The patrons at Champps in Reston, an upscale restaurant and bar chain, were eating ribs and drinking beer on a recent Saturday when customer Bruce Jackson stood up and made an announcement: He was armed, and so were dozens of other patrons.
In Virginia, gun owners are allowed to carry firearms in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, as long as the restaurant permits it and they carry their weapon openly. Legislation to allow concealed weapons in restaurants serving alcohol passed the General Assembly this year, but was vetoed by Gov. Tim Kaine, a Democrat.
Now, while I was aware that open carry is legal in VA, I was not aware of the fact that only open carry was legal in establishments serving alcohol.
Maybe I need to get an open carry rig for the Dan Wesson.
I fail to see what difference it makes whether one carries openly or concealed.
It’s an individual’s right to be armed; quibbling over how the weapon is carried is a distinction without a difference, IMO. I am aware this has been a point of contention between the two factions forever, I’ve heard the pro and con arguments, and I still believe it’s stupid because I don’t believe it’s anybody else’s business.
In Minnesota, we have a right to carry, and nothing in the statute requires concealment. I was advised by my carry cert instructor though, to conceal, because wearing open invites anti-gunners to make false claims about your actions. If someone at the grocery store sees your weapon and wants to call the police and say that you flashed it in an intimidating manner, the onus is apparently on you to prove you did not. He said carrying concealed protects you from false claims by fearful people who resent your right to carry.
That makes some common sense to me, but still, I resent it. I would like nothing more than to strap on a side holster and not worry about whether somebody can see it or not. I have done so on weekend excursions to wilderness areas, but not in the course of everyday life, which is really where it counts.
As it stands, I leave my 9mm and two 15-round clips at home most of the time, because I can’t conceal it unless I wear my conceal fanny-pack, which is inconvenient at times. So I’m reduced to a 5-round .38 Special that is inaccurate as hell; but is easy to conceal; and it leaves me about 25 shots shy of as comfortable as I wanna be.
According to statute though, bars are off limits in MN, and I can’t say I disaagree with that provision.
According to statute though, bars are off limits in MN, and I can’t say I disaagree with that provision.
I do.
As a sane and responsible gun-owner, I resent the implication that merely being in a bar, nevermind having a glass of wine with dinner, is likely to trip the homocidal trigger (pun intended).
It’s similar to the horror-prognostications that if a majority of people carried, they’d be shooting each other over trivialities.
Well now, ain’t one damned thing wrong with a 5 shot .38 revolver (in +P, with appropriate loads) for self-defense. Most folks will never even pull it in need, most who do will never have to fire it. But if you do, it will do the overwhelming majority of jobs. You don’t need to prepare for an extended combat situation. The question for most isn’t whether they carry enough firepower - it’s whether they carry any firepower at all. A 6 shot .22 is better than nothing. And a .38 in good +P loads delivers more per shot than a 9 mm with military ammo.
If someone at the grocery store sees your weapon and wants to call the police and say that you flashed it in an intimidating manner, the onus is apparently on you to prove you did not. He said carrying concealed protects you from false claims by fearful people who resent your right to carry.
Legally, that’s bullshit. If open carry is legal, you can’t be prosecuted for doing so. Many states have laws against “brandishing”, but that requires you have the weapon in your hand.
The real problem with open carry is that if you have a gun strapped on your hip, but put on a coat that covers it, you are now in concealed carry territory, and had better have a permit.
Well now, ain’t one damned thing wrong with a 5 shot .38 revolver (in +P, with appropriate loads) for self-defense......And a .38 in good +P loads delivers more per shot than a 9 mm with military ammo.
Well now, ain’t one damned thing wrong with a 5 shot .38 revolver (in +P, with appropriate loads) for self-defense......And a .38 in good +P loads delivers more per shot than a 9 mm with military ammo.
According to statute though, bars are off limits in MN, and I can’t say I disaagree with that provision.
I do.
As a sane and responsible gun-owner, I resent the implication that merely being in a bar, nevermind having a glass of wine with dinner, is likely to trip the homocidal trigger (pun intended).
It’s similar to the horror-prognostications that if a majority of people carried, they’d be shooting each other over trivialities.
First off Pan, I’m not talking about wine with dinner. I’m talking about a bar.
I don’t know about where you come from Pan, but in my vast experience, (remember I made my living as a club/venue musician for 23 years), people in general go to bars for one reason only; to get drunk. Drunk people behave in all kinds of ways they would otherwise not behave, including violent behavior. Otherwise sensible people become extremely stupid when they are drunk.
It makes sense to me to prohibit firearms in an establishment that exists for the purpose of people congregating to get drunk. I favor firearm freedom, as you know, but I also favor common sense. Common sense tells me that drunk people and guns don’t mix.
