring customers to disarm or leave our stores. We believe that gun policy should be addressed by government and law enforcement—not by Starbucks and our store partners.

Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening. Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called “Starbucks Appreciation Days” that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of “open carry.” To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners.

For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.

I would like to clarify two points. First, this is a request and not an outright ban. Why? Because we want to give responsible gun owners the chance to respect our request—and also because enforcing a ban would potentially require our partners to confront armed customers, and that is not a role I am comfortable asking Starbucks partners to take on. Second, we know we cannot satisfy everyone. For those who oppose “open carry,” we believe the legislative and policy-making process is the proper arena for this debate, not our stores. For those who champion “open carry,” please respect that Starbucks stores are places where everyone should feel relaxed and comfortable. The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers.

I am proud of our country and our heritage of civil discourse and debate. It is in this spirit that we make today’s request. Whatever your view, I encourage you to be responsible and respectful of each other as citizens and neighbors.

Sincerely,

Howard Schultz

Fighting to free Zach Witman

For fifteen years, Zach Witman has been serving a life sentence, without the chance of parole for the murder of his brother Greg. Today, Zach’s parents announced a $100,000 reward for information leading to the release of their son, and introduced the team they hope will turn this case around.

The Witman family and team holds a press conference Wednesday March 27, 2013.

For six years, I’ve been working with George Matheis, owner of Modern Combative Systems LLC, first as a photographer, then as a student. We’ve become close friends and I was not surprised in the least when I heard that George had been contacted by the Witman family to help with the case.

George has offered unique insight into the case, not only with his edged weapons expertise, but with his very pointed critique of the investigating police department. IF the Witman team can convince the District Attorney or the Supreme Court to hear the case on appeal, I believe there is a very good chance that Zach, now 29, will be a free man.

A few short weeks, and now the NRA was right.

A few weeks ago the Main Stream Media blasted the National Rifle Association for the recommendation of putting armed guards in every school. The idea was scorned, ridiculed and flat out laughed at by CNN, MSNBC, Piers Morgan and Joe Biden.

But quietly, at least in the national media’s view, schools around the country started reviewing their security and some schools, Texas and California come to mind, decided the idea was a good one.  In Atlanta this week, an armed guard disarmed and took into custody a young man who shot a fellow student.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/55742445-68/police-shooting-parents-students.html.csp

And yesterday it was announced, again very quietly, that the school district in Newtown CT, the site of the most recent mass shooting incident, has voted to have “two eyes and ears — one armed, one unarmed — at each Newtown school,’ reports Bronxville Patch’s Davis Dunavin.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/01/Newtown-Votes-To-Put-Armed-Guards-In-Schools

I know in many school districts, having a full-time school resource officer is a burden on the district budget. Having an armed officer at every school in the district would probably mean the loss of a teacher or staff member at each of the buildings.  While I applaud school boards for realizing that having armed guards is a good start to keeping our children safe, I question why our teachers, who have to undergo a State Police background check just to be employed, can’t be trusted to defend the students?

I know for a fact that there are more than a handful of teachers and administrators in our school district that have their License to Carry Firearms. For less than $200 per teacher (that was already licensed and chose to do so) a bio-metric gun safe could be installed in their classroom for their firearm to be secured. Teachers who volunteer could be provided with additional, low-cost training, and a policy could be developed for transportation of firearms to and from school to ensure that our children are never accidentally exposed to a gun in school or have access to them. Of course, the National Safe Schools Act (Gun Free School Zones) would have to be changed but I fully support our teachers who chose to legally arm and defend themselves.

We all knew it was coming…..

The wicked witch of the west finally dropped her big, bad gun ban bill on the Senate this week calling for an “assault weapons” ban.  Senator Feinstein (D-CA if anyone didn’t know) has been waiting for her 15 minutes of fame but I really think she is off the deep-end on this.

The highlights of Feinstein’s bill are as follows:

~ Ban the sale, transfer, importation or manufacturing of about 150 named firearms, plus certain rifles, handguns and shotguns fitted for detachable magazines and having at least one military characteristic.

~ Strengthen the 1994 ban by moving from a two- to a one-characteristic test to determine what constitutes an assault weapon.

~ Ban firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons.”

