“That man was a hero. We could have had some bodies.” That’s the considered opinion of Jenny O’Donnell, owner of E.J.’s Place a Houston area bar after an armed patron took out two stick-up men early yesterday morning. “(A) head bartender and waitress were closing up for the night when two men walked into the bar and demanded everyone get down on the floor. Two other men ‘lingered at the bar door,’ she said. That’s when a customer at the bar pulled his own gun and started shooting at the men….” The armed patron must have been a pretty good shot, too, because one of the robbers dropped dead just outside the door and another didn’t make it out of the parking lot before beginning to assume ambient temperature. There’s no telling how many pops the armed customer had before unloading on the doods with heaters. And we may never find out . . .
Why? Because like the two accomplices who are still breathing and on the run, Jenny O’Donnell’s hero took off into the night. And the local 5-0 is looking for all three.
What’s the bet that E.J.’s Place sports a state-mandated 51% sign? If so, that makes any licensed concealed carrier a felon for walking in the door while packing. Not that bad things ever happen in bars.
If you listen to the two candidates running for Governor, both support easing the state’s gun control laws to legalize open carry in the Lone Star state. As we noted earlier this week (with the help of ammoland.com), bar room carry in North Carolina hasn’t resulted in the predictably predicted nightly drunken shoot-outs, with owners mopping up blood along with spilled beer every morning. Maybe someday residents of the firearms nirvana of Texas will know the same degree of freedom.
The 2 doods was inflicted with fatal wounds and still managed to un ass the building. What was that about stopping power again?
It stopped them from continuing their supposed robbery.
“Supposed Robbery”? Man, you’ve had to go to court too often.
Eh maybe I’ve just read enough stories in the news that I knew to be completely wrong that I don’t trust them. And I’ve heard enough eyewitness statements that I knew to be contradictory that I don’t necessarily trust them. And the whole thing seems odd, somehow.
But I’ll stipulate that they were probably up to no good and weren’t coming in to play twister.
…secondary to shot placement?
Unless its .40 S&W, the One Calibre To Rule Them All™
Everybody knows that title actually belongs to the .357 SIG, right? 😉 </sarc
Maybe I’m just old school, but I prefer the more magnanimous .357.
Just give me some magic bullets please. The ones that make the bad guys disintegrate if the bullet just comes close to them….
Apparently you all missed the entry on here about the new government bullets that can bend around corners, stop, pick up a happy meal, and bend around more corners. That’s the rule-all caliber.
I prefer the .42 caliber. It’s the answer to everything.
The shooter may have been drunk so you might cut him some slack for not immediately killing the robbers.
Twice you’ve commented on the shooters sobriety even tho you have no more idea than any of us if he was drinking or not. I’ve been in many bars and not had an alcoholic beverage. I get to be the driver a lot, cause I don’t drink.
Add this to your snark about “Your Hero” and I tend to believe you’re one of those mda shills.
In a bar, you are much more likely to find people who have had a drink or two (or 12) than people who are stone cold sober. Statistically, he is probably correct that the guy had at least had a drink.
“Add this to your snark about “Your Hero” and I tend to believe you’re one of those mda shills.”
Ha! Far from it my friend. I’m simply a CHLer who’s sick and tired of the “concealed is concealed” types who risk our ability to carry on a daily basis.
You’re right that I’m assuming he had a few drinks at the bar. Frankly, whether he did or not is immaterial. He broke the law when he carried his gun into the bar and he should be prosecuted for that.
Bill C,
And should you be prosecuted when you hold up a sign outside of a “free speech zone”?
Bill C,
And I suppose Rosa Parks was rightly prosecuted for not moving to the “colored” section of the bus?
“One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” MLK.
Who cares, it is about stopping the threat. Did they fight back or did they stop and go dead?
I’m not sure I understand your snarky “stopping power” comment. Do you know what caliber his firearm was? He could have been using .32 ACP, he could have been using .44 Mag.
KB, didn’t mean it as snar k We’re always going on about stopping power. I contend that stopping power is a myth in handguns, regardless of caliber. These 2 took fatal hits and remained mobile. That was my point.
