Arizona now allows guns in bars

Arizona now allows guns in bars September 30, 2009

Arizona has recently passed a law allowing people to carry guns into bars.

The NRA-backed law, which goes into effect today, allows those with a concealed weapons permit to bring guns into bars and restaurants.

Currently, over 130,000 Arizona residents possess such a permit.

Asked to comment,  the NRA’s Western Region Director J.P. Nelson said “if a person starts drinking and gets in a shootout and kills someone, of course they’re subject to criminal prosecution.”

It looks like I won’t be venturing into Arizona anytime soon. How about you?

"Dear MATT TALBOT,It has been ten years since you posted this. I kind of wish ..."

Nationalism is Idolatry
"In a way, you summed up why Trump was elected...but I would add another part ..."

How to Govern as an Autocrat ..."
"Thanks for your writings. i look forward to them"

Woe to you who are rich; ..."
"Julia, a very thoughtful post. To show the complexities of the labels good and bad ..."

The Victims Are Us, and The ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • standmickey

    See, this is why I wanted to go to college out-of-state.

  • Mark
    Guns can kill innocent people when fired in such places. Knives cannot so easily.
    Here is my question to you. Annie Le of Yale who several weeks ago was strangled to death by a Yale employee who was remonstrating against her apparently as to her failure to keep certain mouse cages cleanly was killed therefore by a man with a temper and without a plan or a weapon. My point is that if she carried a small razel (think of a razor made of thick steel and set in a small knife form), she might be alive today by having slit his windpipe in seconds as he strangled her or she could have slit his wrists first and then his windpipe or his carotid artery.
    So my question to you is: should we allow females in our society wherein rapes etc occur…should we allow them to carry that weapon which cannot hit an innocent bystander but which may save their lives as in the encounter that Annie Le had which ended her life because she was unarmed? Or should we forbid it due to the emotions that are aroused in this same society in intimate situations wherein their significant other might be struck with said knife under the duress of intimate argument?

  • Blackadder

    Guns in bars strikes me as a remarkably bad idea. On the other hand, bars remain free under the law to exclude firearms if they choose and most have indicated that they will. So avoiding the entire state seems like overkill.

  • David Nickol

    bill,

    Why not chemical mace or a taser? Why do weapons for self-defense have to be lethal?

    I remember decades ago on All in the Family, Archie Bunker did a guest commentary on a local television station and said, “The way to stop airplane hijackings is to arm all your passengers.” It got a big laugh back then, but today the idea is commonplace that if everyone were armed, we’d all be safer.

  • I think it’s pretty screwed up to use the sexual assault of women as a cover for the largely very male desire for greater acceptability of weapons in society.

    No, bill, she would we alive today if the man would not have killed her. You’re just peddling the old women-should-know-better-and-just-arm-themselves garbage; the old the-solution-to-violence-against-women-is-more-violence line. No, the real problem when it comes to violence against women is violent men, not the fact that most women desire to live life unarmed.

  • “the old women-should-know-better-and-just-arm-themselves garbage”

    Why is it garbage?

    “No, the real problem when it comes to violence against women is violent men”

    This is sheer utopianism. Do you honestly think you’re going to somehow erase the violence from men’s hearts? A woman has a realistic chance of preventing a violent assault with a weapon – you have zero chance of ordering society and the formation of men’s souls in such a way that they are no longer violent.

  • Marjorie Campbell

    Michael & Bill, I don’t know if “most women desire to live life unarmed.” Maybe. In a perfect world, that would be woman’s desire. It used to be that a male protectorate and legal/cultural restrictions provided women & their children a rough safety zone. But that’s gone and we see, in my opinion, a strange sense of innocence that denies the reality of increasing violence upon society’s physical and emotionally weaker members – yet, a society that insists they remain unarmed and defenseless. It’s almost like a sacrificial offering to the dysfunction of society in abandoning protection of the weak and poor. I actually go the oppposite direction and think … as the radical feminists urged, that arming women and children to protect their own lives and dignity against the dominant, aggressive males (though sometimes female as well) is the only choice. Am I wrong?