~ Ban the importation of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.

~ Ban high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

The bill would grandfather in weapons legally owned on the day of enactment and exempts over 900 specific weapons “used for hunting or sporting purposes.”

I’m assuming that the grandfathering clause would not cover high capacity magazines.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/01/23/feinstein-assault-weapons-ban/1856613/

We all knew it was coming. Hopefully, during the past month or so, we have been writing and calling our representatives in Washington, taking part in peaceful Second Amendment rallies and making our voices heard. I know we are doing it here in Pennsylvania. The sad tale of demise of the Eastern Sports and Outdoor show is proof that our passion to keep the Second Amendment is strong.

But why “assault weapons?”  The liberal paranoia over modern sporting rifles is an entirely emotional response to their fear. The facts PROVE without a shadow of doubt that modern sporting rifles are used in a very small percentage of homicides and other firearm related crimes. Even in Sen. Feinstein’s home state of California the statistics prove the such firearms just are not used in very many crimes (2011 report)

FBI statistics show that in 2011 there were just 323 homicides by rifles of all types (that is everything from a single shot 22 rifle to battle rifles), less deaths than by hammers. Here in PA, we had TWO murders last year with a rifle that falls into Feinstein’s ban list.

Mr. Obama and that goofy VP of his have said in the past few weeks that no one “needs” an AR-15 or AK-47 for self defense or hunting. But twice in so many weeks, responsible citizens of this country used ban-list firearms to defend not only their own lives, but the lives of their friends and siblings.

In Harris County Texas a 15 year old boy grabbed his fathers AR-15 to shoot at two men who tried to break into his family’s home. The boy feared for the safety of his sister and opened fire on the men, hitting one three times.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/09/15-Year-Old-Boy-Uses-AR-15-To-Defend-House-Against-Burglars

And just yesterday a RIT student came to the rescue when two intruders, one with a gun, confronted his roommate after they broke into the basement of their apartment. The student grabbed his AR-15 rifle and caused the would be robbers to flee before anyone was hurt.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/24/Student-Uses-AR-15-To-Stop-Home-Invasion

Of course we won’t see these kinds of news stories on CNN or NBC of splashed on the front pages of  USA Today.

Long story short, the Obama Administration and their supporters will continue their attack on our rights, but if I were a betting man, I’d say there is a snowball’s chance in Hell that Feinstein’s bill will ever make it off the Senate floor let alone to Congress where it will most surely die. Yea, there is still that list of 23 executive actions that Mr. Obama wants to unleash, and I have to admit, there are one or two that I support (dealing with mental health). His universal background checks would not be of issue to me IF the federal government actually was doing their job with the current gun laws. But since VP Biden admitted that the feds don’t “have time” to charge and prosecute every person who lies on their background check, what is the point of more?

I’m close with a humorous interview with VP Biden. I’d love to know where he, a liberal politician from upstate PA who has only ever fired a shotgun a few times and has 24/7 armed protection, came to be a subject matter expert on defensive firearms.

In an online Google+ discussion on gun violence, a blogger asked Biden how the rights of those who prepare for extreme emergencies aren’t being trampled on with his gun safety legislation. The vice president responded that shotguns would be the weapon of choice.

“Guess what? A shotgun will keep you a lot safer – a double-barrel shotgun – than the assault weapon somebody’s hands who doesn’t know how to use it,” Biden said. “You know, it’s harder to use an assault weapon and hit something than it is to use a shotgun, ok? So if you want to keep people away in an earthquake, buy some shotgun shells.”

http://www.newsmax.com/US/biden-shotguns-assault-weapons/2013/01/24/id/472878?s=al&promo_code=122D0-1

LMFAO!!!!

Second Amendment supporters gather at PA Capitol

Guns Across America Rally, Harrisburg PA, January 19, 2013

This is a resurrection, not only of my long-quiet blog, but of a call to arms, so to speak, as citizens of our country come together to use their First Amendment rights to protect the Second.

Everyone in this country is aware of the tragedies in Aurora, Colorado, and Sandy Hook, Connecticut. Those horrible acts of cowardly men have not only devastated families, but are tearing a seam between those who think that gun control is the solution and those who know that no gun control will keep a violent person from doing harm.