It’s lethality not stopping power. Lethality measures how much time you have without treatment before you die.
Well, I think my question is still valid. Without knowing what caliber he was using, it’s hard to sneer. However, regardless of the caliber he used, he scored lethal hits which stopped the threat. That’s the goal of any defensive shooting.
KB Dave wrote:
“However, regardless of the caliber he used, he scored lethal hits which stopped the threat. That’s the goal of any defensive shooting.”
Actually the threat was stopped when the bad guys decided they did not want to receive more bullet wounds. The wounds they had already received made it clear that they would receive more wounds if they continued what they were doing, where they were doing it. Bullet “stopping power” was not a factor in this DGU. The bullets convinced each of the bad guys to stop his threatening actions. They might not have even known that they were ‘hit’, but just heard the loud bangs and decided to get the H out of there.
By the time they got to the parking lot (several seconds after the threat had been stopped), the loss of blood to the brain (caused by the ‘lethality’ of their bullet wounds) resulted in unconsciousness and death.
This should be classified as a DGU where the criminal(s) decided to stop the threat based on the presence of a good guy with a gun. The vast majority of DGUs fall into this category, because gunshots (especially from handguns) rarely result in instant incapacitation.
They continued to rob the place? Oh wait…
To us, this is a guy stopping an armed robbery (maybe something worse). To the anti’s, this is the “predicted drunken shoot-outs.” Those people in the bar should have just complied with those nice boys that were about to turn their lives around and if those nice boys wanted a little rape to top off their armed robbery, then just take one or two for the team… and if they wanted to kill you in the end, the anti’s promise to read your name at a rally in order to convince more people that they should be just like you.
“…promise to read your name at a rally…” –I like it, might steal it.
That IS a dumb law in TX. 51%…what does that have to do with safety of citizens?
“That IS a dumb law in TX. 51%…what does that have to do with safety of citizens?”
And yet its the law. Fight to have it changed, or not, but its on the books.
That rebel yell and the thud of two bad guys hitting the ground you just heard from down south was the sound of the fight to change the law. Try listening for the sound of freedom a little harder…seems you’re a little tone deaf.
@bill–Laws are supposed to derive from our cultural morals and not created by corrupt men who know they are in direct conflict with the supreme law of the land but prefer to serve whoever pays for their vote instead. The man who plugged the thugs has a moral duty to protect his life and a legal constitutional right to not be infringed while doing so. It saddens me that so many of my quasi-countrymen(not free not brave) are such submissive cowards that allow themselves no say in their own destiny, but thankfully the only contact I have with these folks are the ones pretending to support the second amendment like yourself. There is no middle ground when it pertains to the natural law of self-defense and that is what the forgotten and criminally infringed constitution was based upon. In the end of it all a man makes a conscious choice to draw their own moral red-lines in the sand and the gun is their option of saying NO in the face of forced compliance, as the second amendment was intended.
+10
“The laws of God are higher than the laws of man.”
Not sure it could be said any better!
“What’s the bet that E.J.’s Place sports a state-mandated 51% sign?”
Why bet? Why not do your job as a writer and find out? I did…it took 30 seconds…and the answer is yes. Not only did your hero break the law by ignoring a 51% sign in all likelihood he did so while under the influence. Way to cast CHLers in a bad light.
Where’s my can of Troll Be Gone?
People posting facts you don’t like isn’t what a troll is.
Your reactions say more about you than the person you’re responding to, jwm.
Okay, maybe he’s not a Troll, but he sure is exceptionally rude and standoffish for no good reason. I freely admit I’m no expert in diplomacy, but I can state facts all day long without being a total asshole about it. What’s his excuse?
Meh… I have plenty of firearms available to me at my house when I have a few drinks while watching a ball game. I see no difference for public forums that provide the same services. Also, it seems like this guy had pretty good hand-eye coordination for possibly being “under the influence.” So, just maybe, he understood what his limitations were. What’s going to screw him over is that he left the scene.
It’ll only screw him over if they catch him.
Which would have certainly happened if he stuck around. He was smart enough to figure out that would earn him a felony. I bet he had that already planned in this head to run in that type of situation.
