Holstered Guns Still Wrong in Restaurants, Bars
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
The News & Advance
Published: May 14, 2008
Have the people in Northern Virginia — Fairfax County in particular — become so inured to the presence of guns in their culture that no one raises an eyebrow over the guy in a restaurant with a holstered pistol on his hip?
That’s what a story by The Associated Press over the weekend would have you believe.
According to the story from Reston, the patrons at Champps, an upscale restaurant and bar chain, were confronted by a customer who stood up and announced that he was armed and so were dozens of other patrons. As it turned out, the armed customers — all members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League — stood up in unison, showing off their holstered pistols and revolvers.
The citizens defense league was trying to prove a point. And what was the point? That the presence of armed customers in Northern Virginia restaurants would elicit little more than shrugs.
On that night in that restaurant, the league was mostly right. The diners, as the story reported, went on with their burgers and Budweisers without paying much attention to the armed patrol that had entered their midst.
The restaurant visit, which included several others last month, was mostly a political stunt in response to comments made by state Senate Majority Leader, Democrat Richard Saslaw, who said during a legislative debate that armed patrons would be unwelcome in Northern Virginia restaurants.
“In most urban areas, you walk into a restaurant with a gun on your hip, they’re going to tell you to get out,” Saslaw said during debate on legislation that would have allowed concealed weapons in restaurants where alcohol is served.
That legislation passed during the 2008 session — the year of the gun — but Gov. Timothy M. Kaine sensibly vetoed it. Gun owners in Virginia are still allowed to carry firearms in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, as long as the restaurant permits it and they carry their weapon openly.
But why carry a holstered pistol into a restaurant? Just because it’s legal?
Do the gun owners fear something in the restaurant that only a weapon designed for killing can control?
That’s absurd. If they are afraid of something in the restaurant or bar, they probably ought not go there. Try another restaurant where civility is such that they don’t have to walk in with a firearm.
One of the league members who organized the restaurant visits said the gun group “wanted to make the point that we have the right to self defense.” That means they would subject the other patrons to being caught in the crossfire if an armed intruder entered the restaurant intent on harming someone there.
One patron at the Reston restaurant said he and his friends noticed the guns immediately and were curious but not concerned. “I’m just laughing because it’s totally unnecessary in my opinion,” he said, pointing to one individual who was not only armed, but had several clips of ammunition attached to his belt.
Perhaps the citizens defense league found some restaurants welcoming their guns, but most establishments would not be so inviting. The owners would correctly assume that their patrons would not appreciate the presence of guns in the dining room or at the bar.
That applies to Northern Virginia just as it does to Central Virginia where the owner or manager would most likely tell their gun-toting patrons to get out. They don’t want a reputation as becoming a haven for guns. Saslaw was right.
Post a Comment
Please Log In
Comment posting requires free registration with Lynchburg News Advance.
Already have an account? Please log in.
Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( luv2bliberal ) on June 26, 2008 at 10:55 am
“Posted by ( luv2bliberal ) on May 22, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Fred,
I’m not going to waste your time with NRA statistics.
I will however tell you that your opinion on this issue is completely meaningless. The 2nd amendment gives me the right to own a gun and that settles it. I have the “inalienable” right to self-defense.
Nothing that you can say or do on this subject makes any difference whatsoever.
You have wasted your own time typing out such a long posting.”
Fred,
Just wanted to let you know that the Supreme Court has proven you wrong and me right. You and your radical socialist buddies must be loving this one!!!!
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSWBT00928420080626?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Posted by ( JackD ) on June 04, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Navywings,
Don’t forget this one… happened a couple of days after your post:
Gunman kills 2, is slain by Reno man
http://www.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080525/NEWS18/80525026
This happened in a place that Virginia would define as a “restaurant.”
I also carried openly in a restaurant with my family this evening. No comments from anyone, and didn’t notice any stares.
Posted by ( RoyB ) on May 28, 2008 at 9:09 am
Obviously, you’ve never been in a situation where you’re suddenly confronted by someone who has both a gun and a homicidal intent, while you yourself are unarmed. I have faced that situation, twice, and I now carry a concealed weapon.
Back in the seventies, a stupid drunk pulled a pistol on me in a neighborhood cafe, intent on killing me for having disarmed him earlier in the day when he tried to stab some guests at a wedding. He fired three times, hitting me once, before I was able to take the gun away from him. In the nineties, I was in a different cafe near VCU when the bartender turned away two people, telling them that he would not serve them because they had no ID. At the door, one of them turned back and put his hand on a [illegally concealed] gun, apparently getting ready to wreak revenge by shooting people in the restaurant. In that instance, his companion pulled him away without violence.