I’m not going to get into the whole debate over gun control. The country is pretty much divided into two camps now. There is the ban, ban, ban to save the children camp who base their entire agenda on emotional responses to an issue that is not about an inanimate object, but their own fears. The other is the group who, regardless of their portrayal in the media, is trying to use fact and reason to come up with true “common sense” solutions to the violence in our country.

Within hours of the last breaths of more than twenty children, the familiar anti-gun faces were on TV calling for more gun control. Within a day, the main stream media filled the airways with those same faces as they cried for a renewed ban on “assault weapons,” high-capacity magazines and semi-automatic weapons. We heard from one polished face after another about the high-powered assault rifle with 30 round “clips” and the dreaded pistol grip. And we heard from politicians who have been waiting, patiently I might add, for just such a tragedy.

All of that has past, and now our future gun rights are in the hands of a president who has long been a supporter of an assault weapons ban – and gun control in general, a Senate made up of a strong group of anti-gun democrats, and a Congress that may be the final line in the sand.

Guns Across America Rally, Harrisburg PA, January 19, 2013

Today, Saturday, January 19, 2013 was the first of what I believe will be many gatherings of like-minded individuals who came together to support our Second Amendment rights. Organized by Guns Across America and held in conjunction with events in almost every state capitol in the country, the rally drew more than 500 people from all walks of life – black and white, male and female, young and old – a mostly conservative crowd with a few gun-toting liberals in there too. One thing I noticed right away is that this was a family event. Parents brought their children, and those children weren’t just there to hold signs. I spoke to a few who “got it,” and knew that what happens now will affect their rights when they grow up.

Guns Across America Rally, Harrisburg PA, January 19, 2013

Several speakers took to the podium including a pastor, an NRA representative and others. Overall, the speakers were articulate and knew the facts concerning the current gun rights debate and gun control in general. There were a few things that bothered me, one being the use of the F-bomb a couple times by one of the speakers. (Did I mention there were lots of kids there?) The second was when the same speaker made a call for violence, and several people in the crowd yelled, “off with his head,” referring to the President. I cringed when I heard it, and I prayed that the local television stations weren’t rolling when it happened. Actions like these will be used by our opponents to further the idea that we are maniacs preparing for blood-letting.

Guns Across America Rally, Harrisburg PA, January 19, 2013

Aside from that awkward moment, the entire event was a peaceful, positive rally. One speaker asked who, aside from the dozen or so citizens openly armed, was carrying a firearm, and nearly 250 hands raised in the air. “I never felt safer,” he then said. There were a few people who, regardless of the request not to open-carry, decided to fully represent their Constitutional right and had their pistols openly displayed in hip holsters or thigh rigs. About a half-dozen decided to open-carry their rifles, and to my surprise, the vast majority with AR-15’s slung over their shoulders were women. Contrary to what the paranoid anti-gunners would have you believe, none of the evil black rifles sprayed hundreds of bullets into the crowd, and the Capitol Police officers let them be. Honestly, I was happy to see the folks openly armed, as I know from experience that rallies like today’s are often targeted by anarchists. Thankfully there was only one lonely voice of discontent at the rally, and she shut her yap pretty quickly when everyone turned their backs and ignored her. Following the rally, hundreds of people lined up to sign  a petition to protect gun rights.

Guns Across America Rally, Harrisburg PA, January 19, 2013

Overall I’d say the rally was a great success. My only hope is that future speeches from the podium do not include foul language or a call for violence. Through all of this, we are trying to prove that the actions of a few do not represent the whole, so please, don’t say stupid things that misrepresent our cause. Now is a time for action, for calling and writing our elected officials. It is a time for making our voices heard that we will not stand for more laws, especially when the Vice President says that they don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute those breaking the current laws. The Vice President has suggested to President Obama that background checks need strengthened, yet only 60 or so people out of more than 80,000 individuals who failed a background check to purchase a firearm last year were investigated, and only twenty or so of those were prosecuted.

