The insane argument is that state licensed, legally acting, law-abiding citizens should be forbidden from exercising a constitutionally enumerated right because of the possibility they will consume alcohol (in many cases, illegally) while carrying a gun, to the point of acting illegally, negligently, and violently with their guns.

That this scenario has NOT occurred in any notable numbers in any state (out of the 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, or 41 states that have some form of legal carry around alcohol) NEGATES the anti-gun argument no matter which number, out of the numbers cited, of states allow the practice.

The argument is FALSE. It has been disproven. Don’t make me go all “Monty Python Parrot Sketch” on this point.

thanks

Bar restriction:
RCW 9.41.300
(1) It is unlawful for any person to enter the following places when he or she knowingly possesses or knowingly has under his or her control a weapon:
…
(d) That portion of an establishment classified by the state liquor control board as off-limits to persons under twenty-one years of age; or
…

In the linked article he also notes:
“A 1983 Washington state Supreme Court ruling upheld the constitutionality of a municipal ordinance limiting the possession of firearms where alcoholic beverages are dispensed by the drink.”

While possibly true technically (he doesn’t provide a cite), it is in effect an outright lie: in 1983 the WA legislature passed a state preemption law.

RCW 9.41.290
State preemption.
The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.

So Applebees, to pick one example, is just fine.

And in those actual ‘bars’ you can still legally carry concealed as long as you have permission from the owner / manager.

Interestingly enough, MA has no prohibitions whatsoever against carrying in bars, restaurants, etc.

You can’t be legally drunk while carrying, but that’s about it.

Oh, and the whole circus involved in actually GETTING your permit, too…

28.425o

(d) A bar or tavern licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, where the primary source of income of the business is the sale of alcoholic liquor by the glass and consumed on the premises.

The vast majority of other restaurants that serve alcohol are not 51% and CHL holders can carry in them unless the restaurant chooses to prohibit the practice.

In summary: In Texas, CHL holders can carry concealed handguns into the vast majority of establishments that serve alcohol for consumption on the premises.

The “restaurant ban repeal” failed again this year. The governor vetoed it and the legislature didn’t override his veto.

In OR, to my knowledge, and I’ve kept up with this for almost two decades, there have been exactly TWO investigated uses of a CHL’s weapon in a bar, and one was out in the parking lot. Score: the parking lot one was a justifiable homicide, and the one inside the bar wasn’t. So, ONE, each and only, conviction resulting from concealed carry in bars. We have just shy of 188K permitees now, I believe.

That is the fundamental point of the argument. The anti-rights folk are using a spurious argument, an insane argument, with their claim that otherwise law abiding individuals will break the law and drink to the point of behaving violently and negligently with their guns. This is an insult to all law-abiding licensees.

This claim is essentially a blood libel, meant to incite a negative action against law-abiding citizens. It must be ridiculed, it must be refuted, it must be stopped for the insanity it is.

So how many times, in all those states with all those confusing laws about legal carry and restaurants and drinking, have licensees misused their firearms?

Not enough to make the case for infringing against lawful carry.

On a related note, I see OpenCarry.org updated their map concerning Georgia.