“Ohio Supreme Court to decide if state law regulating guns in bars is constitutional,” WCMH NBC4 Columbus reports. “At the center of the case is a longstanding state law that prohibits residents from carrying firearms in establishments with on-premises liquor permits, unless they have a valid concealed handgun license, are not intoxicated and do not consume drugs or alcohol while there.”
Notably, a CHL is a requirement for exemption. Citizens taking advantage of Ohio’s so-called “constitutional carry” law will be required to disarm in restaurants that serve adult beverages, even if they do not indulge. That’s not the constitutional challenge being mounted here, although it certainly seems like an argument that needs to be made since felony charges could result.
In the case now before the court, a CHL holder visited a bar while armed, ordered five drinks, and got in a fight in the men’s room, where he ended up shooting his opponent in the neck. It’s hardly a case that will raise sympathy, even among gun owners, and in this case, not only were there felony charges for the shooting, but also for having a gun in a bar and drinking in the first place.
The defendant’s challenge to that charge was to argue the Bruen standard of text, history, and tradition, noting “that the types of establishments that hold on-premises liquor permits would not have faced firearms prohibitions around the time the Second Amendment was ratified.”
The Muskingum County Prosecutor’s Office, headed by a Republican, has taken up the counterargument generally made by Democrats, that “mid-to-late 1800s [laws] in New Mexico and Oklahoma … allowed places that sold alcohol to prohibit guns. He argued that 1791, when the Second Amendment was ratified, should not be the only point in time considered.”
Why not? Is he saying the anti-federalists would have agreed to ratification if they knew that people would come by later and begin unraveling the protections they placed into the Constitution as a condition for accepting it? Does he have any authority he can cite to credibly make that argument, or is he just making stuff up and hoping no one will call him on it? And as far as those later laws go, another significant point no one is bringing up when they’re cited is a record that shows they were challenged on Second Amendment grounds and upheld by the Supreme Court. Because they know they can’t.
But let’s forget the laws for a moment and just rely on what the prohibitionists call “common sense” when they’re making demands that exhibit none. Let’s admit that the danger is when people do evil and stupid things with guns, like being under the influence and actually victimizing people.
Most of us are perfectly capable of coexisting with guns and alcohol and do it every day. Right now, if I wanted to, I could avail myself of beer in the fridge, wine in the pantry, , some scotch and bourbon in the cabinet that I may indulge in tonight, tequila I’m saving for next summer when a cousin who makes killer margaritas will visit, and some rum reserved for and some rum reserved for Thanksgiving and Christmas holiday cheer to mix with seasonal eggnog.
Bottom line, the “Home Drinking While Armed Loophole” is something I exploit whenever I feel like it – and don’t when I don’t – and extend to dinner and party guests every time I host a gathering. We’ve been doing this for decades, and surprise, no one has ever gotten blotto, started a fight, pulled a gun, or even danced on a table, because we do things responsibly and hang out with friends and relatives who do the same.
And you’d better believe we show the same responsible restraint when we go out to dinner, and are more than capable of ordering some wine with dinner and shouldn’t have to worry that the “law” forces us to choose between leaving guns in cars (that can be broken into or stolen), or face life-shattering legal and financial consequences if caught defying infringements.
“A fundamental precept is that firearm rights are not unlimited in scope,” the prosecutor blathers on, making another argument straight out of the Everytown playbook. News flash, pal, victimizing others does not qualify as a “firearms right,” and that’s what you should be focused on. If you hurt someone you should be accountable for it. If you hurt someone while impaired, that accountability should be enhanced.
But if you’re minding your own business responsibly pursuing happiness and enjoying the blessings of liberty while retaining full possession of your rights, what’s the problem here, unless you’re an authoritarian control freak and can’t stand to see people capable of handling themselves doing that? Why do we have to pay for the people who can’t?
Logically, if you’re going to ban guns and drinking in business establishments, why wouldn’t you preemptively demand the same controls in homes, the places where “domestic violence” can take place?
Believe me, the prohibitionists would if they thought for a second they could get away with it.
DOJ Declares DC Magazine Ban Unconstitutional in Stunning Reversal
Vehicle as Weapon, Shots Fired, No USCG Personnel Injured ~ VIDEO
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
