A year has passed since the legislation allowing CCW guns in bars/restaurants serving alcohol (and other places) and despite the ranting of the antis that mayhem would ensue, NOT ONE SINGLE firearm crime committed by a CCW holder in a bar/restaurant has been reported. Just one more statistic among all the CCW states with 12 million CCW holders where the crime rate by CCW holders is both lower than the general population and lower than police officers crime rates. Remember this example, and all the others, during our next legislative session when all the antis in the Hawaii legislature claim that they want to take away more of our rights to defend ourselves because of "public safety". These people spew nothing but bullsh*t crap lies specious arguments totally devoid of supporting evidence. Un-elect them now, or face more of the same next year.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/10/robert-farago/nc-one-year-guns-bars-wheres-mayhem/

Excerpt:

House Bill 937, which became effective on October 1, 2013, expanded North Carolina’s concealed handgun law into restaurants where alcohol is sold and consumed, assemblies of people for which admission is charged, parades and funerals, state and municipal parks, and (to a limited extent) educational properties. As always, opponents and media naysayers predicted shootings in bars, guns stolen from vehicles at schools, and various other sorts of mayhem. They used platitudes like “guns and alcohol don’t mix.” As the GRNC explained endlessly . . .

Concealed handgun permit-holders, by virtue of background checks and training, had proven themselves sane, sober and law-abiding since 1995, with a rate of permit revocation on the order of three tenths of a single percent. We explained that permit-holders in restaurants would still be prohibited from imbibing alcohol.

But the dire predictions persisted. Editorials ridiculed legislators. UNC president Tom Ross sent UNC police chiefs to testify against the bill, claiming it would hamper their ability to protect students. Gun control activists pushed restaurants to post against concealed carry.

So what has happened?

It has now been one year since HB 937 became effective. So what has happened? Nothing. GRNC monitors clipping services for gun-related incidents. Just like Virginia, Ohio, Tennessee and other states which adopted restaurant carry, however, we have been unable to find a single instance of a concealed handgun permit-holder misusing a gun in a restaurant or educational property.

Gee, it's like a miracle!   

I would be hesitant to CCW while drinking for the mere fact that if you had to use it while you had been drinking any attorney will drag you over the coals back and forth trying to show your judgement/reasoning was impaired.

I think it should be left up to the establishment whether to allow CCW in their place of business, but I must admit I would be a little hesitant about a bar with people CCW. Alcohol can do strange things to people and I wouldn't want to be one the receiving end of some stupid mistake.
This after an officer shot himself in the head while he was intoxicated because he thought the gun was empty and didn't have the sobriety to practice gun safety.

I would be hesitant to CCW while drinking for the mere fact that if you had to use it while you had been drinking any attorney will drag you over the coals back and forth trying to show your judgement/reasoning was impaired.

I think it should be left up to the establishment whether to allow CCW in their place of business, but I must admit I would be a little hesitant about a bar with people CCW. Alcohol can do strange things to people and I wouldn't want to be one the receiving end of some stupid mistake.
This after an officer shot himself in the head while he was intoxicated because he thought the gun was empty and didn't have the sobriety to practice gun safety.

Nobody is saying it's OK to drink and carry. What the article is pointing out is that there have been zero { 0 } problems since CCW was allowed in these establishments.

Probably because legal firearm owners are generally more responsible than most people believe.

Nobody is saying it's OK to drink and carry. What the article is pointing out is that there have been zero { 0 } problems since CCW was allowed in these establishments.

Probably because legal firearm owners are generally more responsible than most people believe.

it's interesting
the past two gun shows i have run into people who are TOTALLY against concealed carry
you would think that at a gun show, people would be open-minded about things like that, but these people became almost wild-eyed at the thought that the HDF was suing the C&C and the chief of police to have "shall issue" CCW

it's interesting
the past two gun shows i have run into people who are TOTALLY against concealed carry
you would think that at a gun show, people would be open-minded about things like that, but these people became almost wild-eyed at the thought that the HDF was suing the C&C and the chief of police to have "shall issue" CCW

Probably the same people that think the 2nd Amendment is about hunting, and that nobody "needs" an AR-15 or more than 10rds in a mag.