  • Michael and David,
    Actually both of you if you look at my very last question, you might have seen that I do not have an answer to this. I don’t. A taser or mace is so big that in most work space situations the woman won’t have it handy and on her when she is attacked but there are tiny razels that could fit in the smallest pocket. But I think states as in my area forbid knives due to the statistical reality of most violence being intimate violence. But that view which seems very realistic and true…seems to leave the Annie Le’s of the world vulnerable in the work space. We had another woman in the northeast who months ago was raped and killed by a fellow janitorial staff member and likewise stuffed in an air conditioning duct. So are they collateral damage to the wise law that forbids knives to women since in the long run…with knives…the damage will be worse statistically.
    Annie Le was very petite and light which also made her vulnerable.

  • Franklin Jennings

    This law will also allow open carry by anyone who can legally possess a gun as well.

    Nothing stranger than walking into a bank in Arizona and seeing all those pistols on hips.

  • Why is it garbage?

    Because it’s yet another case of blaming the victim, something conservatives are so good at.

    This is sheer utopianism. Do you honestly think you’re going to somehow erase the violence from men’s hearts? A woman has a realistic chance of preventing a violent assault with a weapon – you have zero chance of ordering society and the formation of men’s souls in such a way that they are no longer violent.

    Where did I say anything about completely eradicating violence? I simply pointed to the real problem. Pointing to the real problem is not utopian. Of course we’ll never fully eradicate violence. Simply arming women is not going to solve that real problem. It’s simply adding more of the problem.

    Aren’t you always asking others not to misrepresent what you say or attach views to you that you don’t, in fact, hold? Are you willing to extend that courtesy to others?

  • I don’t have a strong opinion on these laws one way or the other. Many municipalities not only permit but _require_ that off duty police officers concealed carry at all times, so it’s not as if there have never been guns present on such premises before. However, in the interest of at least being accurate on what the law says, the following article might be useful:

    http://www.examiner.com/x-25100-Phoenix-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m9d29-Arizona-law-to-permit-concealed-carry-in-restaurants-beginning-September-29-2009

    Facts to note:

    – Individual restaurants and bars can ban guns in their own establishments by posting a sign forbidding concealed carry.

    – According to the law, people with carry permits may carry in an establishment serving alcohol _only_ if they themselves consume no alcohol.

    – Open carry in drinking establishments is not legalized by this law.

    – Arizona is the 40th state to establish such a law, so those avoiding Arizona apparently have a lot of other states to avoid as well. A map of states by carry law:

    http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/2677/ccwrestaurantcarry.jpg

  • “Because it’s yet another case of blaming the victim”

    So allowing women to arm themselves in the hopes that they will be able to fend off a violent attack is… blaming them for the violent attack.

    Where exactly is the blame, here? I’ll assume this isn’t the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard, that I am missing something quite profound, and ask you to fill in the blank for me.

    “Where did I say anything about completely eradicating violence?”

    When you contrast the problem of violent men to the suggestion of women arming themselves, it either implies that you have no solution at all, or that your solution is, somehow, to make men not violent.

    But you are right. You didn’t say anything about a solution, so I shouldn’t have drawn the implication for you. That was wrong and I apologize.

    So I’ll just ask instead – what is your solution?

    And why shouldn’t a woman arm herself if she chooses?

  • So allowing women to arm themselves in the hopes that they will be able to fend off a violent attack is… blaming them for the violent attack.

    You’re intentionally distorting what I said, which was a reply to another comment. I am criticizing a particular viewpoint — women-should-know-better-and-just-arm-themselves — because it places blame on women when they are victims of abuse.

  • Marjorie
    I tend to agree with you about women (not children with weapons) having the right to defend themselves. In some not all of the northeast states, it is very difficult to carry any weapon, whatever sex one is.
    The abiding question for governments though is: will domestic violence go up if weapons are legalized to protect from criminals. A woman learns where all the close to surface arteries are and legally carries a hyper sharp razel and she never did this before. But then she is in a heated argument with her boyfriend who pushes her and suddenly, she pulls out the razel and slits his carotid artery about which there is no turning back. This is the conundrum governments are stuck with as they try to decide whether to permit self defense weapons and it will vary in difficulty with the area. A government might permit farming women or men to carry weapons in North Dakota but see it as very inadvisable to permit the exact same weapons in Chicago.