The argument that says, “carrying a weapon doesn’t make me likely to shoot someone” is a valid one. But the argument that says, “getting drunk makes me likely to do something stupid” is an equally valid argument. Stupidity and guns do not mix.
I think it is perfectly valid to say as a society that we do not leave it up to the individual drunk to decide whether he carries a weapon under the influence. Very, very few people leave a bar sober. I have literally thousands of nights of anecdotal evidence to back this up.
Well now, ain’t one damned thing wrong with a 5 shot .38 revolver (in +P, with appropriate loads) for self-defense. Most folks will never even pull it in need, most who do will never have to fire it. But if you do, it will do the overwhelming majority of jobs. You don’t need to prepare for an extended combat situation. The question for most isn’t whether they carry enough firepower - it’s whether they carry any firepower at all. A 6 shot .22 is better than nothing. And a .38 in good +P loads delivers more per shot than a 9 mm with military ammo.
It’s not the firepower Mike. Maybe it’s just the weighting of the gun, (it’s a lightweight little S&W.38), but I can’t aim the damn thing with any accuracy.
With my S&W 9mm, I can quick draw and put 10 rounds within the bullseye/first ring in 8-9 seconds at 21 feet. With my .38 Special (uncocked), I’m lucky to put 2 out of five on the paper under the same conditions.
I just don’t like the thought of carrying a weapon that defies my ability, even though under almost any circumstances, it would be enough to deter and protect. I want to know that under emergency circumstances, I have not only my weapon, but my proficiency as well.
And I like the idea of being prepared for an extended combat situation. A person never knows, which is why I carry in the first place.
If someone at the grocery store sees your weapon and wants to call the police and say that you flashed it in an intimidating manner, the onus is apparently on you to prove you did not. He said carrying concealed protects you from false claims by fearful people who resent your right to carry.
Legally, that’s bullshit. If open carry is legal, you can’t be prosecuted for doing so. Many states have laws against “brandishing”, but that requires you have the weapon in your hand.
The real problem with open carry is that if you have a gun strapped on your hip, but put on a coat that covers it, you are now in concealed carry territory, and had better have a permit.
All I know is what I was told by the cert instructor. He said MN is a shall-issue carry permit state, and makes no determination whether carry is concealed or open. But he said carrying open introduces the risk that trouble-makers will make false claims about your behavior that you are then in a position to defend, once the police are introduced into the situation.
According to statute though, bars are off limits in MN, and I can’t say I disaagree with that provision.
I do.
As a sane and responsible gun-owner, I resent the implication that merely being in a bar, nevermind having a glass of wine with dinner, is likely to trip the homocidal trigger (pun intended).
It’s similar to the horror-prognostications that if a majority of people carried, they’d be shooting each other over trivialities.
First off Pan, I’m not talking about wine with dinner. I’m talking about a bar.
I don’t know about where you come from Pan, but in my vast experience, (remember I made my living as a club/venue musician for 23 years), people in general go to bars for one reason only; to get drunk. Drunk people behave in all kinds of ways they would otherwise not behave, including violent behavior. Otherwise sensible people become extremely stupid when they are drunk.
It makes sense to me to prohibit firearms in an establishment that exists for the purpose of people congregating to get drunk. I favor firearm freedom, as you know, but I also favor common sense. Common sense tells me that drunk people and guns don’t mix.
The argument that says, “carrying a weapon doesn’t make me likely to shoot someone” is a valid one. But the argument that says, “getting drunk makes me likely to do something stupid” is an equally valid argument. Stupidity and guns do not mix.
I think it is perfectly valid to say as a society that we do not leave it up to the individual drunk to decide whether he carries a weapon under the influence. Very, very few people leave a bar sober. I have literally thousands of nights of anecdotal evidence to back this up.
I haven’t spent quite the same amount of time playing the clubs and bars, but close. Over the years I’ve witnessed a few problems but overall not that many, and I’ve played at many the scummy venue...;’}
I constructed a compartment in my amp head where I could conceal my .45 so it would be at the ready if needed. It never was but I felt more comfortable for having it. I don’t GAD about the laws or restrictions - my life is more important and I have no intentions of being a victim or a statistic.
Over the weekend there was another shooting in my town where the patron left the club, got his piece and returned to murder his opponent. I don’t intend to get caught in the crossfire of this sort of nonsense unarmed.
Well now, ain’t one damned thing wrong with a 5 shot .38 revolver (in +P, with appropriate loads) for self-defense. Most folks will never even pull it in need, most who do will never have to fire it. But if you do, it will do the overwhelming majority of jobs. You don’t need to prepare for an extended combat situation. The question for most isn’t whether they carry enough firepower - it’s whether they carry any firepower at all. A 6 shot .22 is better than nothing. And a .38 in good +P loads delivers more per shot than a 9 mm with military ammo.