I hope he gets away with it.
How does stopping a robbery put CHLers in a bad light? Even if he was drunk, he accomplished a good deed. By violating a stupid malum prohibitum law, he may have saved lives. I don’t usually advocate breaking the law, but I was possessing illegally at the age of 19 when I used my revolver to scare off a rapist. Good thing I broke at least two laws to have that gun with me. This was back in the Devonian Age, so the statute of limitations is well past.
Well said!
Reminds me of Suzanna Hupp declaring her regret that she didn’t illegally carry her handgun into Lubby’s.
She refers to it as the “stupidest decision of my life” and said “I would much rather be sitting in jail with a felony offense on my head and have my parents alive.”
Suzanna Gratia Hupp explains meaning of 2nd Amendment!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis
Actually, to me this more proves the stupidity of 51% signs. Yep, he ignored the sign. Concealed means concealed, right? The whole point of 51% signs is to prevent the irresponsible activity that would supposedly occur should someone who is armed get liquored up. Only this guy didn’t act irresponsibly (beyond ignoring the sign, and the irresponsibility of that is debatable). He could have been three (or more) sheets to the wind, but there is no indication anyone knew he was even carrying prior to his deployment of the weapon when it became necessary.
I hope the police don’t spend too many resources looking for the good guy.
Yep. I hope the others in the bar have poor memories and bad eyesight.
May you never be caught, armed citizen. The world is a better place with you in it.
The stupidity of the law lies in thr fact that this could have eadily happened in restaurant with a bar, in which case none of the circumstances would have been different, except for the absence of the sign.
So none of the actions of the shooter are wrong in and of themselves, but for the damn sign. That is a textbook case for a dumb law.
Perfect case for jury nullification.
Not really, the more drunk he was, the more impressed I am with his skills. Unless by look bad, you mean look like a rebel badass hero, then I agree.
He broke a *malum prohibitum* law to stop a group of criminals who were breaking a *malum in se* law.
Despite the law and his intoxication it seems like alls well that ends well. His intoxication we’ve established is assumed. And a law that infringes upon a constitutional freedom is no law at all.
Personally I’m all for personal accountability. If a drunk shoots at someone and hits a bystander we should throw the book at him for his irresponsible behavior. If a guy doing 90 down the highway takes out another vehicle than he should get the book thrown at him.
Typical liberal. Let’s punish everyone because of the potential outcomes of hypothetical events.
I’m good with shall not be infringed.
Hiding behind unconstitutional laws doesn’t help our case.
BIll C
Ever heard the old line “judged by 12 or carried by 6″? Mr Sanctimonious.
@Bill, Good thing he did, otherwise he may be the one laying on the slab at the morgue! Smart guy, very smart!
Kind of a shit sandwich, DGU involving someone who was possibly imbibing and carrying illegally against the 51% sign. Good thing only those attempting the robbery were harmed but still, Im curious to see how this plays out.
EDIT: Ive worked in a few bars/clubs, I can guarantee and on some occasions actually did see a tucked away firearm of the owner/management etc. Its a pretty dicey business to be in without some “insurance” in case things go south. One of the clubs I worked at ended up hiring off duty DPD and other local LEOs to stand front towards the end.
Taylor, if the bar owner was armed, what’s the problem? Isn’t your place of business the same as your own home?
(I also have worked in bars back when I was running sound for bands.)
I would completely agree it shouldnt matter at all, it might as well be your home if it is your lifeblood. No one will ever protect something of yours better than you.
I honestly am now curious of the legality of an owner of a bar carrying inside during operating hours etc. I worked in Deep Ellum, which got to be a particularly bad area of Dallas overtime, my experiences there are part of the reason I carry now.
As a general rule, carry inside one’s place of employment is at the discretion of the owner of the establishment, without regard to the legality of carry by non-employees. So bartenders and owners of bars are, in general, perfectly within their rights to carry there, even if the general public is prohibited by law.
As always, check the laws specific to your jurisdiction.
Equal protection. If the ownership/management can carry, so can the patrons.
