Far from radical action, North Carolina is on the brink of clarifying and simplifying its concealed carry regulations, so it’s no surprise that the gunophobes at Slate are going out of their way to mislead their readers.
On Tuesday, legislators signed off on a bill that will allow concealed-carry permit holders to bring a concealed gun to a bar unless the owner explicitly prohibits it.
This sounds like an incredibly bad idea. And guess what? It is. As common sense would lead you to believe and scientific research supports, alcohol impairs both a gun owner’s accuracy and judgment, meaning that a tavern full of drinking buddies packing heat is best avoided.
Before I go any further: it’s already illegal for a Concealed Handgun Permit (CHP) holder to drink while carrying, so that “tavern full of drinking buddies” won’t be seeing much beer business unless the occupants have voluntarily left their sidearms at home.
Further, under current North Carolina law, carry is prohibited in any establishment that serves alcohol regardless of whether or not the permit holder is drinking. In addition to the bars that Slate singled out, this also includes most restaurants in the state. Chili’s, Applebee’s, Outback, and just about every other sit-down chain except Cracker Barrel has a full bar, and most local restaurants would seem incomplete without a beer and wine menu. Of course, Slate doesn’t mention any of these locations because they don’t paint the false picture they want embedded in their readers’ brains. A family sharing lunch out doesn’t sound nearly as intimidating as “drinking buddies packing heat” in a BAR.
It’s the senseless, paranoid redlining advocated by Slate that amplifies tragedies like the Luby’s massacre in Texas.
Of course, facts don’t matter to Slate, as their closing makes clear (emphasis added):
Virginia has already passed a law similar to North Carolina’s proposed one, and a year after it was enacted, the Richmond Times-Dispatch conducted an analysis to see what happened. The results? Gun violence in bars actually decreased by about 5 percent in the year after the law was enacted. This study, like the one on impulsive murder cited above, had a small sample size, but its results hopefully indicate that North Carolina won’t have a drunken bloodbath on its hands.
Regardless, it’s tempting fate to allow guns where liquor is poured freely.
That’s right, according to Slate, the results of the policy are irrelevant. The most important thing is their anti-gun agenda.