By Joanie

December 14, 2010 12:00 PM | Link to this

I’ll be sure to avoid Applebee’s and O’Charley’s from now on. Guns and booze-what a stupid idea!

By Retired Sgt

December 14, 2010 12:12 PM | Link to this

OK, here is were I part company with my conservative friends. I am in agreement with concealed carry laws, HOWEVER, it is never a good idea to allow people to carry firearms into an establishment that serves alcohol. The Editorial makes a well reasoned argument against such situations with “what if an innocent person is injured as a result of someone improperly carrying/discharging a weapon in the stablishment. Now, keep in mind, EVEN if the law is passed allowing such carry, it is still the owners of the establishments right to prohibit the carry in their establishment, just as any other business. If the “Applebees etc” places a placard saying “No concealed carry on premises,” the CCW Permit holders can not carry in the bar, even though the law allows it, because the individual rights of the owners of the property trump the rights of the CCW permit holders. I guess the question is “If you feel you need to carry a gun in the bar you are going to, what does that say about the choice of bars you are frequenting?”

By Daytonite

December 14, 2010 12:37 PM | Link to this

The article said the law allows concealed weapons in a bar or restaurant when no alcohol is being consumed by the person carrying the weapon.

By Mike R

December 14, 2010 12:41 PM | Link to this

Why did the DDN take down all the other editorials/commentaries?? Is the new lady in charge reviewing past opinions and in so doing found that Martin and Ellen are so far out there they need to rewrite those columns and come back to mainstream America??

By zman

December 14, 2010 12:50 PM | Link to this

Currently there is a Baltimore cop on trial for murder after he drew his weapon and shot and killed another man. The officer was off duty and had been drinking…this is the second time this officer has been in an off duty shooting where he had been drinking. The most recent incident he unloaded his 13 shot clip and hit the man 12 of 13 times. Booze and guns dont mix people..its just a bad bad idea.

By Ironic

December 14, 2010 1:23 PM | Link to this

I find it ironic that the DDN allows comments on editorial opinions, yet removes all comments that replect a differing opinion or are critical of the editorial opinion. What happened to the previous 10 or so comments that disagree with the editorial?

By Rob

December 14, 2010 1:40 PM | Link to this

I whole heartedly agree…Guns and Alcohol really shouldn’t even be used in the same sentence… And yet, what’s to prevent the nut from doing just that? Personally, I see “No Weapons” stickers everywhere, even at my Church, of all places…and I know my buddies are carrying. Their thought…better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

By null

December 14, 2010 2:02 PM | Link to this

What part of responsible, law-abiding, trained, background investigated and licensed, registered and permitted by the state to carry is the issue? Those that take the time to get a CCW permit know they aren’t legally allowed to drink in any establishment while they carry. They’d just like to be able to defend themselves and their loved ones from the people who don’t follow the law. Establishments that choose to ban the law-abiding are figuratively shooting themselves in the foot.

By Retired Sgt

December 14, 2010 2:38 PM | Link to this

@Null: Your argument loses strength the minute you started. Licensed, trained, experienced, registered DRIVERS know that driving under the influence is against the law, yet how many do it? Licensed, trained, experienced, registered DEER HUNTERS know there is a limit on the amounts of deer bagged in one year, yet how many abuse it? 2 years ago, a young man, a CCW permit Holder, checked and licensed, carried a firearm into FRICKERS on Miller Lane. After having a drink and getting ready to leave, he grabbed his jacket and a gun fell out of his pocket and dicharged IN THE BAR. Fortunately, no one was injured. Less than a month after the CCW law was passed, a licensed, trained, background checked CCW Permit holder walked into the Montgomery County Court Building with a weapon, and asked where he should check it. Needless to say, he is no longer a licensed CCW Holder. I am not against CCW permits. I am not against people being able to own firearms. I AM against people bringing them into a liquor establishment, drinking or not. Guns and Alcohol dont mix.

By Retired Sgt

December 14, 2010 2:40 PM | Link to this

@Null: Your argument loses strength the minute you started. Licensed, trained, experienced, registered DRIVERS know that driving under the influence is against the law, yet how many do it? Licensed, trained, experienced, registered DEER HUNTERS know there is a limit on the amounts of deer bagged in one year, yet how many abuse it? 2 years ago, a young man, a CCW permit Holder, checked and licensed, carried a firearm into FRICKERS on Miller Lane. After having a drink and getting ready to leave, he grabbed his jacket and a gun fell out of his pocket and dicharged IN THE BAR. Fortunately, no one was injured. Less than a month after the CCW law was passed, a licensed, trained, background checked CCW Permit holder walked into the Montgomery County Court Building with a weapon, and asked where he should check it. Needless to say, he is no longer a licensed CCW Holder. I am not against CCW permits. I am not against people being able to own firearms. I AM against people bringing them into a liquor establishment, drinking or not. Guns and Alcohol dont mix.

By r

December 14, 2010 2:54 PM | Link to this

ok all you anti gun people….the law says if you carry into a place serving alcohol you cannot consume…as a CCW holder I value that…if I chose not to consume I will have my gun…I fail to see how no gun signs do anything all they do is make me go put mine in the car….as for the comment about churches …they can grant the right to carry and many do…It will be interesting how DDN treats this whole issue…I will bet they have no gun signs up on their building so no one who works there can carry….

By Ray

December 14, 2010 2:58 PM | Link to this

I carry every day. Don’t drink or go to bars but if I did I would certainly carry. The new law isn’t really about bars per se, it’s about restaurants that serve liquor. Reminder- people are carrying in bars, cars, everywhere, always have been, they are the criminals. About time Joe Public got armed too, in case the criminal wants to ply his trade against old Joe.

By Jim B

December 14, 2010 3:06 PM | Link to this

Once again, the Sarge puts forth a well reasoned approach to the whole issue. I especially liked the line about what kind of bars you are going in if you need a gun. People who think they need to carry a gun in a bar, are simply morons. Keep up the fight sarge!

By carrier

December 14, 2010 3:17 PM | Link to this

Sarge-While I normally agree with you, I can’t agree with your logic about what kind of bars into which one is going. Is that what you would say to those who have been shot at while attending church services? at schools? on college campuses? You never know when you will need to defend yourself or your loved ones.

By tallsandi

December 14, 2010 3:18 PM | Link to this

What a moronic idea. Guns and drunks

By Retired Sgt

December 14, 2010 3:31 PM | Link to this

@Carrier: You can certainly choose where and when you go to an establishment that serves alcohol. The right choices minimize your chances of problems. A couple of examples: #1, You can choose to go to a bar/restaraunt like Applebys, Frickers etc, or you could go to a bar with a reputation for being rowdy and bar fights. #2-Just like location of the establishment. Driving to an area known for having respectable clientel and little instances of problems enhances you dining experience, sans problems that would require you to have a gun for self defense. The time in which you go to these establishments also plays into it. When are you more likely to have problems in a bar? If you said AFTER midnight, you would be correct. So, in short, making the right choices of business, location, reputation of the area, and leaving at a reasonable time= no need for a gun. FWIW, for over 25 years I was a police officer. The only time I carried my weapon in a liquor permit location was when I was on duty. I felt no need to have it on me off duty while in a bar.

By Kurt

December 14, 2010 3:35 PM | Link to this

A weapon in the hands of a law abiding citizen poses no risk whatsoever, no matter where. But the thing is folks, the democrats are about control, they want to put cell phone jammers in every car and truck-Control, order you to buy a product in the marketplace, and fine or imprison you if you dont, Control, They want to decide what your kids eat all three meals, Control, they want badly to do completely away with the 2nd amend., Control, they want to strip away your private property rights, via sky high taxes, wetlands laws, and eminant domain, Control, seat belt and helmet laws, Control, stripping half your income away before you get it, Control, Strip searches, and nude scans, Control, Decide what you listen to on the T.V. and radio, Control, force your kids to go to these hidious gov. schools, where they learn how great gov. is, Control, These are just a few, I am telling you folks, democrats are total Marxist, we must defeat them utterly, before they completly destroy the country, they have always hated.

