JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
When you examine the threads on Facebook about this topic; the trending statement is, "I support guns but I don't support this guns and booze don't mix blah blah blah."

I guess it is the years of firearm training I have and the application of weapon systems in combat, and basically living with guns every second of the day for months at a time that really makes me confused about this. The general public really thinks that people cannot drink and possess a firearm. On another note about 90 percent of Washington Residents do not have the training or experience that I have; and it shows. I was at a gun shop and watched a guy sell grandpa a pistol and the guy couldn't even manipulate the slide and when he did he was pulling the trigger at the same time, the retailer didn't' even correct him for the sake of making a sale. Grandpa will go home and shoot himself at a downward angle in the thigh, and he won't even be drinking.
then there is the scenario where some tanked up idjits begin harrassing someone, as in, ME, or MY FRIENDS, get beligerent cause they're too drunk to have any self-control.... so THEY have "lethal weapons" (hands, feet, lunchboxes, etc, all of which are used to kill more often than firearms are) and I have none.... MY carry gun is for SELF_DEFENSE and defense of other innocents. Against whom? Against ANYONE ANYWHERE who poses a lethal threat to innocents. And a drunk at a ball game, particularly when they run four or five together, can certainly be a lethal threat. Remember that murder at the Angels' Stadium in the car park as the game attendees were trying to leave? He was a drunk rowdy and was out to pick a fight. An innocent was killed.... NO ONE had an Inocent Victim Protective Device.

"THEY" are all on a whinge about some guy with a gun getting drunk and shooting up the place. WE are concerned about a bunch of rowdy drunks going berko and beating innocents to death, and no one with appropriate means to defend them.
On WHAT BASIS do these idjits think THEY can determine when/where any of us will be confronted wiht a lethal threat?
 
I hope this gets moved along and the compromise is similar to the court house laws in Washington. Everyone goes through security and if you carry you go to a pistol locker and lock it up and only you have a key.
When you leave holster back up and go on your way. I would go to a lot more games. I have carried at both stadiums. But it is way to difficult to sneak it through security, and you may not make it.
 
then there is the scenario where some tanked up idjits begin harrassing someone, as in, ME, or MY FRIENDS, get beligerent cause they're too drunk to have any self-control.... so THEY have "lethal weapons" (hands, feet, lunchboxes, etc, all of which are used to kill more often than firearms are) and I have none.... MY carry gun is for SELF_DEFENSE and defense of other innocents. Against whom? Against ANYONE ANYWHERE who poses a lethal threat to innocents. And a drunk at a ball game, particularly when they run four or five together, can certainly be a lethal threat. Remember that murder at the Angels' Stadium in the car park as the game attendees were trying to leave? He was a drunk rowdy and was out to pick a fight. An innocent was killed.... NO ONE had an Inocent Victim Protective Device.

"THEY" are all on a whinge about some guy with a gun getting drunk and shooting up the place. WE are concerned about a bunch of rowdy drunks going berko and beating innocents to death, and no one with appropriate means to defend them.
On WHAT BASIS do these idjits think THEY can determine when/where any of us will be confronted wiht a lethal threat?

You mean, like this?

Man beaten to death after Kenny Chesney concert
 


Yup. Just Like That.

If I cannot carry on the way from/to my transportation, I will not go there. I've been in one of those stadia one time... Sounders FC played FC Dallas. Nice civil game, great crowd... US footie isn't the riotous thing it can be in Merrie Auld..... I'd NEVER attend a Manchester United match unless armed, and since no one on that forsaken rock called England can be armed, I'll pass. Too much of MY tax money has gone to build those two temples.... (after we voted them down twice, and were promised NO PUBLIC MONEY would be spent... AND that, since we like the KingDome, we could KEEP the KingDome.