Let’s criminalize actual criminal activity, rather than restrict law-abiding citizens. If you get drunk, pull out your gun, and shoot someone, you’ve committed a crime. If you get drunk, leave your gun holstered, and do nothing, you have committed no crime.
I’ve carried in bars before. I also generally do not drink when I’m out, because I’m almost always driving, and I’d rather carry than drink. But that’s my choice.
I’m curious if there’s even any statistical evidence to support the assumption that otherwise lawful carriers do stupid/criminal things when drinking while carrying?
“I’d rather carry than drink”
couldnt agree more, I lost the urge to be in dark enclosed spaces with excessive amounts of strangers a while ago and havent looked back.
“I’m curious if there’s even any statistical evidence to support the assumption that otherwise lawful carriers do stupid/criminal things when drinking while carrying?”
This idea, at least imho, comes from the same line of logic that the ” wild west/blood in the streets” reasoning does. Some of these people may literally assume the only thing keeping us from devolving into savages is not allowing you to carry your six shooter into the saloon or even carry your six shooter in town (openly).
We really do need to get this changed in Texas. I don’t see any movement on this right now though, but I’d be happy to be wrong about that. Open handgun carry, which I am of course also for, seems to be sucking up all the oxygen. My issue for YEARS has been campus carry, which came achingly close to passing last session, but now open carry is getting all the attention. My son is 22, so legal to carry, and a student was recently attacked and raped on his campus. College campuses, in my experience, have terrible security, and the only time you see a cop there is when you’ve made a parking violation.
There was recently a sexual assault at SMU as well (good thing they send all the students an email letting them know), I have ALWAYS thought campus carry should be getting some more focus as well. I went to UT Arlington and shit was happening all the time while I was there on campus, one of the things that initially began me on the road to getting my CHL.
That’s how I became an activist too, because of shit that was happening in college. It was long before the days of CHL though. Just by keeping a handgun in my car for my drives from my hometown to college, and later for my creepy nighttime work commutes on deserted highways, I broke the law everyday because the laws were so backward until recently. For many months, until the road was resealed, I commuted past a bloodstain on the highway where a sharp, heroic sheriff’s deputy had killed a rapist-murderer. At least that criminal was dealt with efficiently, but not until after his victim was dead.
I am an SMU grad student, and definitely would like campus carry however just as a note I’ve noticed the situational awareness on that campus is horrible. Yes, young people in there late teens and early twenties can still be fairly juvenile and oblivious, but compared to where I was an undergrad in Ohio it seems to be especially bad at SMU. It’s probably a result of the very sheltered demographic at SMU.
Unless there was another assault that I haven’t heard about in the last couple weeks, the one in question was where a girl was running late at night away from campus in a less than stellar neighborhood. I’m not victim blaming at all since she should be left alone regardless of where she goes, but she broke the stupid places and stupid times rules.
small world! I didnt actually read that information about the exact location (equally possible I did and dont remember 🙂 )
The Stupid Rules need some sort of national ad campaign, with stickers of course.
The campus carry thing drives me NUTS! My daughter just went off to school and she can’t even have anything in her “home” because she is required to live in the dorms the first year of school. I’ve already bought her a small revolver for when she can live out in town next year, but I did buy her an assisted-opening knife and pepper spray and showed her how to use both.
Boys are vulnerable to violent crimes, but if my son were a girl, I’d be going nuts. I don’t mean to alarm, but the college campuses I’m familiar with, and the areas around them, just aren’t safe for young women, and they haven’t been for decades. I have two nieces who are freshmen this year, and I don’t want to freak out their parents, but I worry for them.
Boy howdy, now I’m wound up on this subject. A couple of years ago I had to attend an event in the alumni center at UT (I’m an Aggie), and the parking lot I was told to use didn’t exist, so I wound up going the wrong way on a one way street trying to find it. Of course a campus cop immediately saw me, and took about 10 minutes to research my life story, then he freaked out a little about my CHL too, and told me to keep my hands away from my purse. (It’s legal to have a gun in the car on campus.) Picture this, a middle aged lady in cocktail attire, heading to the alum center, with a CHL proving my clean FBI background check, and getting a 15 minute interrogation in a traffic stop, while rapists are running around loose all over the place.
At long last in the end he didn’t give me a ticket because my record was so clean, he said, and he told me where I could park.
Bureaucracy and “common sense” laws allow simple minds to flourish. To that super trooper you were a bigger threat than the rapists on campus, because guns.
I just tried to google it with no luck, but several years ago, there was a TX CHL holder who successfully used his gun in self defense in a bar parking lot, after leaving the bar. He was prosecuted for it, but I think he got a pretty light sentence, IIRC. Still, a felony conviction is not something anyone wants. If I were a juror for a case like this, I’d consider jury nullification.
Hope the good guy remains at large and protecting the innocent.
The bar owner could have been a little more appreciative and stood behind her statement that the man was a hero by losing the camera recordings. In the news article she said the cameras were functioning and she was cooperating trying to hang the man out to dry literally and figuratively speaking of course. I’m not sure with the digital recordings how easy it is to scrub them but that would have been the appropriate measure of thanks for saving everyone’s lives and two tax breaks. No matter the man’s station in life he was a good guy with a gun in that moment. Unconstitutional laws are not meant to be obeyed and are not by free citizens of a constitutional republic.
“The bar owner could have been a little more appreciative and stood behind her statement that the man was a hero by losing the camera recordings.”
BAD BAD Idea!
You do NOT want to destroy evidence in a criminal investigation, especially if it involves multiple deaths.
I get your sentiment, but that’s not the way to do it. Hope the cops have a bad accident with the tape.
I would love to know if any moms demanding action were present and comfortable in their smugness that the sign had meaning until the SHTF . . . . .
Naw, that bar doesn’t serve rose out of a box.
My plan for the next Demanding Mommies rally is to have a t-shirt made up that says “Murder Free Zone” and then try to get the mommies to sign a petition to make it illegal to murder someone that is wearing the shirt.
Good thing I wasn’t drinking a beverage while reading your post.
LOL!
Stop me if you’ve heard this before — two guys walk into a bar for shots and biers . . . .
Man, if news breaks that the two perps were a rabbi and a priest, I’m just gonna lose it right there.
“Unless its .40 S&W, the One Calibre To Rule Them All™” Pure advertising propaganda. Have you actually seen the ballistics charts and gel tests for the .40 vs other calibers? Not that great from what I have seen. Will stick with my 9 mm’s. Not sure why anyone would think that the .40 calibers are that great.
.40 S&W is the 2nd best caliber ever. Capacity of a 9mm, stopping power almost equal to a .45 ACP. The only thing better than a .40 is the 10mm manstopper.
The .40 S&W is the ultimate evolution of the handgun cartridge, and when fired from a Springfield Armory XDm is the epitome of ballistic perfection. Thus endeth the lesson.
…until Springfield finally releases the single stack XD-S 3.3 in .40, which will be even more perfecter.
I find that statement hard to argue with.
Smart man to run. Hope he was paying with cash.
I think the bar owner will be happy to let that bar tab slide…
I always pay cash as I go, but I believe some establishments make you hand over a credit/debit card before they’ll start your tab. That would be unfortunate were it the case here.
Correction: Wendy Davis *says* she supports easing the state’s gun control laws re: open carry. I don’t trust that woman any further than I could throw her.
Hell, that goes for both of them. I’ll believe it when I see the bill pass.
Politicians say lots of things
@Korvis: beyond that, what they are supposedly supporting is OC with a license, the same as required for CC. Not a whole lot of improvement IMHO. @Taylor: Yes, but even for a politico Wendy seems to say a lot that turns out to be untrue.
How did this turn into a caliber war? Anything is better than nothing. And it should start with a 4…
A 4 or a point 4?
Well I appendix carry a 4 bore howda pistol with a 10″ barrel. It’s a bit cumbersome, but women seem to be really drawn to me lately for some reason…
Damn, no wonder I can’t draw them in anymore with my little 40mm.
A felony for defending his life?
Now I see why he ran out…
Simply out-Fuckin-standing!!!!!!