  • Blackadder

    For what it’s worth, today I had lunch at a restaurant/bar where people were carrying and managed to emerge unscathed.

  • I’ve got a brother in Arizona…definitely got to see him soon.

    Encouraging women, or anyone else, to avoid risky situations and know how to defend themselves (with weapons or otherwise) in no way blames the victims of assault. That’s like saying that teaching people to drive responsibly somehow dishonors those who end up in car crashes. It’s possible to have compassion on victims while simultaneously working to reduce their numbers. And yes, conservatives are just as capable of that.

    To disarm oneself does not disarm anyone else. It’s a decision people are free to make, because it exists within that relatively small domain known as “Things over which I have control.”

  • Matt Talbot

    Allowing drunk people to have guns seems to be asking for trouble – when I’m out hunting, the rule is: when the first beer is opened at the end of the day, the guns are locked in the truck: anyone that violates that rule is not invited back again, period.

    I like movie westerns and all, but it really did used to be common in the Old West for drunks to murder each other in saloons and gambling halls. Watching movies about those days is kind of fun: reviving the real possibility of it in real life is…somewhat worrisome, let’s say. I’d kind of like to think we’ve grown out of it as a civilization.

  • Matt Talbot

    Allowing drunk people to have guns seems to be asking for trouble – when I’m out hunting, the rule is: when the first beer is opened at the end of the day, the guns are locked in the truck: anyone that violates that rule is not invited back again, period.

    I like movie westerns and all, but it really did used to be common in the Old West for drunks to murder each other in saloons and gambling halls. Watching movies about those days is kind of fun: reviving the real possibility of it in real life is…somewhat worrisome, let’s say. I’d kind of like to think we’ve grown out of it as a civilization.

  • More misrepresentation. Good God.

    Encouraging women, or anyone else, to avoid risky situations and know how to defend themselves (with weapons or otherwise) in no way blames the victims of assault.

    I didn’t say women should not avoid “risky situations” nor did I say that they should not defend themselves. I spoke very specifically, and reiterated my very specific concern a second time.

    That’s like saying that teaching people to drive responsibly somehow dishonors those who end up in car crashes.

    No, it’s nothing like that. Sexual assault is not like a car accident.

    Amazing how so many of our readers’ real faith comes out in discussions like these: faith in redemptive violence.

  • Michael
    For all your bragging about this pacifistic faith of yours, you still have not answered a series of people here about how is a woman to defend herself.
    Faith? Annie Le at Yale was a Catholic. Was her faith so small… so that God did not help her as she was being strangled to death just before her wedding? But… God would have helped you in the same moment because according to your own insinuating both here and elsewhere, your faith is gigantic and pacifistic…even though the Bible has very little pacifism (virtually condemned as cowardice in the Old Testament) with Christ even allowing his men to bring swords to Mount Olive not for protecting Him who was prophecied to die as victim but perhaps for protecting them.

  • PS…as it turned out, Peter assaulted first which is not defense and hence was then reproved by Christ for his having done so.

  • David Nickol

    “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.

    Isn’t Jesus explicitly saying not to engage in self-defense? I don’t know how else to read that passage. I don’t know how to explain it away.

  • Bill – I have not once argued that Annie or any other woman must be a pacifist. Don’t put words in my mouth. All I said was that for men to say “women-should-just-get-smart-and-arm-themselves” is both blame-the-victim thinking and it is a clear expression of faith in redemptive violence.

    You clearly are not able to discuss this without misunderstanding me (might be my fault, who knows) or without intentionally distorting what I am saying. When you are ready to try harder, let me know.

    Again, it is so transparent that it is a largely a bunch of MEN making claims like yours: using the sexual assault of women as part of your argument for passing liberal gun laws. It’s disgusting.

  • Michael
    You are actually blotting out the reality of this so that the women in your family never face what Annie did. But blotting out…does not change the world you live in and in which they live. No victim ever thought it would happen to them. Annie Le wrote an article on being street smart at Yale. She never thought the street would be the work place and so she was not ready.