I'm not clear on how state law would hold this...... I suspect it would be viewed as "private property open to the public", but with public money involved how "private" is it, really? State law provides the armed citizen cannot be kept out of public spaces except certain courthouses, copshops, etc, and THEY must provide manned checkpoints, metal detectors, and secure storage for personal weapons. If they don't do all that, PLUS have the specified signs, that place cannot be considered "gun free". Because we ALL know that without such security no place IS gun free. It is "gun free" only to we who abide by the laws... and not to criminals.
 
Yup. Just Like That.

If I cannot carry on the way from/to my transportation, I will not go there. I've been in one of those stadia one time... Sounders FC played FC Dallas. Nice civil game, great crowd... US footie isn't the riotous thing it can be in Merrie Auld..... I'd NEVER attend a Manchester United match unless armed, and since no one on that forsaken rock called England can be armed, I'll pass. Too much of MY tax money has gone to build those two temples.... (after we voted them down twice, and were promised NO PUBLIC MONEY would be spent... AND that, since we like the KingDome, we could KEEP the KingDome.

I'm not clear on how state law would hold this...... I suspect it would be viewed as "private property open to the public", but with public money involved how "private" is it, really? State law provides the armed citizen cannot be kept out of public spaces except certain courthouses, copshops, etc, and THEY must provide manned checkpoints, metal detectors, and secure storage for personal weapons. If they don't do all that, PLUS have the specified signs, that place cannot be considered "gun free". Because we ALL know that without such security no place IS gun free. It is "gun free" only to we who abide by the laws... and not to criminals.

The prohibition is based on a private company holding a lease and having the right to dictate firearm possession on leased property, regardless if the property is publically funded.
 
Spending political capital on this is a misuse of resources. It would be far better put towards making CPL holders exempt from background checks. What's happening at NICS is a cluster@#$!.
 
I must have missed the memo where consuming alcohol is now required at all public events.

If all these do-gooder types were truly concerned about alcohol-fueled mayhem they would simply ban alcohol at these venues and the problem would be solved. Oh, wait. They can't do that. Isn't free and unfettered access to alcohol an enumerated right? Or is that arms for self protection?

"... If it saves one life..." I guess they forgot to throw in the "It's for the children" bit as well.
 
Spending political capital on this is a misuse of resources. It would be far better put towards making CPL holders exempt from background checks. What's happening at NICS is a cluster@#$!.


good point, but what would make more sense for the masses would be to make significant changes to NICS. Some states do have it that one's Mother May I Card IS a permanent BGC

For starters, end the practice of requiring any information identifying the items purchased. Its supposed to be a BGC on the PURCHASER, right?So what does it matter WHAT is being purchased? Then figure out a way to eliminate subsequent checks for a year. Maybe a smallish card identifying the checked person and date. Any future purchases within a year, just show the card and done. The way NICS is run now its like the act of buying a gun is criminal on its face and I have to prove I'm not criminal.
 
If memory serves, it's already illegal to drink and carry anyway, which makes their argument Horsesh*t On Stilts.

In Washington, it's illegal to enter "That portion of an establishment classified by the state liquor control board as off-limits to persons under twenty-one years of age; (RCW 9.41.300.(1)(d))" while carrying (open or concealed).

My reading of this is that you can't carry weapons into bars where kids aren't allowed. If you're at Denny's and you want a beer with your burger and you happen to be carrying, go for it.

I haven't found anything about being drunk while carrying, but I assume that's a no-no. It's illegal to be intoxicated and carrying in Idaho, so I assume the same is true in Washington. Either way, it's a dumb thing to do.

My thinking is that if I plan on drinking, I'll leave my gun somewhere else that's safe.
 
That too, @sigmadog --which makes places like Red Robin that refuse to post as required by the LCB very annoying.

The problem is that the bar is always the closest dining area to the door, and when you're stuck dealing with a Paraplegic From Neck Up who thinks anywhere beyond the bathroom is the Bataan Death March...
 
That too, @sigmadog --which makes places like Red Robin that refuse to post as required by the LCB very annoying.