The politicians, with the help of the main-stream media, have convinced a portion of the public that the answer to the gun violence problem is to ban assault rifles and high-capacity magazines.  The facts, provided by the FBI, show the contrary – that more people were killed last year with hammers and knives than by rifles of any type. And if they truly wanted to use “common sense” to curb violence, they would see that the facts prove that gun-free zones only effect law-abiding citizens, and provide a safe killing zone for criminals. The fact is that gun ownership in this country has risen dramatically in the past decade, but violent crime has fallen, in every city except those with strict gun control. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that gun control doesn’t work.

Guns Across America Rally, Harrisburg PA, January 19, 2013

Report: 10 states sell half of imported crime guns

Report: 10 states sell half of imported crime guns

(AP) – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON — Nearly half of the guns that crossed state lines and were used in crimes in 2009 were sold in just 10 states, according to a report being released Monday by a mayors’ group.

Those states accounted for nearly 21,000 guns connected to crimes in other states, said the survey by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, an association of more than 500 mayors led by New York’s Michael Bloomberg and Boston’s Thomas Menino.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives traced more than 145,000 guns used in crimes in 2009 and found that more than 43,000 of those weapons were sold in other states.

Forty-nine percent of those guns were sold in Georgia, Florida, Virginia, Texas, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, California or Arizona.

States were also ranked by the number of crime guns exported per 100,000 inhabitants. Mississippi led that list, followed by West Virginia, Kentucky, Alaska, Alabama, South Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, Nevada and Georgia.

Those states, the report said, have more relaxed gun laws, suggesting that “criminals and gun traffickers may favor certain states as the sources of guns.”

For example, in states that do not require background checks for handgun sales at gun shows, the crime-gun export rate was two-and-a-half times as much as the rate in states that do require such checks.

___

Online:

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/

The accuracy of this “report” comes into question right away when you look at the source, what reporter in their right mind would use an anti-gun organization like “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” to base their information? And why does it seem that these ‘reports’ never have a by-line?

The first thing that struck me was that California was one of the states on the ’10’ list. How can a state with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country be one of the biggest suppliers of illegal guns?

The other tidbit of info left out is how many of the so-called imported guns were acquired by illegal means. And while all their numbers may look impressive, think about this. 43,000 guns were originally sold in outside states. Of that 21,000 (49%) were sold in one of ten states. That averages out to 2100 per state.

In 2009 almost 500,000 firearms were sold in Pennsylvania, so even if all 2100 guns that were used in crimes in other states came from PA in one year, that is less than 1/2 of 1%. If you consider that a good percentage of these firearms may have been originally sold in PA anytime since the 1938 Federal Firearms Act, that makes this report even more worthless.

All this report proves it that the anti-gun movement, and more importantly the Mayors Against Illegal Guns organization, continue to change or distort the facts to suit their purpose.

Open Carry customers deter armed robbery

Proof that more guns in public help defeat crime, not add to it.

From Examiner.com

Two customers displaying holstered pistols deterred an armed robbery in a Kennesaw Wafflehouse recently.
There is some debate raging in Georgia about whether people should conceal their holstered handguns while in public. Some believe that wearing handguns openly will result in a loss of the element of surprise during a criminal attack, such as an armed robbery, while others believe that wearing handguns openly deters criminal attack. For Matt Brannan and J.P. Mitchell, who carry openly as a routine, the issue is no longer academic.
Matt Brannan and J.P. Mitchell were dining in the Wafflehouse on Barrett Parkway at I-575 in Kennesaw at 4:45 in the morning recently when a scout for an armed robbery crew entered the restaurant to case it. At the time, Matt and J.P. thought he looked a little suspicious, as he was wandering around the small restaurant like he was looking for someone. Unknown to Matt and J.P., two cars full of armed robbers were parked behind the restaurant waiting for the scout’s report.
The scout saw that two of the customers were wearing holstered 1911 Springfield Mil-Spec .45 pistols, and he immediately turned and left the store.
Meanwhile, conscientious Cobb County Police Officer D. Lowe had noticed suspicious cars sitting behind the restaurant in the dark and decided to investigate. He caught men with masks and rifles who had been preparing to rob the Wafflehouse. The criminals informed the police that they had changed their mind upon discovering armed customers and were waiting for Matt and J.P. to leave. Ironically, the police car was pulling in to the parking lot just as Matt and J.P. were driving away. In other words, had Matt and J.P. not been armed, the robbery probably would have occurred before the police intervened.
Captain Jerry Quan, the Commander for Precinct One, where the Wafflehouse is located, confirmed Matt Brannan’s story as one in which the open display of a pistol deterred a well armed robbery crew.

http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlanta-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m2d18-Open-carry-deters-armed-robbery-in-Kennesaw

Why nobody invades Switzerland.

