Article
New member portal
EQUALITY AND RESTAURANT CARRY
Well - this has been fascinating, funny, and weird all at once! ;-)
I made a simple proposal in the press a few weeks ago: having two bills introduced which would provide a clear way for the General Assembly to set an equitable policy on concealed carry and drinking. Either the General Assembly trusts all those who can carry concealed in Virginia (police, Commonwealth Attorneys, concealed handgun permit holders, etc.) to drink alcohol RESPONSIBLY while carrying concealed OR they don't trust any of them.
The first bill would simply strike 18.2-308 J3 (restaurant language) removing the restriction on drinking, but would leave J1 alone, keeping it illegal to carry concealed under the influence. Nice and clean. There are many states that allow those legally carrying concealed to have a drink with dinner and this would add Virginia to that list, which includes New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Maine, New Hampshire, Nevada, Michigan, Indiana, Florida, and Minnesota.
The second bill would remove the exemption for on-duty and off-duty police and Commonwealth Attorneys that allows them to drink while carrying concealed. However it would leave on-duty police who are drinking in the performance of their duties (pretty much just undercover officers).
I think the first bill is the better of the two. VCDL, without reservation, trusts police officers and Commonwealth Attorneys to drink responsibly and carry concealed. BUT, we also trust CHP holders equally. This is a "let freedom ring" bill. And, of course, with freedom comes responsibilities.
That being said, few CHP holders have any interest in drinking while carrying concealed, so the second bill would not be as good from the freedom side, but would be acceptable nonetheless. If a CHP holder, police officer, or Commonwealth Attorneys wants to drink, they would open carry. Again, not as good, but equitable.
The concept is not really about drinking, but about the equality of everyday citizens and those in government when they are NOT in performance of their official duties. Like other citizens, off-duty police officers and Commonwealth Attorneys must pay taxes, can't run red lights, make illegal u-turns, or violate any other laws without being subject to arrest.
The antis predictably missed the whole concept. And even if they did understand, they would ignore the second proposal and only focus on the first so they could be as shrill as possible. ;-)
On the various blogs it's amazing just how many people think that drinking responsibly is impossible. Oh, baloney. I'm thinking that those who post such nonsense perhaps have a drinking problem themselves and are projecting it on everyone else.
I did almost spray my keyboard when someone on a newspaper web site chat wrote on this subject that there was no equating CHP holder to police because of the training the police receive.
So police get special training on how to drink and carry a gun?
We have quite a few officers on VA-ALERT. Any of you get such training? I know the Bexar County Sheriffs Department in Texas didn't offer me any. ;-)
I want to be clear: this is NOT a high priority issue for VCDL. The high priority was getting the law changed so we could carry concealed when we eat out. Now we're just asking to be treated the same as everybody else.
If we want to break down the doors that are blocking CHP holders from carrying in more places, we must address the myth that CHP holders are not as trustworthy as police and Commonwealth Attorneys. This is a good place to begin.
--
As an example, here is a link to a blog that leaves the second bill (no drinking allowed) out of the story so he can take a high road that he has no business being on. Some gun owners have already called the blogger on his blatant dishonesty: