My must read of the day is "Guns and Alcohol," in letters to the editor, in the New York Times:
To the Editor:
Re "In Georgia Carry a Gun, Just Not in the Capitol" (editorial, March 26): […]
We hear plenty from gun activists about keeping guns out of the hands of people with mental illness, but not much about keeping them away from sane people, who are every bit as dangerous when armed and drinking.
There are laws on the books in some states that make it illegal to carry a weapon when intoxicated, but that person has already posed a threat to the community on his way to becoming drunk. […]
Could this be an area of compromise for those who support gun control and the moderates among those who oppose it? No one is taking anyone’s rights away. A person is free to carry a gun, and he is free to have a drink. He just can’t do both at the same time.
You may have heard of Georgia’s latest gun legislation. Amongst other things, it would expand the areas where guns can be carried. The NRA has praised it as preserving gun rights, in addition to restoring and advancing them. Not surprisingly the bill is generating some controversy.
The part critics are really hammering is that it would potentially allow individuals to carry guns in bars and churches. While this letter is just from a Times reader, it’s a sentiment surely held by other "regular" people, and their fear on those points is based on inaccurate information.
This law would not require that religious organizations allow their congregation to carry guns to services. In fact, there’s an opt-out clause.
Furthermore, this law does not allow people to be plastered and gallivant around with a gun. It would be up to a bar to decide if they would allow their patrons to carry guns in the establishment, and the law stipulates that an individual can carry a gun into a bar, if they are not consuming alcohol. Arguably, that could be difficult to enforce, which the New York Times previously noted. It would be a fair question to bring up when evaluating this law, but many are exaggerating it as a law that says, "get drunk and bring your gun."
That’s a nonsensical characterization. It’s an exaggeration and a scare tactic.
Or as someone against the law explains:
"Skeptics of expansive gun rights need to respond intelligently. The smart response is not scorn or exaggeration … Exaggerating the practical effects of gun-rights legislation doesn’t make sense, either. The Georgia measure allows guns in bars and churches under certain circumstances. Saloon owners who don’t want weapons in their establishments would have to post a sign saying so. That doesn’t sound so onerous; a lot of bars in pro-gun precincts already have such signs. Worshipers in Georgia wouldn’t be allowed to pack heat unless their congregation affirmatively votes to ‘opt in’ to the guns-everywhere law."
If you want to criticize the law, go right ahead—but don’t misrepresent the text of the law to serve that purpose. If it’s a bad, dangerous law opponents should be able to prove it by pointing to the text of the law, not cherry picking and misconstruing it.