    Yet once again, you have not answered me or Joe and stated what Annie Le should have done.

    Joe Hargrave asked you for your solution and you did not answer him at all maybe because your a prior position has no real solution in the real world but only in the world of the imagination.
    I just asked you above what should she..Annie… have done and you again sent up smoke in the form of this reading minds about male gun liberty into this, an issue I explicitly stated as real problems for innocent bystanders and governments. And I stated that a knife does not have that problem of innocent bystanders.

    My position on Annie is that the state has a real problem allowing weapons but I hold that women using the virture of epikeia whereby one knows when they might obey the spirit of the law but not the letter of the law…. might obey the state’s intention in this case of order yet see themselves confidently as one who would not use a weapon against an intimate but only against a criminal.

    It’s simple. What should Annie Le have done? Were she confident of her temper with intimates, she would be alive today if she used epikeia morally and then used physically a highly sharpened small folding razel that could click to her pants pocket top inside and can be opened with only one free hand.
    He..Raymond Clark… e.g. was strangling her and she stood a chance of stopping that by deeply cutting his inner wrist so deep that his immediate need would have been a hospital and he would have known that since he was apparently not a moron in terms of IQ.

  • David
    According to Fr. Raymond Brown (Introduction to the New Testament), Catholicism’s premier biblical scholar (though I am less than a fan), scholars agree that the passage is not about atrocious assault cases since in the one gospel version of it which you give above, the right cheek is explicitly noted which means the vast majority of opponents (being right handed) would have struck you with their weaker hand which tells scholars and tells Fr.Raymond Brown that Christ is addressing a more formal mideastern type of insult (not unlike the Iraqi shoe thrower and Bush)…and thus an insult that uses the weaker hand against the commensurate cheek on the side of the weaker hand and as a sign that a ritual is being entered and not a real assault. Christ is saying that in this insult process, withdraw and using it as general, withdraw sometimes since Augustine noted that Christ did not turn the other cheek when he was struck before the High Priest but rebuked the soldier who did it and Paul was struck and also did not turn the other cheek but went further than Christ saying, ” God will strike thee thou whitewashed wall for you dare to judge me according to the law but against the law you orde me to be struck.”

  • Bill – I’m afraid you don’t know anything about the women in my family or what they have or have not experienced. It’s time for you to withdraw from this conversation.

  • David Nickol

    bill,

    Clearly the guy who killed Annie Le had emotional problems, but how do we know Annie Le couldn’t have handled the encounter differently and avoided violence altogether? It seems fairly likely that he accused her of not keeping the animal cages in the lab clean, and she argued with him. I am not trying to “blame the victim,” but perhaps she could have diffused the situation. I can only imagine there was an argument that resulted in him killing her.

    We really don’t know, of course.

    Here in New York last Sunday, two guys accidentally bumped into each other walking down the street, exchanged words, and one of them stabbed the other to death. It seems quite possible to me that if the victim had said, “Oh, I’m so sorry. How clumsy of me,” he would still be alive.

  • Michael
    What I said applies to all women and the worry within all husbands regarding their wives and daughters. I do not have to know a thing about anyone’s wife or daughter to know that each husband worries about them within this dangerous world. Their past has zero relevance. Each woman whether they’ve seen violence or never seen violence…can be in Annie Le’s position at some time. I know two women who were rape victims: one already had experienced violence and the other was from wealth and violence was brand new to her when it happened.
    A woman’s experience is irrelevant to the monster who is attacking her.

  • David
    The Yale killer already raped one of his girlfriends which she noted to the police explaining that she did not report it previously. That Annie Le could have diffused it is conjecture and has nor relevance to her right to defend her life if in fact she inadequately contributed to the man’s temper. Aquinas noted that we are responsible only for reasonable scandal not for the scandal of the unreasonable. No inadequate reaction of hers as to arguing makes his conduct either excusable or..or…even understandable. Murder is not within range as an understandable reaction to any argumentative displays by someone else. Road rage urders for example are common and non understandable as being in range of the provocation.