Wait....make that 7rds....6....5....4...3.........

it's interesting
the past two gun shows i have run into people who are TOTALLY against concealed carry
you would think that at a gun show, people would be open-minded about things like that, but these people became almost wild-eyed at the thought that the HDF was suing the C&C and the chief of police to have "shall issue" CCW

Did these (apparent) firearm enthusiasts opposing CCW give any reasons, arguments and data supporting their views? When I wrote several of the legislators earlier this year about their opposition to CCW and/or their support of absurd idiotic preposterous legislation (like requiring a self-paid-for mental health evaluation performed by a "government approved" mental health professional within 90 days prior to every firearm purchase), of course I mostly got no response at all. Why should they have to explain themselves by sending a one or two sentence email containing references to the studies of data supporting their position? It's almost as if I think they owe me the simple courtesy of a response simply because they are paid "public servants" elected by the public... nah! The few that did respond gave absolutely no arguments or data to support their position(s). I specifically asked re the CCW issue what it was they knew (and how they knew it) about the irresponsible nature of Hawaii citizens, given that in 44 other states over the past 20 years with nearly 12 million CCW holders that it is an extremely rare occurrence for one of those people to commit a gun crime (Less common than LEOs committing gun crimes). Not a peep. They just "know" that you and I are incapable of acting responsibly and rationally because "gun". That's why I say "Please vote these people out".

it's interesting
the past two gun shows i have run into people who are TOTALLY against concealed carry
you would think that at a gun show, people would be open-minded about things like that, but these people became almost wild-eyed at the thought that the HDF was suing the C&C and the chief of police to have "shall issue" CCW

...
Such people probably live very sheltered lives or go about their day in perpetual oblivious condition white.

Nobody is saying it's OK to drink and carry. What the article is pointing out is that there have been zero { 0 } problems since CCW was allowed in these establishments.

Probably because legal firearm owners are generally more responsible than most people believe.

I would disagree that "Nobody is saying it's OK to drink and carry." Should you carry while intoxicated? No. Should you be able to enjoy a beer or a glass of wine with your dinner while carrying your firearm? That's a different question and one that begs for some facts to analyze before jumping to conclusions. If we analogize with driving cars, most would admit that driving while intoxicated is wrong. But having a beer with dinner then driving home isn't the same as driving drunk. Nevada does not prohibit drinking while carrying. To my knowledge they have not seen an increase of crimes by legally permitted concealed carriers. Other states also allow drinking while carrying, admittedly they are in the minority, but if we evaluate the issues on fact and not emotions, we may come to conclusions other than the preconceived ones about drinking and carrying.

Did these (apparent) firearm enthusiasts opposing CCW give any reasons, arguments and data supporting their views? When I wrote several of the legislators earlier this year about their opposition to CCW and/or their support of absurd idiotic preposterous legislation (like requiring a self-paid-for mental health evaluation performed by a "government approved" mental health professional within 90 days prior to every firearm purchase), of course I mostly got no response at all. Why should they have to explain themselves by sending a one or two sentence email containing references to the studies of data supporting their position? It's almost as if I think they owe me the simple courtesy of a response simply because they are paid "public servants" elected by the public... nah! The few that did respond gave absolutely no arguments or data to support their position(s). I specifically asked re the CCW issue what it was they knew (and how they knew it) about the irresponsible nature of Hawaii citizens, given that in 44 other states over the past 20 years with nearly 12 million CCW holders that it is an extremely rare occurrence for one of those people to commit a gun crime (Less common than LEOs committing gun crimes). Not a peep. They just "know" that you and I are incapable of acting responsibly and rationally because "gun". That's why I say "Please vote these people out".

My experience with those "pro-gun" Hawaii folks that disagree with concealed carry here is that they are misinformed and have generally bought into the BS promulgated by the typically liberal anti-gun types so prevalent here. They believe that the police have some duty to protect them (hell, some folks here still believe that...), or that carrying guns in public will result in wild west shoot-outs over parking spaces, or, as I believe was stated on this forum after the Deedy trial and after the video of the local kid on the leeward coast threatening others on the beech, that somehow "locals" are too emotional or too prone to violence to be trusted with carrying firearms.

There are still some "pro-gun" folks in Hawaii that support other gun control measures like the "Assault Weapons" ban because their choosen firearms sport is shotgunning and who needs an "Assault Weapon" to hunt deer? It's a matter of education. We need to be able to show these folks that facts from over 30 years of concealed carry on the mainland do not support their fears. We do that by engaging these folks, talking to them, education them. Not dismissing them and alienating "them" from the rest of "us."

Nobody is saying it's OK to drink and carry.

I think this is old road being covered.

Was it not already covered that HPD is allowed to drink/carry/drive, because they are "always on call"?

May be wrong, and it is up to officer discretion not to do one of those things.....(cough, cough)

I think this is old road being covered.

Was it not already covered that HPD is allowed to drink/carry/drive, because they are "always on call"?

May be wrong, and it is up to officer discretion not to do one of those things.....(cough, cough)

Officers are prohibited from carrying while under the influence. They also don't have to carry when not reasonable such as while swimming.

Nobody is saying it's OK to drink and carry. What the article is pointing out is that there have been zero { 0 } problems since CCW was allowed in these establishments.

Probably because legal firearm owners are generally more responsible than most people believe.

Something in the article made me think that CCW while drinking was prohibited but it did not seem clear on the issue. Perhaps I missed a part. I think that would be sort of standard actually just as even though drinking one drink might not make you too drunk to drive, you still cannot drink the beverage while driving. As noted states can have different laws on the subject..

I think an interesting thing to try to look at is how many people are carrying at a bar? It is not needed to prove that there was no increase but just as a side note of study, how many people began carrying because of the law? If a large percentage of the population started to CCW regularly then that would make an even stronger argument for CCW safely. Makes me wonder how many people would actually CCW if Hawaii does become a legal carry state. Sorry, kinda getting off topic.

Something in the article made me think that CCW while drinking was prohibited but it did not seem clear on the issue. Perhaps I missed a part. I think that would be sort of standard actually just as even though drinking one drink might not make you too drunk to drive, you still cannot drink the beverage while driving. As noted states can have different laws on the subject..

I think an interesting thing to try to look at is how many people are carrying at a bar? It is not needed to prove that there was no increase but just as a side note of study, how many people began carrying because of the law? If a large percentage of the population started to CCW regularly then that would make an even stronger argument for CCW safely. Makes me wonder how many people would actually CCW if Hawaii does become a legal carry state. Sorry, kinda getting off topic.

Prohibitions against carrying while consuming alcohol is not universal, but there are more states that prohibit it than allow it. North Carolina, the subject State of the article, now allows you to carry but not drink in an establishment that serves or sells alcohol. Previously the laws were so strict that carrying into a store that sold alcohol was technically illegal. And I believe your driving analogy is somewhat off base insofar as the point was that having a drink or two would not necessarily be sufficient to impair you to the point of making it illegal to operate your vehicle. Therefore a drink or two should not impair you sufficiently to restrict your ability to carry (and therefore possibly legally use) a firearm.

Prohibitions against carrying while consuming alcohol is not universal, but there are more states that prohibit it than allow it. North Carolina, the subject State of the article, now allows you to carry but not drink in an establishment that serves or sells alcohol. Previously the laws were so strict that carrying into a store that sold alcohol was technically illegal. And I believe your driving analogy is somewhat off base insofar as the point was that having a drink or two would not necessarily be sufficient to impair you to the point of making it illegal to operate your vehicle. Therefore a drink or two should not impair you sufficiently to restrict your ability to carry (and therefore possibly legally use) a firearm.

My point was merely to show that laws do exist that ban drinking while driving even if the person doing the driving is not consuming enough to be intoxicated in a similar fashion to laws that exist in some states that ban drinking while CCW.

As a side note, my person opinion is that CCW should be allowed in alcohol establishments but should not bellowed while drinking. And by that I mean both the act of consuming at the same time one CCW as well as CCW while someone is intoxicated.  Having seen the aftermath of a suicide by a drunk person with a gun as well as the most recent officer death involving the accidental shooting and killing of himself while drinking I would support a stipulation in CCW law that says no carrying while drinking or drunk. That is of course a little off topic from what the article is discussing but I do think it will rear its head if/when Hawaii does get CCW.

My point was merely to show that laws do exist that ban drinking while driving even if the person doing the driving is not consuming enough to be intoxicated in a similar fashion to laws that exist in some states that ban drinking while CCW.

As a side note, my person opinion is that CCW should be allowed in alcohol establishments but should not bellowed while drinking. And by that I mean both the act of consuming at the same time one CCW as well as CCW while someone is intoxicated.  Having seen the aftermath of a suicide by a drunk person with a gun as well as the most recent officer death involving the accidental shooting and killing of himself while drinking I would support a stipulation in CCW law that says no carrying while drinking or drunk. That is of course a little off topic from what the article is discussing but I do think it will rear its head if/when Hawaii does get CCW.

I know the 39-yr-old Cop was killed at his home while showing a friend his pistol during a BBQ, so I'm sure that one is a case of "not concealed carrying."  As for being drunk at the time, I've seen no such statement in any of the information I can find.  Please point me to the article or video that makes public the autopsy and investigation findings for HPD Officer Jens Magelssen where it says he was drinking/drunk.

Drunks kill themselves everyday, and sometimes it is intentional.  I believe the gun in your story was incidental.  He could have just as easily jumped off an overpass or crashed his car into a wall.

The only way to prevent suicides is by locking the person up in a room with rubber walls while bound in a straight jacket.  Even then, if a person wants to check out, they will eventually find a way.  No CCW law is going to prevent any gun owner from getting drunk at home and having access to his own guns.

I think the same standard for driving should be allowed for CCW.  If the lawmakers believe 0.08% BAC is low enough to operate a fast-moving 3,000+ lb machine, then that should be okay for carrying a holstered gun and even using it if required.  After all, an automobile has way more controls and functions than a pistol and requires much more practice to operate than any handgun.

If the standard for CCW is 0.0% BAC, then that should become the standard for driving as well.  There is no rational reason to treat them differently, since operating either while impaired can result in death.

I know the 39-yr-old Cop was killed at his home while showing a friend his pistol during a BBQ, so I'm sure that one is a case of "not concealed carrying."  As for being drunk at the time, I've seen no such statement in any of the information I can find.  Please point me to the article or video that makes public the autopsy and investigation findings for HPD Officer Jens Magelssen where it says he was drinking/drunk.

Drunks kill themselves everyday, and sometimes it is intentional.  I believe the gun in your story was incidental.  He could have just as easily jumped off an overpass or crashed his car into a wall.

The only way to prevent suicides is by locking the person up in a room with rubber walls while bound in a straight jacket.  Even then, if a person wants to check out, they will eventually find a way.  No CCW law is going to prevent any gun owner from getting drunk at home and having access to his own guns.

I think the same standard for driving should be allowed for CCW.  If the lawmakers believe 0.08% BAC is low enough to operate a fast-moving 3,000+ lb machine, then that should be okay for carrying a holstered gun and even using it if required.  After all, an automobile has way more controls and functions than a pistol and requires much more practice to operate than any handgun.

If the standard for CCW is 0.0% BAC, then that should become the standard for driving as well.  There is no rational reason to treat them differently, since operating either while impaired can result in death.

I have to agree. Especially since people are getting shot by LE for using a car as a "deadly weapon".

The only problem is that, once again, we'd be opening ourselves up to even MORE government regulation.

Anyone know what the BAC limit should be for using a "spork" in your own home?

My point was merely to show that laws do exist that ban drinking while driving even if the person doing the driving is not consuming enough to be intoxicated in a similar fashion to laws that exist in some states that ban drinking while CCW.

As a side note, my person opinion is that CCW should be allowed in alcohol establishments but should not bellowed while drinking. And by that I mean both the act of consuming at the same time one CCW as well as CCW while someone is intoxicated.  Having seen the aftermath of a suicide by a drunk person with a gun as well as the most recent officer death involving the accidental shooting and killing of himself while drinking I would support a stipulation in CCW law that says no carrying while drinking or drunk. That is of course a little off topic from what the article is discussing but I do think it will rear its head if/when Hawaii does get CCW.

