Arizonans are now allowed to carry concealed weapons into bars. Gov. Jan Brewer signed the law on Monday to guarantee the right to be fully loaded in bars.
The law would still bar drinking while carrying a weapon and would allow restaurants and bars to prohibit the practice if they properly post warnings. Some may not be content with just being armed without their flaming shot or Schnapps shooter. Forty states have such laws.
Bar owners are not thrilled. Mike Nelson, owners of Pomeroy’s bar in Phoenix, said “This might be one of the stupidest things that I have heard of.”
Gun owners recently celebrated the right to bear arms in churches and work places in Texas and Arkansas (here).
For the story, click here.
JB:
I guess I should have read the entire opinion.
IS,
Article I, Sections 9 and 10 of the U.S. Constitution prevent the federal and state governments from creating ex post facto laws.
In Calder v. Bull, our Supremes decided that only applied to criminal laws. We had criminal and civil laws when the Constitution was adopted. If the Framers wanted to permit ex post facto civil laws, they would have said so.
If we have a need for civil ex post facto laws, the remedy is by amendment. Interpreting is one thing…ignoring is the other. -After all…it’s just a piece of paper.
As I said. What part of “no” don’t they understand.
Jim Byrne:
re. Calder v. Bull.
I did not read the entire opinion but it sounded like the SCOTUS was upholding the rights of an individual. It looked to me that the state of CT was trampling individual rights and the individual sought relief through the SCOTUS.
Our country was founded on the scantity of the individual and our government was set up to protect the individual. If one arm of government is digressing it is up to the others to nudge the one back on track.
I dont think this case is as significant as you think it is but then I am not a lawyer and would be interested in what the lawyers have to say about it.
Gyges,
I’ll make sure to tell the U.S. Navy that I participated in weapon patrols rather than deterrent patrols. :>)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSBN_Deterrent_Patrol_insignia
Jim,
As long as we refer to them as a weapon, not a deterrent I have no problem with it. I subscribe to Orwell’s theory that euphemisms are an enemy to intelligent discussion.
Gyges,
I wasn’t trying to provoke anything but thought.
After spending a good chunk of my life around the most powerful weapon ever known to mankind, I learned quite a bit about the deterrent effect of weapons.
We all talk about guns in terms of their active role, but seem to forget the greater effect of their passive role.
The best weapon is that which never needs to be used.
Jim,
I’m not ignoring you, the answer to your question is in an earlier comment of mine, and meant what I said about having said my last word on the subject. I just think I’ve spent more time then I should have in a stupid argument about semantics.
Mike S.,
The “party line” for Democrats, at least as I see it, has been that we have too many guns. That attitude hurts gun sales. -If you were in the gun business, who would you spend your money supporting?
–If you think I’m part of a conspiracy, you’re wrong. I don’t follow the beat of any drummer. If you want to see how long ago our country was taken from us…see Calder v. Bull. One should have asked the Supremes what part of “no” they don’t understand.
Jim,
I think your thinking that I see evil plots everywhere, whereas paranoia is not my thing. I don’t think the ARA is part of an evil plot, I think they have allowed paranoid people to attain power and that they have been bought off by gun manufacturers. In the mix they lose site of the fact that believing in the Second Amendment and the Constitution is not the exclusive purview of the Republican Party.
By the same token while I believe America has always been run by an aristocracy, I don’t think their work is a conspiracy, rather it’s the sometimes similar aims of a group of people who hang out together and view their personal perks similarly. You know though that when it comes to the birther movement I do believe there is a conspiracy of sorts, but let’s leave that for another thread.
Gyges,
What is the primary function of a weapon?
JW,
I shouldn’t be responding to this, but I’m really bugged about something, your poor comprehension and retention of what you’ve read.
Quote from one of MY earlier posts “You can use a weapon defensively… but that doesn’t mean they are something other then a weapon.”
Anyway, that’s my final word on the matter.
Mike S.,
I think you’re over-analyzing. I see this all the time. Conservatives think all things liberal are bad, and liberals think all things conservative are bad. My father, a hard-core conservative, does the same thing. (just try to convince him otherwise.) Truth be told, most things on both sides are intended by the majority who support them to be good for the country.
I think the threat of losing the right to bear arms is just good old fashion marketing. The only plot is to increase sales and expand their customer base. If gun manufacturers know Republicans are going to support increased sales of their product, they’re going to support them.
-The beer lobby does the same thing. Do you think that’s an evil plot to get America drunk, and take advantage of the drunken Americans?
“This Sunday 60 Minutes is running a story called “Gun Rush”. It’s about all the people buying up guns and ammo.”
Jim,
This story is a repeat which I’ve previously seen. It reinforces my point about the American Rifle Association’s house magazine and the organization in general. I believe that they ill serve the integrity of the Second Amendment and have become spokespeople for radical elements of the Republican Party and the gun industry that supports them financially. There is no impending movement that will rescind Second Amendment Rights for the distant future. Yet the ARA is almost hysterical in their watchfulness and in their support for hardline Republican candidates. It is pathetic because in addition to attracting serious gun owners who believe in their protective value, target shooting hobbyists and hunters, there is also an attraction to that small percentage of gun fetishists who make the movement seems crazy.
In my view support for the second amendment is not crazy and is vital as a check on potential government tyranny, but the ARA leadership and the small percentage of crazies do make the case seem weaker than it is.
This Sunday 60 Minutes is running a story called “Gun Rush”. It’s about all the people buying up guns and ammo.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4937729n&tag=cbsnewsSidebarArea.0
Looks like an interesting story.