I am of two minds about it.
I agree with you on the end result, but my gut tells me the guy carrying was probably a prior felon and was not allowed to legally own a firearm.
Why you ask? Because those of us who have CCLs tend to abide gun related laws with OCD concern – both statistically and in practice.
All that said, I have said before and I will say again that I used to carry in bars every weekend in a state where it was legal. And guess what? I was shit faced half the time. No shenanigans ever happened, and I never even let anyone know I was carrying other than the cops I was friendly with.
That Glock (which I later sold because I hate them) was there for one of two reasons – either to save my life, or to save someone else’s. The second option was only available to me if I felt I could safely do so.
I would not carry in bars anymore even if the option were available to me because because as I get older, my body becomes less resilient. Also, the threat of legal complications if I ever actually had to use a pistol increases dramatically.
I really don’t like the 51% laws. A right is a right, and people should be able to decide for themselves how they exercise that right.
For all the folks on here who say, “guns and alcohol don’t mix”, I’d argue that you guys are doing the same kind or projecting that the antis do.
I have never in my life done anything while drunk I would not have done while sober. I was just sillier and louder doing it.
“Because those of us who have CCLs tend to abide gun related laws with OCD concern – both statistically and in practice.”
I carry everywhere there isn’t a metal detector. There is one law that I obey. My right to bear arms shall not be infringed. I would do the same thing Shaneen Allen was busted for up to the point of telling the cop I was carrying. It ain’t none of his business and that would be self incriminating. Give me my traffic ticket and I will be on my way.
If The roughly 10% of permit holders obeyed every law with OCD like commitment, then you might as well say zero percent of the population legally carries a firearm. When carrying, you wouldn’t be able to go everywhere you want freely and that is wrong. I am not willing to wait for the slow process of the law to change. I would rather everyone ignore the unconstitutional laws and when the lawmakers realize that millions of people are exercising freedom, only then will they get off their buts and correct the law. Speed limits increased from 55 to 70 mph when they realized everyone was driving 70 anyway. Power to the people!
.45ACP.
Why?
Because there is no .46.
😀
Apologies to John Ringo.
I wonder if the guy is a CHL holder. Perhaps he was carrying illegally (concealed without licence, or maybe not even allowed to carry for some reason) to begin with and bailed for that reason.
Good shot regardless. I know I would be hesitant to shoot in a public robbery situation but that’s another discussion.
Somehow I picture Dale Gribble in his “Smoking Bandit” persona.
Its interesting to me that anti-gun CT has one of the most reasonable gun/bar/alcohol laws in the country.
No loaded guns on your person if your BAC is over .1%. So if you decide to tie one on hard, while carrying, you can unload it and keep carrying it or put it in the trunk of the car.
Interestingly, CT’s DUI limit is .08%. So between .8% and .99% you are legal to carry, but not legal to drive.
Other than that. No restrictions on where you can carry.
I’m pretty sure you’d be dead long before you managed to convert nearly 1% of your blood into ethanol.
As I lived in NY before moving to Florida and spent almost a minimum of 5 nights a week in my local pub after work for a lot of years.
Having a few beers between lets say 6pm and 9 to 10ish when Id leave.
I always had a gun with me. At the time a S&W model 66 with a 2.5 inch barrel.
In a belt holster wearing a sports coat.
I never got drunk nor was it against the law to be carrying in a bar in NY.
Nothing ever happened in all that time.
I move to Florida.
I cant carry a gun in a bar or any restaurant that serves alcohol as a part of its business.
But if Im sitting in a restaurant/bar and not in the bar section or drinking its OK????
This has never made any sense to me………Just because one carries a gun in a bar doesn’t mean that guns and alcohol cant mix.
No real point to this post other then to say some laws are as stupid as the day is long.
“I cant carry a gun in a bar or any restaurant that serves alcohol as a part of its business.
But if Im sitting in a restaurant/bar and not in the bar section or drinking its OK????”
These two statements are at odds with each other, and there are both correct and incorrect parts in both of them. A little clarification below.