By Reality Check

December 14, 2010 3:44 PM | Link to this

Retired Sgt, your argument also goes south right from the start. So because some licensed, trained, registered, experienced drivers drink and drive, you are saying we should ban all car owners from drinking? (or deer hunting) That’s really what you are saying. The bottom line is that criminals don’t decide not to shoot up a place just because having guns on premises is illegal. I have homeowners insurance just in case my house burns down, but pray I never have you use it. It’s the same line of thinking why I want to be able to ccw as many places as possible. Saying guns & alcohol don’t mix confuses the issue by implying the law allows it — which is just not true.

By zman

December 14, 2010 3:48 PM | Link to this

R—I dont think I want to put that much trust into anyone. You expect us to believe that all CCW holders wont drink while they carry? All the DUI’s in this country prove people dont obey the law that says if you drink dont drive—so why should we believe they wont drink if they carry?? Keep the guns out of the bars!! I am all the right to bare arms..but I am also for reasonable limits, and I think keeping the guns out of the bars is reasonable.

By Retired Sgt

December 14, 2010 3:57 PM | Link to this

@reality: Wrong. Just because you are trained and licensed to do something doenst mean you arent going to act irresponsibly, or against the law. I know many CCW permit holders who have entered bars, and consumed alcohol, all the while being armed. This is in violation of the law now, and still would be under the new bill, yet it is still being done. You can not give me one example where alcohol, combined with firearms is good.

By zman

December 14, 2010 4:00 PM | Link to this

I have been in bars for 20 years and I have seen enough idiots who get boozed up and want to start fights….i dont need them packing as well. I am not stupid enough to believe that a sign keeps all the guns out of the bars, but I definately dont think we need more. All of you CCW carriers who want the right to do this, how are you going to feel if you kill some innocent bystandard in a shootout in a bar?? and how are you going to live when the family of that innocent victim sues you for wrongful death and takes you for everything you have?? Are you guys trying to convince us that you dont go into bars NOW without your guns?? That your are too afraid to venture into any estabishment without your gun?? You did it for years before the ccw law passed and you will continue to do it without your firearms.

By Bill

December 14, 2010 4:02 PM | Link to this

Sgt is right. guns should not be brought into bars.

By r

December 14, 2010 4:18 PM | Link to this

just so everyone know several states have already passed this law and haven’t had problems…maybe we should talk about right to carry on college campuses….

By nyc

December 14, 2010 4:19 PM | Link to this

people without a permit carry weapons on them all the time…in bars…restaurants…etc…..the law is meaningless…

By x

December 14, 2010 4:30 PM | Link to this

NYC- ANY and EVERY law CAN be broken…thats not a valid reason not to have laws. You are exactly the guy who will take his gun into the bar and get drunk….you’re the guy we all know is out there and putting the rest of us at risk.

By Richard

December 14, 2010 4:56 PM | Link to this

I tended bar in the Dayton area for 25 years. Every bar I worked in, the rule for a hold-up was “Give them the money, don’t be an idiot.” Gee, in 25 years, I never got robbed! All I would have needed was a would-be Rambo-hero to get into the mix. What bartender wants this law? It will be illegal for a gun-toter to drink? Yeah, and it’s illegal to drink and drive. That works, doesn’t it! I own guns. I don’t feel the need to take them into bars, restaurants, churches, to football and basketball games. If you are that scared of the world, just sit at home. As for me, I leave the gun at home. Oh, I am a avid hunter, target shooter, and former NRA member. Those guys watch too many cowboy movies.

By r

December 14, 2010 4:59 PM | Link to this

hey nyc how do you know this….I have many friends who carry and obey the law…just how many problems have you seen from legal carry …you want to bring up the jerk last year in Frickers…he lost his permit…give me one please

By Quicks Draw McGraw

December 14, 2010 5:02 PM | Link to this

Only if you think there’s gonna be a shootout. Right Babbalouie?

By I am guilty...

December 14, 2010 5:34 PM | Link to this

I was drunker than a nine eyed sailor the night I opened up with my twin 50’s. I was outside a bar in the Mekong Delta. Our PBR was tied up to the bank of the river (sort of like a horse in the old west tied up outside of “Miss Kitty’s”). There was a guy in the bar not unlike Retired Sgt…..verbalizing verbal coins of philosophical and legal eloquence…but it turned out that he was “Retired Comrade”…and immediately took umbrage that we were armed. Well…what happened next was a scene out of a Second Amendments haters nightmare. People who wanted to kill innocents were killed…(OH MY GOD…THEY WE’RE COMMUNISTS…LIKE IN THE OBAMA CABINET!!!!…AND THEY WERE KILLED!!!!)by alcohol sodded U.S. Navy sailors…and I think that most bar violence will end when everyone knows “that an armed society is a polite society”. Retired Sgt will tear this apart with his “rule of law” perspective…but every time anyone knew I was “packing”…and I behaved myself…in Vietnam or here in Dayton…it was amazing to see the meanest/bad/psychotic ones I was around behave like school children. Hey…this is just another perspective to “walking out alive”…but it works. Go ahead Retired Sgt…..tear it up!!!!!!

By Slightly Right

December 14, 2010 5:59 PM | Link to this

Of course you can pack a gun, but why to an establishment that serves alcohol? Would you go hunting with folks that are drinking? I can’t think of the last time I needed to shoot my way out of Applebees. Guns are great for home defense and other places where you can legally carry them. Whats next, a bill to make it legal to smoke while pumping gas???

By Quentin0352

December 15, 2010 1:14 AM | Link to this

It isn’t about drunks in bars, That argument is an easy escape to try and avoid that it is about being able to hit a restraunt the serves alcohol too. People keep saying it is all about picking where you are, ok then. So do you blame a victim of domestic violence for their bad decision in who the date or marry? How about in a place like Luby’s, a college, a school and etc. All of these places banned guns and were supposedly safe in nice areas with no real violence but people died because the simple fact is people don’t follow the laws. Yes some CCW holders may be idiots but they are by far more honest and responsible than the typical person. Also having spent years in LE and around LEGAL CCW, the ONLY time someone that LEGALLY carried was a problem was a drunk US MARSHAL who arrived drunk, flashed his gun and threatened me while I was working security for extra money. So if our most highly trained and supposedly professional law enforcement drink and drive, flash their guns while drunk and etc, then under the arguments of many here, we should ban them from having guns off duty too, right? They just need to pick to live, patronize and socialize in “safe” areas like schools and etc where guns are banned.

By MnM

December 15, 2010 8:13 AM | Link to this

Retired Sgt et al are mixing apples and oranges. We’re talking law-abiding CCW holders not law-breaking CCW holders and other criminals. You can never regulate the latter two. By Sgt’s logic Ohio should ban beer sales at drive thru stores because drivers can buy beer while in their car and maybe drive drunk.

By Ronald Reagan

December 15, 2010 8:18 AM | Link to this

I’m with Sarge 100% on this issue “You can not give me one example where alcohol, combined with firearms is good.” If you have such a deep paranoia that you feel you must arm yourself at all times - do so, but it doesn’t have to be legal. A change in this law will only green light the way for cocky fools to swagger, talk trash, and ultimately shoot somebody for no just reason. Cowboys, this is not the Dodge City circa 1870. I staunchly support the right to bear arms but you check ‘em at the bar.

By Buzz Jones

December 15, 2010 8:29 AM | Link to this

There’s twenty one people in Killeen, TX that may still be alive today if one law abiding citizen was “Packing Heat” that day a madman came in and started shooting.

By smoke-mirrors

December 15, 2010 9:02 AM | Link to this

I just want to watch the bars in Trotwood turn into a shooting gallery.It really should be something to see!

By Bill

December 15, 2010 9:18 AM | Link to this

It’s hard to bring light to a dim bulb. Your arguments promoting carry in bars have no value. Just as most of your senseless drivel spoken here. There’s just no reasoning with weak, paranoid minds.

By Rick

December 15, 2010 9:29 AM | Link to this

@Retired Sgt: Actually, YOUR argument loses creditability. As quoted, to try and argue against this passage, a licensed, trained, background checked, off-duty COP was the one to shoot 12 out of 13 into a victim at a bar. Hmmmm…problem is…WITHOUT the passage of laws like this, the only ones ALLOWED to carry a gun into a bar are…you guessed it COPS. As far as I can see no one has addressed the issue of how the local/state laws of concealed carry have OVER-RIDDEN my GUARANTEED RIGHT to bear arms. The Constitution is not subject to the whims and fancy of lawyers, judges, and cops. It is the SUPREME DOCUMENT our Country lives by. Quit trying to pervert it to read that a COP, or a JUDGE are above the laws and should be the only ones allowed to bear arms. That is NOT what the Document says.