GWLSM-
“you wrote that my post was horrifying”
No I didn’t. I said your thought process (personal experience over research) was horrifying.
“and in line with fundamentalist efforts to reinstate prayer in public schools”
Never said a word about prayer in schools.
“or put creationism into public school curricula.”
Well now we’re at least on to something I mentioned.
“either what I wrote is horrifying or it isn’t.”
The thought process was, I didn’t say anything else was.
“I don’t expect you to apologize for your assessment of what I write. I do expect an apology for imagining that you have access to what I think or that you have some clue as to my thought processes.”
You won’t get one because I never did that. The only “access to what [you] think” that I have was what *you* told me.
“I don’t like guns and when you call them safety weapons”
I never called them that. I said that a cop carries a gun to protect his own safety or the safety of others. Gyges insisted on calling them weapons as if there is no other word in the English language that can apply. Again, the word and the object itself are morally neutral. A weapon can be used to support genocide and it can be used to stop the worst of tyrants.
“when they kill enemies or guns when used in criminal activity you are splitting hairs that have nothing to do with the potential for harm that all firearms possess.”
If a gun is used in criminal activity, that’s a bad thing. But it was the human who did the bad thing, not the gun. Take the human out of the equation and the gun sits there doing nothing.
“so, at the end of the day you get to be horrified and I still get to hate guns. doesn’t make us bad people”
I’ve seen nothing that makes me think you are a bad person.
“or extend beyond those specific comments. I have no idea what motivates you or how you think and it would be beyond the pale for me to assume that I do based on a few things you write on a blog.”
My motivation? I am very passionate about the idea that all human rights can be rendered irrelevant if we do not have the right to defend ourselves. When I see people panicking over a law like this that is nothing new and experience shows is not going to cause problems, I try correct the misconception.
jw writes: Let me rephrase, because I did not mean to imply that you are a fundamentalist Christian, I meant that that *thought process* is *like* a fundamentalist pushing creationism into a science curriculum. My apologies.
me: you wrote that my post was horrifying and in line with fundamentalist efforts to reinstate prayer in public schools or put creationism into public school curricula. either what I wrote is horrifying or it isn’t. I don’t expect you to apologize for your assessment of what I write. I do expect an apology for imagining that you have access to what I think or that you have some clue as to my thought processes. you don’t. all you know about me, of how I think is through the words I write.
I don’t like guns and when you call them safety weapons when they kill enemies or guns when used in criminal activity you are splitting hairs that have nothing to do with the potential for harm that all firearms possess.
so, at the end of the day you get to be horrified and I still get to hate guns. doesn’t make us bad people or extend beyond those specific comments. I have no idea what motivates you or how you think and it would be beyond the pale for me to assume that I do based on a few things you write on a blog.
GWLawSchoolMom
“This is horrifying and something I would expect from a fundamentalist Christian trying to gut a science curriculum.”
GWLSM-
“I guess you get to be horrified then. but don’t lets pretend that I am a fundamentalist christian or that I have motives consistent with theirs. I do not. studies contain elements of bias simply because biased people author studies.”
Let me rephrase, because I did not mean to imply that you are a fundamentalist Christian, I meant that that *thought process* is *like* a fundamentalist pushing creationism into a science curriculum. My apologies.
Gyges-
The dictionary also says that a weapon can be used in defense. Motivation absolutely matters so I suppose we’re done. Inanimate objects are incapable of carrying moral value. The use of the gun is toward a goal. It is that goal that determines the morality of the act. If you can’t see the difference between a gun used to save an innocent person’s life (a WEAPON used for the SAFETY of society) and a gun used to murder someone, wow.
JW,
If I said that, I would. Unless you change “citizens” to read “citizens that the cop doesn’t feel presents a sufficient threat to necessitate drawing their gun.” For all practical purposes, nobody aims a gun at somebody for that other person’s safety. People who break the law are as much a citizen after the crime as they were before. Like I said, words have meanings.
That’s not what I said though. I’m not going to repeat myself other than to say: The word weapon has a very specific meaning. (I’ll let you look it up) The ONLY use of a gun is something that is exactly what the word weapon means. Police carry guns for that use, or as a threat to escalate to that use. Motivation does not change a thing in this instance.
Now, unless you’re going to get back to our original discussion, with something other than how unreasonable I am, I’m done.
JW writes: “studies. I have some faith in them, but I tend to put my belief into facts based on real life events.”
This is horrifying and something I would expect from a fundamentalist Christian trying to gut a science curriculum. I’m not telling you that every study is correct, far from it. Each study needs to be judged on its own merit and often they have none. But you can’t generalize onto society based on your tiny corner of the world. It also means that your view can be summarily dismissed if a person had an experience opposite yours. Of course, our experience informs all of our decisions, but this is something different.
me: I guess you get to be horrified then. but don’t lets pretend that I am a fundamentalist christian or that I have motives consistent with theirs. I do not. studies contain elements of bias simply because biased people author studies.
jw: And this is what I mean. My uncle has been held at gunpoint. I had one friend who was shot to death and an acquaintance who was stabbed to death in her apartment. Another relative had an experience remarkably similar to your sister’s, though had it not been for a rescue, he would have killed her. Over the span of my life, my home has been burglarized twice.
me: I have not been a victim of violent crime. I don’t know if this is because I am lucky or smart or maybe a bit of both. all I know is that we are all informed by our experiences and mine have led me in one direction and yours have led you in another.