Friday, April 3, 2015

Relativity II

Back on Pi Day I wrote Relativity, in which I mused on the differences between various states' rules and procedures for applying and getting approved for a permit to carry a concealed pistol, by whatever name that permission slip may be known.

Now, I'm sitting here planning to attend the NRA Annual Meeting in Nashville, and am glad to note that Tennessee recognizes a Washington CPL.  (In fact, TN apparently recognizes every other states' permits, except for Vermont. Oh, wait, Vermont doesn't even issue a permit, thus the original name for "Constitutional Carry", FKA "Vermont Carry.")

Now, here in WA I can carry in a restaurant, and even have a beer or some wine, but I cannot cross the--often invisible--line that separates the dining room proper from the bar. Entering a bar while armed is verboten.

"South of the border", down Oregon way, there is no rule against a lawfully armed citizen from sitting down in a bar and having an adult libation.

Getting drunk, no, having a drink, go for it.

In Tennessee, as it turns out, one can enter a restaurant that serves alcohol, but if The Man has authorized you to legally carry the means to defend yourself and your loved ones, you are expected to be on the wagon.

Now, I understand the reason behind this: "ZOMG, booze and guns don't mix!"And yet...

WA and OR manage to let a person who is deemed responsible enough to carry a gun to have a drink.

I am not aware of any state that says "No drinking and driving AT ALL."

"If you're driving you'd better not go take Communion!"*

Yeah, that'd go over well...

 TN also does not let you carry in a park. (I understand that this is changing very soon, perhaps before the NRAAM.)

Many municipalities in WA try and ban lawfully armed citizens from carrying in public spaces, like parks, but state preemption and all, they regularly get slapped down for it.

Not all states have preemption, and it can get pretty silly, the gyrations you may have to go through, figuring out how the rules may have changed when you're crossing an invisible line.

 Considering that it has been proven over and over again that crime goes down when citizens are armed, that all the panic-driven predictions of "blood in the streets" are untrue, it seems like being allowed to have a beer with friends, many of whom I've never seen, is jot too much to ask.

*Yeah, I know the "sacramental wine" is often actually grape juice that has not been changed...

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Huh, interesting point re: communion. I think there's precedent (wrong bad ugly precedent but precedent nonetheless) that would make communion very difficult if there was a 'no drinking and driving, period' movement here. The precedent is variously cited as Oregon v. Smith, Employment Division v. Smith, or Frohnmeyer v. Smith -- Al Smith was fired for using peyote, a sacrament of his church, and the firing was upheld in the USSC. Belatedly, a lot of folks understood that this established a precedent that would have allowed, for example, the banning of communion wine during prohibition.

(Personal point of pride: I set in motion arrangements for Al Smith to be in the audience at an Oregon Gubernatorial debate in which Dave Frohnmeyer was participating.)

I wonder how it is in Scandinavian countries that are that strict with drinking and driving? Or maybe the state-Lutheranism in those countries doesn't go for communion. Or maybe since it's a state church...

-Erik from Seattle