By M. West

December 15, 2010 9:30 AM | Link to this

Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

By Bill

December 15, 2010 9:31 AM | Link to this

@ Rick…See what I mean!

By Rick

December 15, 2010 9:41 AM | Link to this

And Zman…no one really cares what your aggreeance is with limits. The Consitution does not guarantee me Freedom from oppression…unless Zman says it is an acceptable limit…it says I have the RIGHT to bear arms AND to protect myself and my family. As for Ret…You claim what is and is not legal for carrying a gun now. However, you want to point to the OWNER of the establishment being able to have the right NOT to let you carry in their Establishment….What about their right to ALLOW you to carry if you want??

By Biff

December 15, 2010 10:42 AM | Link to this

How does one seperate the “law abiding” CCW’s from the “non-law abiding” CCW’s? You can’t, you don’t, you won’t. You’re all just a bunch of men unhappy with the size of your __, and feel the need to compensate by carrying a weapon around with them. In a FREAKING BAR, no less! Stupid is as stupid does, I guess…

By Retired Sgt

December 15, 2010 10:50 AM | Link to this

@Rick: Your rant was riddled with disjointed logic. #1- No one said you dont have the right to own or “bear” arms, however, there are limits. Permit holders are not allowed to enter any private establishment posted “no carry.” Also, you may not carry it into Govt buildings, courts or schools. Currently, and hopefully forever, law will prohibit carry in Liquor establishments. #2-You say LEGAL CCW permit holders obey the law. You sir are living in a fantasy land. As stated before, I have had numerous encounters with permit holders, in bars armed already. That is a violation of standing law. so, they are NOT legally carrying. I have stopped people who are permit holders, who have not declared their CCW status. THAT is a violation of law. Yesterday, a legal CCW permit holder walked into a Govt building in Panama City, and filled it full of lead. All instances of people who are legally allowed to carry, yet violated the law. Amost Every county in Ohio has had charges filed against permit holders carrying illegally. You have not presented one single case where one should feel a requiremenet to carry a firearm into a business that serves alcohol. Sir, I have been to the scene of many shootings at bars. Some carried legally and acted illegally, some carried illegally and acted illegally. The fact remains, having a firearm with you INSIDE a liquor establihment is is a recipe for disaster. Been there, seen it…

By ironmyke

December 15, 2010 11:59 AM | Link to this

Some would think of this legislation as pandering to the NRA. On the other hand it could be viewed as a potential economic issue for the funeral industry. It might move up some funerals in a depressed economy.

By ironmyke

December 15, 2010 12:04 PM | Link to this

Some might wonder how many would go to a bar to not consume alcohol.

By NCF

December 15, 2010 12:08 PM | Link to this

Retired Sgt, you’re still basing your argument on the exceptions. Going back to your earlier example of licensed drivers who get behind the wheel under the influence… out of all of Ohio licensed drivers, how many violate that law? You are painting it as if the majority of CCW holders will break, and are breaking, the law concerning their CCW license. I mean, aside from your “proof by example” and “spotlight fallacy”, you are employing “misleading vividness” and “hasty generalization” logical fallacies to make your point. Ought we let the exceptions determine the rule? Why should we logically assume that most CCW will drink & carry under that new law?

By Quentin0352

December 15, 2010 1:15 PM | Link to this

So the arguments against are claims that those who carry are paranoid wimps who have a small member they are trying to compensate for, cops who LEGALLY carry in bars breaking the laws show that they are the only ones who should be allowed to do so and that if you go somewhere and feel the need to carry then it is a bad place to be and your own fault if someone commits a crime killing you. Interesting ways to try and argue since all avoided the points I made previously. Heck, on a per person basis, CCW holders are likely less prone to a crime and killing the wrong person than LE officers so shouldn’t we ban them from having guns too with the arguments being used? Or are we saying police and judges are above the law and should have special exceptions just for them and the rest of us could all die waiting for one of them to act to save us?

By Ray

December 15, 2010 1:51 PM | Link to this

Retired Sgt is retired all right, a retired unarmed security guard. I know him.

By suburban copper

December 15, 2010 2:54 PM | Link to this

Everyone is missing the real point to all this. It is the liberal mindset of the DDN types that think they can decide what your rights are. The headline says it all. What if I decide the DDN does not really need free speech protections, and limit what they can say. Local news is not important, so they can not report bad things about local cops. They would not like that, saying free speech is absolute. It is the same principle. If you are not drinking, you should be allowed your RIGHT to carry a firearm stipultaed in the US and Ohio constitutions. As for permit holders drinking, what is stopping someone without a permit from having a gun and drinking, nothing. The permit holders want to be legal, so they will not likely drink. Also understand the difference between driving and gun ownership. One is a privilege and one is a right, there is a big difference.

By Retired Sgt

December 15, 2010 3:34 PM | Link to this

@NCF: Nope, never said ALL CCW permit holders will violate the law. I said the POTENTIAL is there for them to drink and be armed. What percentage of people have driven while over the legal limit? The percentages would surprise you. According to a 2008 USA Today article, 10% of ALL drivers admitted to driving drunk within the previoius 30 days. A HuffPo article from 2010 says 25% of all drivers admitted to driving over the legal limit, while NTHSA has it at 28%. Projecting those same numbers on CCW permit holders in liquor establishmnets, that would mean anywhere between 10-28% would be consuming while armed. Not a good number. @Ray: I work a lot of jobs and wear a lot of hats, but none of them is as an unarmed security guard…sorry you have me confused with someone else.

By Retired Sgt

December 15, 2010 3:41 PM | Link to this

@Suburban copper: Sorry, but please point to anywhere in the Constitution, either US or Ohio that says you have a right to CARRY a firearm anywhere. There are restrictions. Just like the RIGHT to free speech. There are restrictions. NO WHERE is it listed that you have a RIGHT to carry firearms. It says you have the right to KEEP and BEAR arms, but it does not give you carte blanche right to carry concealed anywhere. One of those places are in houses of liquor permits. And for very good reason.

By Quentin0352

December 15, 2010 3:55 PM | Link to this

Sgt, you have the POTENTIAL to be a rapist, so should you be banned from being around women? Also I suggest you look up the meaning of the word BEAR in the dictionary. to hold or carry (oneself, one’s body, one’s head, etc.): to bear oneself erectly; to possess, as a quality or characteristic; have in or on: to bear traces; to bear an inscription. 22. to have and use; exercise: to bear authority; to bear sway. These definitions skirt the direct one in this case but they all indicate the ability to CARRY a firearm too. I would hope someone with basic law enforcement training would have a better grasp of the constitution and english language with all the reports and laws you are required to understand.

By Retired sgt

December 15, 2010 4:53 PM | Link to this

Quentin, what can I say, you are an idiot. “Keep and bear arms” has nothing to do with carrying them in a liquor establishment. Please show me where that is stated in the Constitution. I understand the laws very well. You have no idea what you are talking about. ther are restrictions on many rights. firearms, speech, assembly etc…I suggest you read the ORC…

By Quentin0352

December 15, 2010 5:19 PM | Link to this

Nice, so you are challeneged and you can only insult? Yes I have read the ORC and have seen plenty of officers that didn’t understand much of it. Just like many do not understand the US and state Consitutions. Your argument boils down to that if a law violates the constitution then those who dislike that law are “idiots.” Also you argue “potnetial” for crime so under the belief we should ban things to prevent a “potential” we would have to pretty mych incarcerate everyone to INCLUDE LE like you that try to place normal citizens as to blame for the crimes committed by LE. I suggest you read the constitutions as they are the HIGHER legal documents over the laws as well as just the ORC like I have done. You may learn something besides insults and potentials for crime.

By Quentin0352

December 15, 2010 5:37 PM | Link to this

Just to help you a bit, please tell me where it states I am not allowed to carry a firearm for self defense in the Ohio Constitution? remember, the CCW law was passed due to the fears the state would LOSE because of this little part in out state constitution. The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

By Retired Sgt

December 15, 2010 5:45 PM | Link to this

Oh, I see Quentin, you backdoor slam me by saying I dont understand the law (basically calling me stupid) then whine about a return volley. Ok, Quentin, lets put it in easy terms: Can you carry a firearm in a court? Why not? Can you carry a firearm in a school? Why not? Can you carry a firearm in a government building ie: Police station/SO? Why not? How bout an airport/airplane?Arent these restrictions on your rights to freedom to bear arms? No. They are not. These are reasonable restrictions based upon rational conclusions that bringing firearms in certain areas is inherently DANGEROUS. CCW Permit holders go through a small amount of training that really doesnt cover gun retention, holster devices or any requirement for continued training. I also doesnt cover the psychology of shooting at a human. Bringing firearms in a liquor establishment increases the risk of involuntary discharge, retrieval by others, and improper handling and consuption. ALL increase the risk to others. Read the comments from the bartender from yesterday. He made some very good points. Quentin, I TEACH the ORC, I TEACH the Constitution. I am very well aware of what BOTH say. I also know that certain “rights” guarenteed by the Constitution, also have reasonable restrictions for the good of the public. Some of those rights include restrictions on Freedom of speech (you cant yell “fire” in a crowded auditorium), Freedom of Assembly (Riot, Disorderly Conduct, etc), hate Speech, threats etc. I dont know what podunk little town you were an officer in, but it must have been one with officers with little knowledge of the application of laws…

By John

December 15, 2010 5:48 PM | Link to this

I sit here as a responsible armed citizen shaking my head at the hysteria I read in the editorial and related posts. What the editorial writer and anti gun folks fail to mention is that no law will prevent the criminal element from carrying a weapon anywhere. That is what this law takes into consideration, that we, the law abiding citizens have the right to defend our family and ourselves against that element. It’s not that I want to carry into an eating establishment that serves alcohol out of some phobia or derangement, I would do so to prevent the assault that could occur from my car to the door. If the law states I cannot imbibe, I don’t imbibe. Apparently those who are against this law becoming reality feel that the law abiding part of society cannot be trusted to act responsibly which I find insulting.

By John B

December 15, 2010 5:53 PM | Link to this

You go SGT! You are absolutely corect! These guns nuts are crazy. You have whoopped Quintons a$$

By Quentin0352

December 15, 2010 8:25 PM | Link to this

So, beyond some pretty funny attempts to insult and claims I called you an idiot, your still can not show do anything to the points I made. As I said, if you know so much on the laws and constitution, then shouldn’t you have known basic english on the meaning of the word “bear” as you made so very clear in your arguments? Same with your arguments on “potential” risks to people. As I pointed out, the ONLY legally armed person I ever had to deal with was a US Marshal though I have also seen plenty of Dayton PD officers that didn’t seem to care about the laws or people’s rights either. I ran in to plenty of your type before, the “we want ONLY us” to have rights members of the police who called anyone who could point to serious problems in their arguments names and then would blow a fuse just like you have been doing. You can neither charge someone OR take away their rights on private property without due process. You argue that even having the potential to do harm should allow the removal of someone’s rights but I also notice how quiet you are on POLICE being included in the type of ban you endorse though plenty of cases shown here show police have the same potential you claim about CCW holders. I know there are some idiots in LE just like there are some idiot CCW holders, it seems you do not think LE should be held to the same standards you want to hold citizens. SO beyond insults, attempts to avoid the very serious conflicts and problems with your arguments and attempts to fluff your position, are you able to actually address the problems with the double standards and even removal of rights you endorse as being legal or not?

By Retired Sgt

December 16, 2010 5:31 AM | Link to this

I see you avoided the scenarios I put forth in your rambling nonesensical post. Lets try it again. Why cant you carry concealed in a court, in an airport, in a airplane, in a school, in a government building? Because it is DANGEROUS. It is PRUDENT to make these restrictions. Why cant a person on probation, parole, under indictment, DV Conviction, under a TPO, Having been involuntarily committed to a mental insttitution, or persons under the influence of drugs or alcohol have weapons? Because it is prudent that they dont. “bearing arms” to protect your property/person against unwanted theft or attack does have restrictions when venturing out into the public areas. One thing you fail to understand, the Constitution guarentees your rights to “keep and bear arms”, but it makes no mention of being able to have them in public. The general concensus of jurisprudence over decades of US History, agrees that you have a right to keep and bear arms on PRIVATE PROPERTY, but it makes no mention of your rights in PUBLIC AREAS. There lies the reasons why the aforementioned restrictions exist, and have been upheld at all levels of the legal system. I see the type of person you are Quentin. A loose cannon. Another person who thinks they know more about the law than they really do. FYI, I am against ANYONE, LEO’s included, carrying in a liquor establishment, unless on official duties. If you bothered to read some of my earlier posts, I said I never felt the need to carry my firearm in a liquor establishment, UNLESS I was on duty. While the law was changed a few years ago to allow LEO’s off duty to carry in liquor establishments, even if they were consuming, I was against it, for the very same reasons I present here. Your due process on private property argument came out of left field. Are you saying LEO’s cant arrest you for a weapons violation on private property? If that is the case, you are highly mistaken. It appears you have issues with Law enforcement. I suggest counseling…and a good book to read. I suggest a book educating you on how laws are applied.

By ironmyke

December 16, 2010 5:48 AM | Link to this

“Editorial: Do you need right to pack heat in bars?” No.

By Quentin0352

December 16, 2010 7:57 AM | Link to this

Again Sgt, most every place you mention is either a government owned facility or required due process to have your rights taken away. I believe in some prudence but beyond airplanes where I believe we SHOULD allow legal CCW holders who are not drinking to carry, the rest are owned by the government or require they have a legal process involving a court to have taken your rights BEFORE they remove them. It is not being a “loose cannon” or lack of understanding of the laws but the fact I understand them, the constitutions, the meaning of the word “bear” and also history. Heck, until the 1960s we actually did allow carry of guns on airplanes and we did not have hijackings. Kind of like schools used to actually have things like shooting teams and even students that hunted who brought their guns, checked them at the office and we didn’t have school shootings. Study after study and case after case shows that those who follow the laws and are allowed to carry tend to be very law abiding and will not drink while they are in places carrying. They WILL reduce the likelyhood of someone ILLEGALLY carrying and using a gun though since these people don’t care about the law and prefer unarmed victims for their crimes. Are there exceptions to these rules, yes, but in general the apply very well. Just like most LE will not go around driving drunk and flashing their guns in a fast food place but yet I have had to deal with some who did. To argue about a “potential” risk just doesn’t work since that argument could easily be used to pretty much take away ALL rights and freedoms when you used it. Just like the application of law claims since I have seen the laws ignored by officers and prosecutors in some cases and applied in others meaning we now live in a society where the application can legally be biased creating two classes or more of citizens which is unconstitutional and wrong. Your argument that allowing different classes of citizens based on employment or etc has the flaw I just mentioned and is very worrysome that you would suggest such a thing. Yes you may personally believe off duty LE shouldn’t be allowed to carry in these places they ARE allowed and you never made mention of wanting that repealed but only that others should not be allowed the same rights.

By Retired Sgt

December 16, 2010 8:28 AM | Link to this

and yet you still cant get past the simple concept that your right to bear arms ENDS at your property. NO PLACE in the Constitution does it give you the right to carry weapons in a PUBLIC Place. Please show me anywhere where it says that. Courts have upheld your right to OWN them, courts have upheld your rights to DEFEND yourself and your property in a PRIVATE property setting, but NO WHERE does it grant you the right to carry them concealed outside in the public venue. The states have the right to regulate their carry. That is why there are regulations as to where and whom may carry them. Case in Point, the Govt allows you to apply for a CCW permit, but not all can get them. And there are stipulations as to WHERE you may carry them. You can not carry them in schools, public OR private, Govt buildings, Courts, Privately owned businesses etc. EVEN if the law passes, which I hope it doesnt, the bars/restaraunts simply can put a sign on the windows “No conceal carry.” This would trump your “right” to carry. After doing some research over the past few days, 99% of liquor permit holders polled have said they would not allow the weapons in their establishment. It is good to see them act responsibly. And the reason why Police Officers can carry off duty is two fold. #1- Police officers are duty bound to act if a felony is committed in their presence. This would require them to be armed to respond to a hostile response and #2-Officers are at a higher risk of retaliation based upon the office they hold. THAT is why Officers have greater carry perameters than the general public. If you cant even understand that, complex issues like how the Constitution is applied are well beyond your comprehension. The mear fact I have decades of jurisprudence on my side, while you rant and rave and have NO standing jurisprudence to back your position mearly shows that you think you know more than Judges who have ruled time and time again on reasonable restrictions on carrying of firearms… And you still havent come up with a plausible reason why you feel you need to carry a gun into a bar, other than you are scared to go into one without your gun….makes one wonder what kind of bars you go to.