“I cant carry a gun in a bar [CORRECT] or any restaurant that serves alcohol as a part of its business.” [INCORRECT]
The language is “Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose;” (Fl Stat 790.06 (12)(a)12. So, dedicated bars are out, for sure. As for the rest, it is generally understood to mean the “bar area” if there is a wall that separates that area from the rest of the restaurant. It’s “generally understood” because there’s no case law on the matter, so it’s up to interpretation. I personally choose to interpret it as “don’t sit at the bar,” because I routinely sit in the “lounge” at Chili’s, just not at the bar. Concealed means concealed.
“But if Im sitting in a restaurant/bar and not in the bar section [CORRECT] or drinking [INCORRECT] its OK????”
Not in the bar section (or at the bar) is OK, that’s correct, as I covered above. But the “or drinking” part is wrong. You are allowed to consume alcohol while carrying in Florida. The law (Fl Stat 790.151) only says “It is unlawful and punishable as provided in subsection (4) for any person who is under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substance set forth in s. 877.111, or any substance controlled under chapter 893, when affected to the extent that his or her normal faculties are impaired, to use a firearm in this state.
To make that clear, they have included a couple definitions. First, to “use a firearm” is specifically defined as “to discharge a firearm or to have a firearm readily accessible for immediate discharge.” Then, to “have a firearm readily accessible for immediate discharge” is further specifically defined as “loaded and in a person’s hand.” So, to summarize, the only thing the law in the state of Florida has to say on the subject of drinking and carrying is “do not discharge a firearm or have a loaded one in your hand while your normal faculties are impaired.”
But wait, there’s more! “What if,” you ask, “I have been drinking (legally) while carrying (legally) and I need to deploy my firearm to defend my life or that of someone else? Wouldn’t I then be in violation of either/both of the points you summarized above?” Great question, two points to Gryffindor! The state has also thought of that occurrence, you see. Tacked onto the end of the section above is this gem: “This section does not apply to persons exercising lawful self-defense or defense of one’s property.”
Welcome to the Gunshine State. (I secretly hate that name, fyi.)
I actually like it, Matt. Especially when it really pisses an anti off.
Like my cousin’s hubby (Now ex, thank God) Ray. He was every stinking inch the pious, holier-than-thou Progressive F#ckwit. After the Heller decicion, he was down in Orlando visiting our family. So, with a big-ass grin I plopped down on the couch where he was sitting and grinning like the maniac I may or may not be, I chirped, “So, Ray! With the SCOTUS Heller decision, have you gone gun shopping yet?” I watched his face turn purple as he started sputtering and making incoherent noises.
Then my sis gives me the “Look of Death” so I left him alone.
I love family get-togethers…
who gives a rats ass about caliber, Dead Is Dead, sorry but adrenalin or drug charged people do funny things when hit with a bullet or bullets! Reaction’s vary quite unlike the Movies!
Even head shots with Large calibers give funny results! We don’t know how many shots the shooter took
whether revolver or pistol, all is conjunctive
Knowing a little bit about Houston, was this a Hit or a drug deal gone south
being ever the Pragmatist good shooting in bad conditions!
I always thought that everyone knew Texas has a funny law about hard booze in bars with out a special permit, or no guns in bars, most are Posted!
John Crawford took two rifle shots and got up and tried to run.
What’s the over/under on the bartender saying, “best not stick around for the cops. You’ll get arrested for being the hero.”
The report said he was a regular and would frequently escort waitresses and bartenders to their cars after closing. They have to know who he is, at least his first name. Where is George Zimmerman? Didn’t he move to Houston?
I’m afraid I would have suffered some kind of PTSD related amnesia re: his name if I were that bar owner.
I’ve only read one news article on this and couple gun sites that reference back to the original news story. Maybe some of this has since been cleared up, but it seems a lot of people are making a few assumptions about the hero.
It seems he’s assumed to have a Texas CHL. Since we don’t know his identity, I don’t see how we can make that assumption. For all we know, he could be a convicted felon who happened to be carrying illegally before he even entered the bar. He could be a gang member or a serial killer. We can’t assume he was average Joe CHL.
Comments are closed.