What’s the best course for a citizen who’s suddenly confronted with such a situation?
You say that responding with a gun, “means they would subject the other patrons to being caught in the crossfire if an armed intruder entered the restaurant intent on harming someone there.”
Is this such a bad thing, when compared to the alternatives? Consider . . .
We could just let the armed intruder kill as many people as he wants to. After all, he probably will be satisfied after he’s used all of his ammunition, and some people will probably be only wounded, rather than killed.
We could call 911, if we weren’t shot when the killer sees us trying to do so. Then we could rest easy, knowing that the killer would only have five or ten minutes to kill everyone present.
We could try to talk to the would-be killer, in an attempt to convince him that violence is inherently evil, and that he would be wiser to seek counseling for his feelings, and to sit down in mediation with those whom he feels have wronged him. Good luck! (Actually, I tried that in the first instance above; didn’t work.)
We could announce that non-violence is the only acceptable lifestyle, and call on the gunman to join us on the peaceful Way. This might, theoretically, work.
We could pray, and hope that the Creator will miraculously intervene. If we’re very, very lucky (and blessed), this might work.
Or we could draw our own weapon, point it at the would-be killer, and demand that he lower his weapon. If he fails to do so, we could shoot him. It’s possible that we’d miss, and it’s likely that he would shoot back, and it’s possible that bystanders would be shot in the exchange. By what twisted logic do you assume that more innocent people would be harmed in this scenario than in any of the alternatives?
Posted by ( navywings ) on May 23, 2008 at 11:53 am
Fred,
You are confusing at best. I didn’t say I cared about what other countries do or where they place on the violence list. I have lived a significant portion of my life overseas as well.
I care about what THIS country is doing and keeping MY family safe and MY rights, so why you bring up other countries perplexes me. The link I sent you compared states, not countries.
Brainwashed. Interesting term. Brainwashing (also known as thought reform or as re-education) consists of any effort aimed at instilling certain attitudes and beliefs in a person — beliefs sometimes unwelcome or in conflict with the person’s prior beliefs and knowledge. So your context as it is used to refer to the American people who are only a product of their upbringing and environment is quite an incorrect use of th term. What I would expect from a social liberal. Funny though, social liberals are usually the first to cry when someone impedes on their rights. As long, of course, as we agree with them.
At least I cite my statistics. So how did the gun end up in DC? Was it first hand, second hand, third? Just because a gun dealer sold a weapon that was used in a crime sometime in the future doesn’t establish a direct link that states with realistic gun laws supply weapons to those with prohibitionary laws. Bloomberg is an idiot and has already had rulings against him. His case won’t stand up as it’s similar to suing car manufacturers whose cars kill someone driven by a drunk driver. Absurdity in it’s finest.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out if you ban guns (as in DC) and the law abiding citizens do follow the law, then the criminals are going to go elsewhere to get weapons. Your assumption that they go to a neighboring state to by them doesn’t hold water as I’ve already presented the statistics for sources of weapons used in crime - they steal them or get them from friends and family. So a gun store who sold them to someone who legally was able to purchase them is not “selling weapons to criminals” in your thinly veiled assertion.
Fred you (like many uneducated gun control activists) simply are not equipped to argue this line of thought. You do not have statistics to support your arguments and if shown to be incorrect you simply divert to another topic. You do not follow a logical thought pattern. You might want to consider moving to one of those “safe” countries.
Posted by ( Fred ) on May 23, 2008 at 9:47 am
navywings,
In the 48 years I have spent in this country, not a single day passed when I was not amazed at the stupidity level of so many Americans. After I read your latest post, I knew today would not be different. I had great hopes for you; in fact, I thought you were not as dumb as luv but once again I am disappointed.
You see, Americans are systematically brainwashed, by many of their churches and all of their governments, into thinking they are the best and their country is the greatest. Sadly, neither one is true (I have already expounded on that point in previous posts).
If you are convinced you are the best and your country is the greatest, why should you bother about what is going on somewhere else in the world (like in Europe and Japan, for example)?. The CDC study showed that the US is the most violent country in the world, even worse than Mexico and Brazil. I have no first hand knowledge of Mexico but I know Brazil well (I lived 3 years in Sao Paulo, the most violent Brazilian city after Rio). So why should you be concerned about the carnage in this country, when the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to bear arms (as luv so famously keeps saying!)?
Your statistics are worthless. They concern only this country and do not address the fact that states with weak gun laws supply others with guns. Have you already forgotten that guns sold by Webb in Madison Heights ended up in DC? And New York City is suing gun dealers in the South?
I will agree with you on one point: gun control laws are probably ineffective (especially as implemented here), only education has a chance to work. The more educated the people are, the less inclined they are to play with guns or use them to make a living.