By Philo

December 16, 2010 8:33 AM | Link to this

Give it a rest sarge. You cant convince some people that their rights end where other people’s rights begin. There is no good reason why people should be bringing guns into bars. You can’t tell me that people wouldnt act irresponsibly, putting my family at risk. I know some people who have guns, and I don’t even want them looking at one, much less carrying one. guns in bars is a stupid idea. Those supporting it are equally stupid.

By jim

December 16, 2010 8:58 AM | Link to this

I see some people got their degrees from Bill Goodman University. you have no right to carry a gun in a bar.

By Quentin0352

December 16, 2010 9:51 AM | Link to this

Again, I see attempts to insult by various people but here, how is it violating YOUR rights if someone carries LEGALLY? Also are your rights to free speech, practice religion or the rest ones that end on your property line? Are you suggesting that people should only be allowed to practice their religion in their homes or government sactioned factilities that have a permit? Are you stating that we can not allow people to protest on the street since they are not on their own property? That is the argument you are making on this issue. Now in someone ELSE’S property they can refuse you just like if they want to put up a sign saying no guns but then that also applied equally to protesting and etc on THEIR property. It is a simple matter of applying rights equally and properly. Also to argue that the courts rulings are all correct no matter what is incorrect as history shows the courts have felt free to rule people have no rights at points in time based on race, gender and etc. Since then that has been corrected but to say a bad ruling by the court is acceptable would be to say things like slavery were proper and correct and a good idea too. Simple constitutional law understanding, an understanding of history and also that if a restraunt that serves alcohol is PRIVATE property where THEY can decide if they wish to allow it shouldn’t be a difficult problem to figure out. As long as they are not drinking then they should have a right to defend themselves if attacked.

By Quentin0352

December 16, 2010 10:00 AM | Link to this

BTW, just so you know, I don’t go to bars but I DO go to restraunts that serve alcohol. I don’t drink either but I HAVE the same issues you mention about the greater risks since I used to be in LE until I was disabled ending my career. So I now am under the same rules as anyone else. Acording to that part of your argument, just because I am no longer activly involved those enimies made over the years in LE are suddenly gone somehow? Heck, I don’t even HAVE a CCW and feel no personal need but the facts do not change that I support this due to it applying to resteraunts and not just BARS like everyone is trying to argue. There is a big difference between places like Chili’s or Red Lobster that happen to serve alcohol which by law ban carry and the local hole in the wall bar the police are constantly at for problems with drunks. But the law will have to treat them equally unless you can figure a good way to write it that is constitional and differentiates between them.

By Nobody

December 16, 2010 10:10 AM | Link to this

Give ‘em hell Sarge, I am with you all the way on this one! Quentin is using the “justification through rationalization” defense. Alcohol & firearms just don’t mix & I cannot see any good reason to carry a firearm into a bar or restaraunt. Seriously, why???

By Retired Sgt

December 16, 2010 10:16 AM | Link to this

Actually Quentin, as I pointed out yesterday, there ARE restrictions on speech. There ARE restrictions on Religious observations, and there ARE restrictions on protests in the streets. (Speech restrictions included menacing, threats, yelling fire in a theatre etc), (Protests in the street can be treated as unlawful assembly, riot, aggravated riot, failure to dispurse, disorderly conduct, disturbing a lawful meeting), (Religious observance on Private property, not public). And you bring up the very essence of what I have been saying. The law will not differenciate betweeen “bars” and Restaurants that serve liquor. There lies the whole problem. While I am not going to name the bars in question, we all know the ones that would be problems, and now, even more dangerous. THAT is why the Constituion allows States to regulate those rights as long as they are not “Overly burdonsome.” CCW, and restrictions on their carry have been ruled time and time again within the states rights…

By Retired Sgt

December 16, 2010 10:20 AM | Link to this

You might want to review “District of Columbia vs. Heller”, which is the current standard for the lower courts in cases of “Gun Rights”

By NCF

December 16, 2010 11:07 AM | Link to this

Let’s see… 10 to 28% of CCW holders in a bar MAY be consuming alcohol while armed, contrary to their license. How many CCW holders in a liquor establishment? If there are 10, then 1, or at the most 3 may be drinking while armed. If only one, then, what? 10 to 28% chance that that CCW holder is drinking & carrying? Personally, I think it’s a stretch. Many of the CCW license holder I know don’t go to bars, but do go to Chili’s or similar restaurants where alcohol is served. If I read it correctly, current law prohibits carrying where ANY person is consuming alcohol (D permit.) Sarge, I realize that you’ve had decades of work experience dealing with idiots and people on their worst behavior, and it’s tainted your view on people in general. I get that. So far, though, your best and convincing argument is one of retention — in my opinion. Your other points, not so much. The potential for a few citizens to abuse their freedoms is hardly justification to curtail the rights of the majority of citizens. Yet the Left uses that all the time. I side with you on most issues, but on this one I’m not convinced. Your arguments are still rooted on the exceptions, the alleged and assumed 10 to 28%. That still leaves a good 72 to 90 percent of people who are being thrown in with the bad. That’s the same mental process by which we have the naked imaging and TSA groping; treating the non-criminal citizens like criminals in order to reduce the “potential” for terrorist incidents.

By MARK

December 16, 2010 11:19 AM | Link to this

I personally dont think sgt’s views are “tainted”, but moreso rooted in fact. Ashe has pointed out, you dont have a right to carry a gun in a bar. History has shown that people wiht guns and alcohol has had bad consequences. prevention is worth a pound of cure…

By Biff

December 16, 2010 12:07 PM | Link to this

This Marine recognizes Quentin0352 as a Marine with Weapons Company in an Infantry Batallion. Frget about it, Sarge. Some of us grow up and leave the hard charging, gun toting image we so carefully manicured, far behind. Quentin apparently has not. STAND DOWN, MARINE! THAT’S AN ORDER!!

By NCF

December 16, 2010 1:04 PM | Link to this

Biff, I half expected you to call him a “jackwagon” and chuck a tissue box at him. LOL Seriously, though, when the Legislature passes a bill into Law that allows concealed carry in liquor selling establishments the same 10 to 28% that Retired Sgt alleges is already carrying and drinking will continue to do so, and the other 72 to 90% will continue to NOT do so. In other words, I don’t understand why you believe there will be an automatic escalation when there is little more than Sarge’s anecdotal evidence of “potential.” Please explain with facts this belief. Have other states granted CCW in liquor permit businesses? If so, have they seen the increase in incidents that you and he see as imminent?

By Mike R

December 16, 2010 1:24 PM | Link to this

Retired Sgt, I agree with your basis 100% and as an ardent supporter of the 2nd Amendment we do need to use common sense. That said, your example of Heller vs. D.C. isn’t a good choice. The Supreme Court’s ruling actually emboldened many gun rights activists and give Quentin a leg to stand on. The High Court struck down many gun regulations as unconstitutional in Heller vs. D.C. And as you pointed out, the 2nd Amendment, like other rights, are not unlimitied. BUT they did NOT address the issue of gun-control laws, or laws imposing conditions on gun owners, such as this editorial and forum discuss. The core holding of this case is that the individual has the NATURAL right to self-defense (Quentin’s arguement). That’s a big deal. Let me say that again—It’s a NATURAL RIGHT to self-defense, not a legal right. Natural rights are generally considered the right to Life, Liberty, and Property. Now, in this case the Supreme Court tossed self-defense, via the 2nd Amendment, right up there with those inalienable rights. So, based on that ruling, people like Quentin had a decent arguement in their favor. Then, earlier this year SCOTUS ruled in the McDonald vs Chicago case further emboldening gun advocates. In the later case the Court heard an amicus brief by gun activists that an individual’s right to bear arms is tied to the 14th Amendment, Section 1. That clause prohibits any “State [to] make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” As both you and Quentin have stated…It’s a privilege to have a CCW. Now, the majority declined to base their findings on that arguement, but they did vote in favor or Mr. McDonald using the 14th Amendment’s due process incorporation doctrine. In Summary, I agree with you, but it looks like Quentin is right…By the way, the right to carry has more to do with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution than how it is actually written.

By Quentin0352

December 16, 2010 1:42 PM | Link to this

Biff, sorry but I took an oath to defend the constitution. There are plenty of things I do not like but will defend them as they have that right. The idiots protesting military funerals is an example of that. As long as they are not disrupting the funeral and impinging on the rights of those attending it, then they have that right no matter how much I would LIKE to beat them in to the ground. As for your arguments Sgt, those all are AFTER the fact that you can be charged with a crime. Example, you can yell fire all you like in a theater and it is perfectly legal UNLESS it creates a panic. Same with a protest, as long as you are no impinging on the rights of others to move about or etc, then it is legal. Only when you use those items in an irresponsible manner and impinge on the rights of others do they become a crime. The same is for gun rights, if you are not abusing the right and using it to do something that impinges on the rights of others, then restrictions are not truly constitutional. You have to be doing something that causes others fear, harm or violating their rights or to have had due process involved to have a right removed and not just at the whim of a legsliture or voters. Otherwise what you are proposing is that rights are not natural and inaliable but are only granted at the will of the government and voters which is a dangerous path. Also notice I have kept my argument on the bounds of this and not if I think it is smart, wise, stupid or anything else but strictly that it would bring the law to within the bounds of our rights instead of a very questional restriction of them.

By Retired Sgt

December 16, 2010 1:47 PM | Link to this

BUT Mike, the Supreme Court also in Heller said that gun rights are not unlimited, and states can pass restrictions on their carry, as I have mentioned. It seems that the only thing the supporters cling to in this debate is that it is their “right” to carry in a liquor establishment. I think I have proven over and over, that it is NOT their right to carry in a bar, the government can restrict it, and that the owners of the establishments are under no obligation to allow it. In my own personal survey of liquor permit holders I know, along with the aforementioned poll, the overwhelming majority of liquor permit holders would reject the idea and post a no carry in their establishments, thus rendering any law moot. A CCW permit holder carrying in an establishment that forbids it would then be acting illegally, and potentially have their permit revoked. As I have said all along, I am not against CCW permit holders (As Quentin would have you believe). I AM for responsible carrying of firearms, and bringing one into a bar creates more problems than they solve, for the aforementioned reasons.

By Biff

December 16, 2010 1:54 PM | Link to this

NCF- I do not know that there will be “an automatic escalation…” However, I DO KNOW that “guns” and liquor do not mix. A bar is NO PLACE for some wannabe hero to start a shootout with whomever he perceives to be a threat. I envision only more harm than good coming from this. Just because one has a CCW does not automatically make him able to handle himself in a firefight. Only a fool would believe this to be true. When you’re looking down the barrel of a .45 or 9mm, your heart races, as does your thought process. You overreact and are not thinking clearly. THIS is when the schit hits the fan, when MISTAKES are made. Times like this are better left to professionals, like, the Corps and police. NOT to morons who barely qualified with a weapon but think “Hey! It’s my time to shine.”

By r

December 16, 2010 1:54 PM | Link to this

can we please put this in perspective….if i am carrying my gun and i stop to get something to eat and the place serves alcohol I have to leave my gun in the truck….all this law says if I am going to order a drink leave it in the car….the way this headline is written it caused a big over reaction…typical DDN and some clown named retired sgt

By Retired Sgt

December 16, 2010 2:22 PM | Link to this

@R: Biff spoke very eloquently as to the reasons why it is not a good idea. The only clowns here are you and Quentin…

By Philo

December 16, 2010 2:30 PM | Link to this

The reasons sgt and biff make for not bringing a gun into a bar are very good. It takes a certain mindset to pull a gun on a human and pull the trigger if need be. I served for over 20 years in the Army. It is psychological, as well as physical ability to properly use a gun under intense situations. Most of the gun carriers dont even know how to properly carry a handgun, much less use it effectively. I suggest “r” meet me sometime with his big gun and see how quickly I can disarm him of it. That is just another reason why guns shouldnt be in a bar. It is jsut a dumb idea

By Mike R

December 16, 2010 2:48 PM | Link to this

Sarge, I wrote that SCOTUS said there are “limits” to the right to bear arms. However, in that ruling (Heller vs D.C.), back on 2008, they didn’t say where those rights end. In fact, they didn’t address it at all. In June, of this year, they added a little more clarity when they ruled the 14th Amendment applies to all States that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms. It’s important to understand the latest ruling. Amendment XIV prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of their NATURAL Rights—Which is what SCOTUS ruled the Heller case was—Natural right to keep and bear arms. The Due Process Clause, in part, provides protection to individuals from economic and SOCIAL regulation. I believe restrictions on CCW would fall into that purview. Again, I agree with you—Alcohol and guns don’t mix. That said, I’m not so sure the High Court sees gun regulations the same way you do when it comes down to liquor establishments. As you mentioned—It will come down to individual property owners to allow guns—not the state.

By NCF

December 16, 2010 2:57 PM | Link to this

Biff, most of your argument against this come across as being in opposition to the general carrying of firearms, not so much in a “bar”. You “envision more harm than good coming from this.” Fine. You still have not presented any facts, only assumptions and assertions, and they are the same arguments that were used to oppose CCW in the first place. “Wannabe heroes starting a shootout”, &c. Again, I would like to point out that if this passes into Law then what happens? People who discharge their weapons still face the consequences they would face otherwise, right? Does the setting change the situation all that much?

By Retired Sgt

December 16, 2010 3:20 PM | Link to this

The fact that Ohio STILL has a law preventing people from carrying in a liquor establishment that has been challenged at both the States High Court and the SCOTUS would indicate to me that the law is Consitutional and the States DO have the right to regulate gun possession as long as is is not overburdonsome. Apparently both courts said it wasnt. @NCF: and yet the proponents of this law present no real reason why they should carry in an establishment, other than, “It is my right to” or some manufactured threat to your safety. If you say that the advocates against are crying about “potential harm that carriers may present that dont exhist” then the advocates against the law can say the same about your argument about a “Perceived threat” that doesnt exhist. You have not presented any REAL reasons why you should carry in a bar.

By Jenny

December 16, 2010 3:27 PM | Link to this

Why would anyone want to bring a gun into a palce that sells liquor? What utter nonsense. It is my belief that if the businesses allow people to carry a gun in their place, they deserve all the problems that come with it. I hope sgt is right and they dont allow it. Keep your guns at home! I will feel safer, as woul dmost people if you did not bring them in. do u guys have small weiners or are you just cowards?

By NCF

December 16, 2010 3:40 PM | Link to this

Sarge, my position on this has not been stated at all, so of course I have not presented any reasons why CCW should be legal in a liquor permit establishment. My posts are, and have been, challenging the opposition to this Bill. The reasons presented to oppose this have been fairly weak. Your point on gun retention is probably the best one, but it still doesn’t resolve gun retention issues in other places where CCW is allowed by law. Sure, I think we all agree that guns & drunks are a bad mix, especially when tempers flare. But what bearing does that have on a CCW holder who gets assaulted & robbed between the Applebee’s and his vehicle? How is his carrying a weapon there any different than from any other legal carry place? You really haven’t made a good argument against it, in my opinion.

By Yahoo

December 16, 2010 3:55 PM | Link to this

How many times are people assaulted and robbed exiting an Applbees? Honestly your position PRO Guns in liquor joints is a bunch of disjointed “What if’s.” I am with Biff and sarge on this one. You and your ilk have not presented any logical reasons why you should carry in a liquor joint. The arguments against are well founded and articulated…FYI, I am a CCW permit holder, and I think there is no good to be had in taking it in a bar.