The problem is that the bar is always the closest dining area to the door, and when you're stuck dealing with a Paraplegic From Neck Up who thinks anywhere beyond the bathroom is the Bataan Death March...

Yeah. Thimble Bladders are very inconvenient.

The wife and I usually head straight for the bar since we can usually find seats right away. If I'm concealed carrying, I guess we'll just have to wait to sit in the family section.
 
That too, @sigmadog --which makes places like Red Robin that refuse to post as required by the LCB very annoying.

The problem is that the bar is always the closest dining area to the door, and when you're stuck dealing with a Paraplegic From Neck Up who thinks anywhere beyond the bathroom is the Bataan Death March...
Part of the designation of "restricted to age 21 and older" for liquor erving areas INCLUDES the prescribed signage... so I suppose, push coming to shove, if one were "made' inside that area and it was not properly posted, and since it is contiguous with the rest of the establishment's floor space, one could make a pretty solid defense.... as long as one was not drinking at the time. If you get carded when entering, it's pretty obvious its age restricted, thus no carry.
This whole thing is a stupid law anyway, Oregon don't care if I carry in there, as long as I'm not drkinging. but even that.... one sip of a beer and suddenly I'm Rambo on a rampage? get real.... I can be at a friend's house and have a beer whilst carrying no one ever knows or cares, and I am no different. One beer ain't a gonna make me a monster.....
 
Lol, Sigma, I was referring to the "I can't walk TWO AISLES in the grocery store" Morbidly Obese By Choice And Lazy As Sin crowd. (Full disclosure, I'm a rather chunky sort myself, but I've made sure to keep it managed short of mobility-impairing levels.)
 
Lol, Sigma, I was referring to the "I can't walk TWO AISLES in the grocery store" Morbidly Obese By Choice And Lazy As Sin crowd. (Full disclosure, I'm a rather chunky sort myself, but I've made sure to keep it managed short of mobility-impairing levels.)

Got it. I was thinking bladder-control issues.
 
Part of the designation of "restricted to age 21 and older" for liquor erving areas INCLUDES the prescribed signage... so I suppose, push coming to shove, if one were "made' inside that area and it was not properly posted, and since it is contiguous with the rest of the establishment's floor space, one could make a pretty solid defense....

Of course, going with the Red Robin example, it's probably posted, but you won't see it tucked discreetly next to the Andy Warhol soup can images and the Marilyn Monroe on the sewer grate poster, and the photo of Elvis in gold doing the pelvis thing.
 
They do have some signs in the entryway, but they are not the Official LCB Req'd Sign--I've looked for it. Doesn't the LCB require that their sign be posted in the entryway or somewhere prominently visible? (Olive Garden, OTOH, the sign is frequently hidden by somebody standing in front of it blocking view. Then again, we know Darden is anti-Second Amendment rights period...)

You don't have a choice on your bladder, but you do have some degree more choice on the other... :)
 
The big thing for me about drinking and concealed carry is other people's perceptions.
Whether you are enjoying a Hot dog , fries and a beer at the stadium or a beer with your meal at a restaurant its probably no big deal.
Nobody would even notice.
After all many folks have a drink with dinner and are still okay to drive home after.
Guilty as charged.

But if I had to use my gun , then it would be my luck that all folks would remember was that I had a beer , then used my gun.
The news headline wouldn't be : "Concealed pistol carrier stops mass shooting."
But : "Drunk gun owner shoots up the place."

Is this worrying too much about what others think?
Maybe.
I do think that we as gun owners need to be above the common perception of what many people think of when the phrase gun owner is mentioned.
Any chance of showing gun owners as irresponsible , is one that I don't like to take.

Y'all do what you want , as long as you are safe.
As for me I won't drink and carry.
Andy
 
Last Edited:

Upcoming Events

Rifle Mechanics
Sweet Home, OR
Oregon Arms Collectors May 2024 Gun Show
Portland, OR
Handgun Self Defense Fundamentals
Sweet Home, OR
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

Back Top