While you are entitled to your personal opinion, you should be able to provide a rational and factual basis for that opinion. If your logic for not allowing a concealed carrier to drink while carrying is based on the possibility of suicide then I would humbly suggest your logic is flawed. Japan, with virtually no firearms has a much, much higher suicide rate than the US.

You seem to miss the analogy between the drinking and driving a car versus carrying a gun. It isn't a perfect analogy but the concept is the same. If it is legal to operate a 3000+ pound vehicle in public after a drink or two, why is carrying a gun after the same amount of alcohol so dangerous and not to be allowed?

And, Hawaii will get CCW....

And, sporks make you fat....they should be banned. For the children, even if it saves just one...

I know the 39-yr-old Cop was killed at his home while showing a friend his pistol during a BBQ, so I'm sure that one is a case of "not concealed carrying."  As for being drunk at the time, I've seen no such statement in any of the information I can find.  Please point me to the article or video that makes public the autopsy and investigation findings for HPD Officer Jens Magelssen where it says he was drinking/drunk.
Drunks kill themselves everyday, and sometimes it is intentional.  I believe the gun in your story was incidental.  He could have just as easily jumped off an overpass or crashed his car into a wall.
The only way to prevent suicides is by locking the person up in a room with rubber walls while bound in a straight jacket.  Even then, if a person wants to check out, they will eventually find a way.  No CCW law is going to prevent any gun owner from getting drunk at home and having access to his own guns.

I think the same standard for driving should be allowed for CCW.  If the lawmakers believe 0.08% BAC is low enough to operate a fast-moving 3,000+ lb machine, then that should be okay for carrying a holstered gun and even using it if required.  After all, an automobile has way more controls and functions than a pistol and requires much more practice to operate than any handgun.

If the standard for CCW is 0.0% BAC, then that should become the standard for driving as well.  There is no rational reason to treat them differently, since operating either while impaired can result in death.

I think I would have to agree that CCW probably wouldn't affect the suicide rate significantly. Maybe a few more people would do it but perhaps not statistically significant. I do believe there was a study that showed if a firearm was present that people had higher rates of suicide however CCW might not not affect it since anyone who CCW is by default already owning a gun.

Ok, here is a link summarizing a number of studies on the subject. It appears consistent that suicide rates are higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership.  One study did show that gun owners weren't more suicidal than non gun owners but equal which would suggest that the availability of the gun plays a big role and its not that us gun owners are just more crazy or depressed or poor etc etc.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/
This does make sense for two main reasons that I can think of right now.
First is that a firearm ends up being a more effective form of suicide wherase many other people who attempt can be saved with timely intervention. Someone taking pills might survive by having their stomachs pumped for example.
The second is that having a firearm present translates into the means being readily available so someone has less time to change their mind. Going and finding a tall building to jump off of requires more time and effort where someone might change there mind or be stopped for example.
I guess a third might be that a firearm is easier in the sense that it is over very quickly and probably painlessly. Cutting oneself, I believe, is harder to do since you will be feeling the pain.


As for the officer drinking when he shot himself accidentally I had heard that from someone who knew him. I haven't seen an independant verification of just how much he did have to drink. I could imagine a specific alcohol level become part of the law but that would make it more complicated since the law would then need something to compell a person to submit a sample as does the DUI law. Maybe 0.05% would be fair since that is the rate you can be arrested for DUI if you ended up in an accident. I think for comercial license holders their license requires they not blow above 0.02%

Japan, with virtually no firearms has a much, much higher suicide rate than the US.

The rate of Japan is a little less than double that of the USA but I feel that it is really not a good comparison. There are simply so many other factors going into the suicide rate such as culture, social problems, economy, etc which make it difficult to merely pick out firearms as not playing a role in the USA. I think we would need to consider the rates of attempted vs successful suicides as well to narrow that down.
And I was typing a reply when yours was posted in which I cited studies adressing this issue.