By Mike R

December 16, 2010 4:16 PM | Link to this

All due respect, Sarge, you’re wrong. The recent rulings (particularly the McDonald case via the 14th Amendment) by SCOTUS actually say States do NOT have the right to infringe upon a person’s right to carry into a bar! Since the McDonald ruling in late June 4 states have passed laws allowing CCW in BARS!! The New York Times wrote a story about this in October. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/us/04guns.html Ohio will have to pass a law allowing CCW in liquor establishments…otherwise they’ll be violating personal liberties. Before you shoot (figuratively) the messenger, I’m not in support of such measures…just pointing out the facts.

By NCF

December 16, 2010 4:16 PM | Link to this

@yahoo: Just going by this: “I want to be able to go as soon as possible into an Applebee’s, and O’Charley’s or somewhere with my weapon. I don’t want to leave it in the car like I do now.” — State Rep. Danny R. Bubp, R-West Union. and this: “Rep. Bubp was quoted last summer as saying, “If someone goes into a restaurant and gets hurt because they can’t defend themselves, I’m going to be the first to say we should have done this.” That seems to be the rationale behind the Bill. You are correct that there has not been good argument to favor CCW in liquor establishments. I like to think that if it passes, businesses would post prohibition signs and be done with it.

By Biff

December 16, 2010 4:16 PM | Link to this

NCF- I can give half a rats hairy a**e if you’ve a CCW or not. Good for you. You’re a REAL MAN now. But, I will say you are partly correct. I see no need for the average Joe or, NCF for that matter, walking around with a freaking loaded weapon in their holster. But, that’s my opinion and you know what they say about those… After spending half a lifetime in the Marine Corps AND in combat, I’m done with yours and others mentality about the damned second amendment. This isn’t Dodge City, we don’t need to be packing in the Longbranch Saloon. It’s an archaic “right” and one that MUST change. That was put in there when we were killing injuns and hunting their buffalo. We’ve “taken care” of the original inhabitants of this country by putting them on reservations and we now shop at Kroger’s for our dinners. A well armed militia? That would be our servicemen and women, thank you very much. Maybe one day you 2nd amendment freaks will figure that out. Until then, go ahead and shoot each other. Kill each other. That leaves more room for us non-cowboy types on this planet. Peace and love, baby.

By NCF

December 16, 2010 4:30 PM | Link to this

For the record, I shoot only Nikon. And I usually carry that openly. Anyway, Biff, it’s obvious you’re out of ammunition in this debate. If you’d be so kind as to step back, and let Sarge continue… thanks.

By Retired Sgt

December 16, 2010 4:40 PM | Link to this

Mark, you might be interested in this article, from teh NY Times, dated TODAY. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/g/gun_control/index.html The issue of STATES rights to regulate gun control is still an open debate. The Heller case might not have been a greatest example, as it dealt with FEDERAL laws. Th eMcDonald case has nothing to do with liquor establishments cocealed carry. It dealt with an overly broad Chicago gun law.

By NCF

December 16, 2010 4:42 PM | Link to this

BTW, Yahoo… how’s it feel to be a “2nd amendment freak” and all that other stuff Biff said about you?

By Quentin0352

December 16, 2010 5:19 PM | Link to this

So the arguments against it are pretty much claims that anyone who carries a gun has a small p***s or is a wimp somehow and that rights can be removed without due process. So how about something arguing where there is actual evidence that is has been a problem instead of claims that rights are dependent on the government allowing them or a possible issue? The whole Dodge City argument is also the same one that was used against the CCW laws in the first place and notice how false that idea turned out to be. Kind of like most do not realize in Vermont with one of the lowest crime rates, the law is ONLY against carrying with intent to commit a crime. No permits, no restrictions on bars with restraunts and etc. This just helps to demonstrate the most gun owners are responsible and not idiots looking for a fight or out to be some macho idiot like many are trying to portrey them as. Instead they tend to be more responsible and law abiding than the general population of people. Heck, the CCW holders I have met on average have a better attitude for avoiding trouble and less of a need to try and be a mocho idiot than a lot of the officers I have known. Unlike many officers, they are not looking for trouble, to try and be some kind of a hero and do not think of themselves above the law which many in LE believe. BTW Sgt, what do you think of all those officers we constantly see speeding doing 80mph down the road in the rain with no lights or sirens while they chat on their cell phones? We see them all the time and reporting them gets a citizen blown off by the supervisors since these LE officials believe the laws do not apply equally to them though the ORC does not allow for speeding by officials and the lights and sirens are ONLY to be so they can run red lights or when in an active pursuit. That is a very constitutional law but is a good example of my earlier point on how officials already apply rights and laws based on who you are and etc instead of the actual laws which is what I see as a major problem in this country anymore as we are creating different classes of citizens based on race, gender, religion and employment instead of equality under the laws and constitution.

By Mike R

December 16, 2010 5:20 PM | Link to this

Sarge, what you have to look at is HOW the Supreme Court ruled, not just that Chicago’s gun laws were flawed. In the McDonald vs. Chicago case SCOTUS didn’t overturn the lower courts via the Second Amendment. They cited the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment is all about NATURAL RIGHTS. There’s a big difference between Natural Rights and Legal Rights. We get our legal rights from the government. We get our Natural Rights from a Higher Being. So, you have to piece together the two landmark gun cases. In the Heller Case SCOTUS ruled the right to bear arms a NATURAL RIGHT. They followed that ruling up two years later by ruling McDonald’s 14th Amendment was violated by the city of Chicago. So, in two years there were two rulings basically saying the right to bear arms is a NATURAL Right. In theory the gov’t can’t take away Natural rights—only legal rights. Hence, 4 states now allow guns in bars and 20 other states allow guns in places like Applebee’s. All of this has come to fruition since the Heller case and has gained momentum since the McDonald case.

By Quentin0352

December 16, 2010 6:43 PM | Link to this

well put Mike. Just like my point about the arguments that it will just be a bunch of idiots shooting eachother while drunk is no different than the argument they made before CCW was passed claiming roadrage and other things would cause shootouts all over the place by CCW holders. Heck, look at the guy in Florida now being called a HERO because he BROKE THE LAW and had a gun on school grounds and shot someone with it. The law did not exempt him as a normal citizen because he was an unarmed security officer. Since he was not an active duty police officer on duty, he broke federal gun laws when he retrieved his firearm from his car and shot the hostage taker in the schoolboard meeting. Was he a small penised wannabe hero just ignoring the laws and illegally interviening in the situation? The way many are arguing here, yes! And since it is the LAW, then he should be prosecuted since he is obviously dangerous because he is willing to illegally carry a gun in to a government facility without proper authority. The same goes for the students who stopped the college shooter a couple of years ago and the vise-principal who did the same. These people all broke the laws, took a loaded firearm on to government and even school property but even the anti-carry people did not want them prosecuted.

By Perspective

December 17, 2010 7:34 AM | Link to this

Wow. I kind of like being a 2nd amendment freak! Biff seems to believe that his interpretation of the constitution is the be all end all and totally right.He couldn’t be more wrong. Definition of MILITIA 1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service 2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service Biff sounds like he would just as soon have it that the 2nd amendment be abolished.Sad,very sad.

By Biff

December 17, 2010 11:13 AM | Link to this

Have at it, folks. NCF- I came to this gunfight with a knife. I never had any “ammunition”. I’ve had my fill of killing. For Perspective- Both definitions that you’ve provided describe this country’s reserve military forces. THIS is what todays “militia” is all about: http://www.adl.org/learn/extus/MilitiaM.asp?xpicked=4&item=19 Of which most people want no part of. It’s a form of social degression. You sound perfect for it. Like I said, have at it, Colonel.

By Quentin0352

December 17, 2010 11:23 AM | Link to this

Actually Biff, most “militias” are sanctioned by the states they are in. You will also find that federal laws states the militia is all able bodied males between 16 and 45 years old. This whole thing has nothing to do with killing but with rights and the ability to defend one’s self if needed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia should help you and also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MilitiaActsof_1792 Now also note that under the law which is still in effect, members are REQUIRED to provide a weapon and ammunition for it.

By NCF

December 17, 2010 12:09 PM | Link to this

Not sure what the knife is for, Biff. At least Nikons still shoot, and fit (albeit in pun form) with the theme. Do you carry that knife concealed? Do you ever carry that knife concealed when you’re in a BAR??? Drunks with knives are dangerous, too, you know. Do you retain the right to carry your deadly weapon knife into a bar? Or even on your person wherever you go? What’s to stop you from going all cowboy “wannabe hero” with your knife?