It’s not the firepower Mike. Maybe it’s just the weighting of the gun, (it’s a lightweight little S&W.38), but I can’t aim the damn thing with any accuracy.
With my S&W 9mm, I can quick draw and put 10 rounds within the bullseye/first ring in 8-9 seconds at 21 feet. With my .38 Special (uncocked), I’m lucky to put 2 out of five on the paper under the same conditions.
I just don’t like the thought of carrying a weapon that defies my ability, even though under almost any circumstances, it would be enough to deter and protect. I want to know that under emergency circumstances, I have not only my weapon, but my proficiency as well.
And I like the idea of being prepared for an extended combat situation. A person never knows, which is why I carry in the first place.
Well, of course, it’s vital that you use something you can hit the target with. But for a lot of people, the large pistols and revolvers are too much. The wife has trouble even holding my Dan Wesson, which is roughly equivalent to the large frame S&W (think Model 29.) So the small frame is much better for her. I did put Hogue rubber grips on it (a whopping $ 19 investment), as the factory grips are too small even for her. I avoid pistols as I know little about them, and certainly the wife knows nothing about them. I handled a small Glock last year and couldn’t find a way to hold it decently.
EDIT - You might try Crimson Trace grips on that small S&W. Point and click !
Well now, ain’t one damned thing wrong with a 5 shot .38 revolver (in +P, with appropriate loads) for self-defense. Most folks will never even pull it in need, most who do will never have to fire it. But if you do, it will do the overwhelming majority of jobs. You don’t need to prepare for an extended combat situation. The question for most isn’t whether they carry enough firepower - it’s whether they carry any firepower at all. A 6 shot .22 is better than nothing. And a .38 in good +P loads delivers more per shot than a 9 mm with military ammo.
It’s not the firepower Mike. Maybe it’s just the weighting of the gun, (it’s a lightweight little S&W.38), but I can’t aim the damn thing with any accuracy.
With my S&W 9mm, I can quick draw and put 10 rounds within the bullseye/first ring in 8-9 seconds at 21 feet. With my .38 Special (uncocked), I’m lucky to put 2 out of five on the paper under the same conditions.
I just don’t like the thought of carrying a weapon that defies my ability, even though under almost any circumstances, it would be enough to deter and protect. I want to know that under emergency circumstances, I have not only my weapon, but my proficiency as well.
And I like the idea of being prepared for an extended combat situation. A person never knows, which is why I carry in the first place.
Well, of course, it’s vital that you use something you can hit the target with. But for a lot of people, the large pistols and revolvers are too much. The wife has trouble even holding my Dan Wesson, which is roughly equivalent to the large frame S&W (think Model 29.) So the small frame is much better for her. I did put Hogue rubber grips on it (a whopping $ 19 investment), as the factory grips are too small even for her. I avoid pistols as I know little about them, and certainly the wife knows nothing about them. I handled a small Glock last year and couldn’t find a way to hold it decently.
EDIT - You might try Crimson Trace grips on that small S&W. Point and click !
My wife who was not squeamish at all when it came to weapons and could handle even large caliber handguns said always that for all there was a simple dividing line between a ‘mans gun’ and a ‘womans gun’ and it was based on if you threw up from the results of the hit the weapon resulted in.
She strongly supported that if the first shot was too effective but not a kill shot that the woman would effectively disarm herself via either not wanting to take the second shot or being so upset she lost timing and accurracy.
So for most women she advocated handguns that would take a tripple tap or more to do the deed and in fact for some looked for wounding weapons of low caliber since no matter what the personal risk , some women just couldn’t picture themselves killing their attacker.
Extreme large caliber weapons while macho pose a danger in missed shots and even pass through collateral damage. Part of the beauty of the traditional shotgun in it’s arguments as a better self defense weapon.
Extreme large caliber weapons while macho pose a danger in missed shots and even pass through collateral damage. Part of the beauty of the traditional shotgun in it’s arguments as a better self defense weapon.
Well, I don’t think either the .38 Special or 9 mm qualify as “extreme.” For less force/recoil, there’s the .32 for revolvers and .380 auto (9 mm short) for pistols. But the idea of having to hit somebody 3 times to stop them doesn’t sound good to me. You may not have that much time. Nobody is advocating a 500 S&W Magnum as a self-defense handgun, unless your likely attacker is a grizzly. And a shotgun is a great close range self-defense weapon - if you happen to have one handy when you need it. Kinda tough to carry one concealed, though, even if it’s one of these.