Low crime rate, 4% unemployment, mandatory military training for all men and government supplied assault rifles and ammunition. This is the lead our government should be taking from Europe.

Several States Ease Restrictions on Gun Laws

as reported on Fox News

In many states across the United States, it’s getting easier to carry a gun — and many say it’s the result of a campaign by the National Rifle Association.

A nationwide review by The Associated Press found that over the last two years, 24 states, mostly in the South and West, have passed 47 new laws loosening gun restrictions.

Among other things, legislatures have allowed firearms to be carried in cars, made it illegal to ask job candidates whether they own a gun, and expanded agreements that make permits to carry handguns in one state valid in another.

The trend is attributed in large part to a push by the NRA. The NRA, the leading gun-owners lobby in the U.S. which for years has blocked attempts in Washington to tighten firearms laws, has ramped up its efforts at the state level to chip away at gun restrictions.

“This is all a coordinated approach to respect that human, God-given right of self defense by law-abiding Americans,” says Chris W. Cox, the NRA’s chief lobbyist. “We’ll rest when all 50 states allow and respect the right of law-abiding people to defend themselves from criminal attack.”

read it all here:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/12/states-ease-restrictions-gun-laws/?test=latestnews?test=latestnews

While most gun owners, myself included, expected 2009 to be a bad year for gun rights, the exact opposite happened. Many states eased gun laws especially for people licensed to carry a concealed weapon. The NRA is to be credited with some of the triumphs but a lot of the thanks needs to go to everyday Joe’s who have made it clear that they want their Second Amendment rights restored, not degraded further.
One part of the restriction ease has taken part in places like Tennessee where licensed gun owners were, at least until a liberal judge got the case, allowed to patron establishments that serve alcohol. Many state have a restriction on carrying a firearm in a place that serves booze, thankfully PA isn’t one of them.
The anti-gun crowd has been trying to convince the country that allowing gun owners to carry their guns in bars would just lead to more violence. Funny thing considering we’ve been doing it all along here in PA and I can only recall one instance locally where a licensed gun owner drew his weapon in a bar and that was in defense of himself after a non-licensed (ie illegally carried) firearm owner drew a gun. We don’t have shoot-outs at Tailgaters and the Corner Stable, imagine that.
While I fully support our right to visit establishments that serve alcohol, we gun owners must be responsible in our actions while doing so. Yep, the law in PA says you can visit the bar with you six-shooter on your hip but that doesn’t mean that you should get totally shit-faced while you are there.
While I’m against most gun regulation, I personally wouldn’t have any problem with people loosing their License to Carry if found legally intoxicated while carrying. Sorry, but if you want to get drunk, leave your gun at home, or better yet, stay home and drink all you want. I don’t care how well you think you can handle your alcohol, at some point, your perception will be altered as will your common sense.
I’m sure there are those out there that will disagree with me on the idea of license revocation. Unfortunately, the actions of a few degrade the rights of many.
I hang out with guys that can put away a lot of booze and still be safe with their firearms, but none of us go out bar hopping while carrying a concealed (or otherwise) firearm. Does that mean I don’t enjoy a beer while carrying? Nope. I’ll have a beer (read that as a single beer) if out having dinner in a restaurant that serve. But as soon as that first drink is gone, I drink water or coffee.
My reasoning is this. If I leave the restaurant and have to use my weapon during a violent encounter, I don’t want to be even remotely under the influence when it happens. Not only because of the effect it could have on my actions and reactions, but, I’m guaranteed that if I shoot someone, no matter how justified I may be, their family is going to sue me. And if I just so happen to have had a drink before the event, that information is going to come out in court and the family’s lawyer is going to make me out to be a gun-toting, shoot first drunk.
Above all else, gun owners should strive to not make themselves an example for the anti-gun movement. People who have a LTCF should hold themselves to a higher standard because of the additional responsibility that we carry. Just my two cents.