By Biff

December 17, 2010 3:16 PM | Link to this

The knife comment, NCF, was said tounge in cheek to this, your statement above: “Anyway, Biff, it’s obvious you’re out of ammunition in this debate.” You see, I have no “ammunition” to begin with, I don’t “carry”. It’s a joke (my comment). - I brought a knife to a gunfight - You’ve never heard that expression? I was a Marine for a loooong time; I don’t NEED no stinkin knife, Buckwheat. I’m done with this game. Drunks, guns and bars do not mix. You and others of your ilk can stand by your “right”. You all look foolish. So, we’ll see you Sunday. In the funnies… Quentin0352- Be careful out there, brother.

By Perspective

December 17, 2010 3:23 PM | Link to this

Biff,Biff,Biff,how arrogant and condescending you are. The second definition says “2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service” I believe all of us are subject to the call to military service under certain circumstances,ie the draft.We may not have the draft right now but all young men who turn 18 MUST register with the selective service thus making them subject to the call to military service. You sound like you believe that only military and law enforcement should be able to possess firearms and that’s scary.

By NCF

December 17, 2010 4:08 PM | Link to this

Biff, of course I’ve heard that expression. And never have I heard it so ineptly, yet so accurately, employed. You see, it means that YOU (with the knife) are out of your league in the debate (the gunfight). You still don’t get it, that we’re not just talking about people in bars, but in any liquor permit establishment. I guess it shows where each of our minds are. Mine, in the family-oriented restaurants, yours in the tough-guy bars. Yeah, big scary former marine tough guy bars, where some “wannabe hero” really wishes he had his gun on him instead of in his car. Because obviously he’s not going to go get his gun out of the car to play the role of cowboy, oh NO, of course not. But if he had it on his person, you betcha he’d pop a cap in some other tough guy without flinching. Next thing you know, all of the other CCW holders in that bar are getting their weapons out, and massacre breaks out. That IS what you’re talking about, right? By the way, for someone who’s “done with this”, you sure keep posting a lot of comments.

By Mike R

December 17, 2010 4:09 PM | Link to this

Biff and Perspective—You are both wrong, at least in regards to this article about packing heat into Applebee’s et. al. As I clarified to Retired Sgt. the Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) has ruled it is the 14th AMENDMENT that allows individuals to possess guns…Read it in the summary…3rd paragraph. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0314.htm

By NCF

December 17, 2010 4:41 PM | Link to this

It says “But, as it held in Heller, the Court reiterated in McDonald that the 2nd Amendment only protects a right to possess a firearm in the home for lawful uses such as self-defense. It stressed that some firearm regulation is constitutionally permissible and the 2nd Amendment right to possess firearms is not unlimited. It does not guarantee a right to possess any firearm, anywhere, and for any purpose.” Naturally I categorically disagree with the Court’s interpretation of the intent of the 2nd Amendment as being for in-home possession only. Had they intended the “keep and bear” to be so limited, they would have written it that way. It’s not as if the Constitution and Amendments were written in a different language then translated into English. They were written in English, and meant what they said — until the Court decided to interpret the words differently. It was only 1791 when those words were penned. “Keep” and “bear” have not changed meaning. The Three Kings come bearing gifts to the Christ child every year. Certainly doesn’t mean they left them at home.

By NCF

December 17, 2010 4:47 PM | Link to this

BTW, does it need to be pointed out that, like the meaning of the words from 1791, the effects of alcohol on humans was the same back then, too? Nobody here is arguing that drunks should be carrying firearms.

By Mike R

December 17, 2010 5:15 PM | Link to this

NCF, as Sarge stated the 2nd Amendment, like many rights, has limits. SCOTUS obviously sees those limitations. That’s probably why they ruled the McDonald case using the 14th. As Alito wrote, “It is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.” Thomas wrote a concurring opinion stating, “the right to keep and bear arms was more correctly located in the 14th Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause, which prohibits states from making laws that abridge the privileges or immunities of U. S. citizens.” As I wrote earlier, SCOTUS didn’t base their vote on the Privileges and Immunities clause, or the 2nd Amendment, but rather the Due Process clause of the 14th. I think the majority of SCOTUS see it the way you do—The Wisemen didn’t forget their gold, myrrh and frankincense at home.

By getoverit

December 17, 2010 7:02 PM | Link to this

It is completely unnecessary and dangerous to bring a weapon into a restaurant. There is a reason people spend more to raise their families in safe neighborhoods, but you want to reverse that trend. Have any of you, outside of military or police work, ever felt the need to actually carry a holstered gun? Why is that more necessary now than it ever was? Stupid, stupid law. Most of the people who want to carry a gun also have a chip on their shoulder. Admit it — you want to carry a gun because you are prepared to use it if someone gets in your way. Would you take your loved ones to a restaurant where every oddball you see might have a gun? Don’t think so. Not exactly good table manners, either.

By Quentin0352

December 17, 2010 7:27 PM | Link to this

You be careful too Biff. As to the idea of a chip getoverit, no that is not the issue. I am a disabled veteran now and my ability to defend myself and family is hindered by the injuries. Also there are plenty of people in even a “nice” are that wouldn’t mind doing harm to others. Heck, look at all the robberies and other things in “nice” places because criminals know those places people are less likely to be armed since they are less likely to be other criminals with a weapon. Also these places tend to have more for them to steal. Criminals are not totally stupid and know robbing someone in a nice area with a nice car is going to get them more than the poor person in the bad area who can’t afford to be in a nicer place. It is not being a hero or trying to pick a fight with people but understanding these facts and that the police RESPOND to incidents AFTER they are contacted and usually it is over. If someone holds a knife or etc at you and your family and attacks them because they are mentally unstable or a drug addict who stabs you or a family member because you were unable to act to protect them, is that better than having at least the OPTION of being able to stop it before it gets that far? I prefer the option to at least have a chance to stop it before someone innocent is hurt by a criminal than to have to either do nothing to risk my own life protecting my family in a less prepared manner. Just like I carry basic first aid kits in my cars, jumper cables and a couple of blankets in the winter. A weapon would be no different than these items just to be prepared if there is a problem and you need them. Otherwise it just sits there and if people do not even know you have it then why would you care? After all, you pass people with a legal CCW in the streets all the time and don’t even think about it because it is not them swaggering around wiht a chip trying to find a reason to use it but instead are just normal men and women going about their day like you.

By Mort Dayton

December 18, 2010 7:28 AM | Link to this

Are people in Dayton aware of the fact that Charity Navigator (evaluates health and efficiency of non-profits) has give their lowest rating (one star) to The Dayton Phil, The Dayton Ballet, and The Dayton Art Institute?

By Mort Dayton

December 18, 2010 7:29 AM | Link to this

Are people in Dayton aware of the fact that Charity Navigator (evaluates health and efficiency of non-profits) has give their lowest rating (one star) to The Dayton Phil, The Dayton Ballet, and The Dayton Art Institute?

By Perspective

December 18, 2010 10:49 AM | Link to this

getoverit quite obviously lives in Oakwood.(the last bastion of good police work and low crime) However the situation in Dayton is such that crime that used to take place mainly within Dayton city limits is now migrating out to the suburbs and making life in the suburbs much more dangerous.Oakwood will begin to feel the sting of this too eventually. I personally have exercised my 2nd amendment rights due to this situation,I will not be unprepared for home invasions or being robbed out and about by keeping and maintaining a firearm and my CCW license. I actually don’t see the problem with this being made law because still all business proprietors will still be able to post no carry signs.Long live the 2nd amendment! That’s right, I’m a 2ND AMENDMENT FREAK AND PROUD OF IT!!!

By r

December 18, 2010 10:27 PM | Link to this

hey perspective….I live in Oakwood and carry every day…remember Dorothy Lane Mkt has been robbed…yes we have a great police force but remember DMH is dumping all there crap in my neighborhood….main reason I carry…and no i dont have a chip on my shoulder….I am older and don’t want to be taken advantage of….

By null

December 26, 2010 11:16 PM | Link to this

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Case Closed. All these other arguments are unconstitutional. Your permission to carry is secure, no matter what politicians, pundits or anyone else says.

By null

December 27, 2010 6:14 PM | Link to this

NO, WE should all leave them in our cars to get stolen!