  • Bill – Since you do not want to withdraw from the conversation, please allow me to do so.

  • Michael…you may do so.

  • David Nickol

    bill,

    Annie Le was at work, not walking home late at night through a bad neighborhood. The implication of what you are saying is that women should carry a lethal weapon at all times and have it so readily accessible that they can pull it out and use it if someone strangles them. Forgive me if I find that — and the specificity with which you describe what she might have done –creepy. (“She might be alive today by having slit his windpipe in seconds as he strangled her or she could have slit his wrists first and then his windpipe or his carotid artery.”)

    How many women want to be on the alert 24/7 to defend themselves from murderers? I’ve worked for large companies since 1972, and nobody has ever been murdered on the job.

    No inadequate reaction of hers as to arguing makes his conduct either excusable or..or…even understandable.

    I am not trying to excuse a murderer. I am just saying that — in the absence of any knowledge about what really happened — it seems possible to me that diffusing the situation would have been been preferable to her being strangle or him having his carotid artery slashed.

  • David
    You are excusing him in a subtle way due to Annie not having diffused the situation (victim blaming regardless how you are picturing it to yourself) which argument about the mouse cages you and I are guessing at since it will never be known.
    You are plainly stating that he was amenable to not killing her if her words were correct and you have no way of knowing that and there are bad people who are going to find fault with your words regardless..at least according to Christ who said that about the pharisees who did kill Him for His words inter alia no matter how He phrased them.
    For all we know, Wayne Clark could have demanded sex as he did from his former girlfriend whom he raped. We are only guessing that it was strictly about the mouse cages.

    As to peoples’ assessment of ongoing danger vis a vis your company, that was prior to this brand new phenomenon of two men within 6 months and within two neighboring states… killing women in the work space and both men stuffing their bodies in wall cavities. That is new and some women will take cautions that they never before took at the work space. Some will embrace denial. Some..the largest number… will play the odds which is your approach I suspect. Statistically one’s chances are good if one takes no precautions; the drawback is that if one becomes the rare statistic then one is face to face with danger and with no protection. Annie was playing the odds within the work space despite being militant about the dangers of the street where I’d bet she carried spray.
    I’m 6’3″ and 220 and ex gymnastic still rings muscle and was challenged to a fight by a very large black man on 7th ave near 34th street years ago because it was summer, he saw my strength and considered me worthy of his size. He was about 6’6″ and 285 and first I tried to ignore him and when I did, he came up in front of me a second time and set his arms in boxing position and said: “Let’s go”. I neasured him off for a running back kick having experience in that area but simultaneously I stuck my hand in my pocket slowly so that he would not see
    ( I had a pepper spray container). When he saw the hand go down along with seeing my attitude that was one of getting ready to fight him, he ran thinking I had either a gun or a knife plus the strength which all told broke his parameters. Two weeks later I read in the Times that a street vagrant…Big Mike…in that area was set on fire by two pimps and burned to death probably for having challenged them and they were definitely the wrong ones to challenge…with me he would have had a kick hurt and sore eyes since I was going to spray him after the running kick. I’ve been in far worse situations.
    Women run alone in Central Park all the time despite repeated murders and atrocious incidents like the one in which the woman was virtually brained by a pack of teens with a stone. Check the park tonight and you’ll find women running alone. I find that creepy as to the modern state of denial. But they are playing the odds and calling it common sense.

  • Ryan Klassen

    I know Michael has withdrawn from the conversation, but the longer it goes on, the more it seems to prove his point. There are two issues here; one is whether women should or shouldn’t arm themselves for protection against violent men and the other is what should be done about violent men. I find it interesting that virtually all the discussion has been about women arming themselves and nothing said about the reason why they need to do so.

    Whether one thinks that women should or shouldn’t arm themselves (or how), it would be a moot point if men didn’t attack them. This is not a utopian position. There are a huge number of men who do not sexually assault women, so it must be possible. Why not set aside for the moment the disagreement on women arming themselves and discuss the actual problem, which is violent men? Just because there’s no easy solution does not mean there is no solution.