Posted by ( navywings ) on May 22, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Oh and Fred, you might want to look at this as well: http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000
Firearm deaths per 100,000. Patently disputes the validity of your hypothesis that tougher/more firearm laws will lower firearm related deaths.
Those with the strictest laws have the highest firearm deaths. And as they say, “them’s the facts.”
Posted by ( luv2bliberal ) on May 22, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Fred,
I’m not going to waste your time with NRA statistics.
I will however tell you that your opinion on this issue is completely meaningless. The 2nd amendment gives me the right to own a gun and that settles it. I have the “inalienable” right to self-defense.
Nothing that you can say or do on this subject makes any difference whatsoever.
You have wasted your own time typing out such a long posting.
Posted by ( Fred ) on May 22, 2008 at 12:05 pm
navywings,
The statistics come from a General Social Survey by a group associated with the University of Chicago. Whatever you do to debunk that survey does not hide the fact that the population, in general, is perhaps finally wising up about the gun culture so prevalent in this country. And unfortunately most politicians are cowards and don’t have the guts to stand up to the NRA. Sad but true.
The more incidents you cite, the more it makes it imperative to slow down, if not stop, the widespread availability of guns. As I said previously, nowhere in the industrialized world, are guns so easily available and it shows.
A study published by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) in 1998, in the International Journal of Epidemiology, concluded that the US has by far the highest rate of gun deaths - murders, suicides and accidents - among the world’s 36 richest nations. The Bush administration, immediately upon taking power, stopped the CDC from doing any more research on that topic. Why? Because Republicans need the NRA and its gun-nuts to be elected. They don’t care about the carnage they leave in their wake.
The study used 1994 statistics supplied by the 36 countries (please don’t tell me that only the US was not hiding the deaths!). Of the 88,649 gun deaths reported, the US accounted for 45 percent.
Japan, where very few people own guns, averaged 124 gun-related attacks a year, and less than 1 percent end in death. Gun-related deaths were five to six times higher in America than in Europe, Australia and New Zealand and 95 times higher than in Asia.
Please don’t waste your time trying to convince me that the CDC, statistics and public opinion are not to be trusted and that only the NRAs knows the truth!
Posted by ( asforme ) on May 21, 2008 at 9:18 pm
I’ll make you a deal then Fred, I’ll stay away from Boston, and you can go back there. Personally I fully support strict gun control in liberal cities, I just make it my personal policy to stay away from such places. Eventually you will all either die out, or figure out that having a population where only criminals are armed is a bad idea. I don’t really care which.
Go home yankee transplants.
Posted by ( navywings ) on May 21, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Fred,
Not sure where you get those “statistics but let me help you understand them.
“Support for the stricter regulation of firearms is widespread in terms of the range of measures endorsed by the public and in terms of the high level of public approval for such measures. Majorities in 2006 favor all proposals to expand regulations: 91% support making it illegal to use guns while under the influence of alcohol [it is]
85% want the sale of 50 caliber rifles limited, [when’s the last time a crime has been committed with a .50 cal?]
82% want the sale of semi-automatic, assault weapons limited, [what is an “assault weapon”? Smith & Wesson .38 Special and .357 revolvers; Raven Arms .25 caliber, Davis P-380 .380 caliber, Ruger .22 caliber, Lorcin L-380 .380 caliber, and Smith & Wesson semi-automatic handguns; Mossberg and Remington 12 gauge shotguns; and the Tec DC-9.[73] An earlier 1985 study of 1,800 incarcerated felons showed that criminals prefer revolvers and other non-semi-automatic firearms over semi-automatic firearms.]
80% favor criminal background checks for all sales guns, including private sales between individuals, [According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -
* a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
* a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
* family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%]
79% back requiring a police permit before a gun can be purchased, {addressed above. Would have almost no impact on gun related crime]
76% believe that terrorist attacks have increased the need for stricter gun control, [really. And the terrorists would follow the new laws created? On the contrary, increased terrorist threats indicate a greater need to protect oneself]
and 54% want illegal gun sales to be punished more severely than illegal drug sales [is there a legal drug sale? Apples and oranges. One is an illegal transaction of an illegal item and the other is an illegal sale of a legal item. The gun is not contraband. The illustration of this is, suppose someone performed an illegal sale of a car to you, you should get 20 years? If you subsequently used that car to kill someone, you should be charged with the appropriate laws.]
while another 37% saying that punishment for illegal gun sales should be as tough as penalties for selling illegal drugs [ we really wouldn’t want to use penalties for drugs as the basis for a model for guns. Drug penalties are relatively light.]
I’d recommend you do a little more than surface reading of your statistics Fred.