A Handy Map

I have to thank Mother Jones for coming up with this handy map for us, even though the intent of the article it is attached is some good old fashioned fear mongering ahead of the vote on HR822. My state not only allows carry in restaurants, you can have a glass or two of wine with dinner without anyone getting bent out of shape. It’s been that way since 1988 too. While you’re likely to lose your license if you get caught carrying drunk as a skunk, or staggering down main street with a pistol in your hand shooting at the street lamps, generally speaking PA law has treated people like responsible adults. I don’t think we have any serious problems with drunk toters above and beyond other states that do restrict carrying in establishments with liquor licenses, or with very strict laws about drinking.

17 thoughts on “A Handy Map”

  1. In which case, the may is semi wrong for WA.

    WA prohibits most carry in those places “Classified by the Liquor Control Board as off limits to persons under the age of 21”.

    I can’t go into a bar, but I can sit in the restaurant portion of the establishment and drink. I can also carry into one of our soon to be out of business State Run Liquor Stores.

    I don’t drink when carrying, but thats personal preference.

    1. Good catch. It’s also incorrect about WA State being “silent” on carry in schools. Firearms are explicity forbidden on school property except…

      (e) Any person in possession of a pistol who has been issued a license under RCW 9.41.070, or is exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060, while picking up or dropping off a student;

      So you can carry, so long as you have your CPL and are picking up/dropping off a student.

  2. Independent of the issue in question, I have never understood why, with 50 states as “laboratories of democracy,” people can argue that policies that work and are problem free in other states, can’t possibly work in their own.

    Not to digress from the issue of our RKBA, but I was first sensitized to this when I became aware that more than half of the states in the union didn’t have auto safety inspection; yet Pennsylvanians would argue that without it, “them [ethnics]” would be driving death traps and killing us (and themselves)in the streets.

    I later heard the same argument for why it was necessary to have concealed carry licensed — and the argument was being made by one of our most visible RKBA leaders at the time.

    1. I think the auto inspections/emissions testing are a money grab personally, but I might just be cynical. Same can be said for our state liquor laws, PA being one of the worst in the country. Other states get along just fine with selling liquor in grocery stores, and it’s not like our laws are doing anything to stop the numerous DUIs. When they say it’s for public safety, it’s anything but.

  3. The indicators for New Mexico and Texas are wrong, as well. University carry is restricted, and both states have 51% rules on establishments that serve alcohol. Texas also prohibits carry in churches if the church uses any mechanism to notify parishoners (i.e. they don’t need a state-specified “30.06” sign).

  4. Alabama looks right. The only place we’re restricted from carrying is a public protest.

  5. The map is very wrong. MA is wrong on the carrying while intoxicated as it’s laws are not silent on the issue.
    But more importantly it denotes a difference between “the laws are silent” and something being permissive. If the law is silent on a behavior, it is permissive. Period. Laws don’t allow us to do something, they restrict what we can do. Therefore, that the law is “silent” means it does not restrict. That is how freedom works. Something the Anti-2A bigots are incapable of grasping.

  6. Since Mother Jones got the map from LCAV, I sent LCAV an email asking if they could update it to distinguish between states that allow carrying in bars but not drinking and states that allow you to drink while carrying. That would really enhance the usefulness of the map for me. :)

  7. The map has an interesting statistic assigned to TX, regarding arrests of permit holders. Anyone know what that is backed with?

      1. On further thought, I can’t find a metric published by DPS on how many CHL holders were arrested. I found a variety of yearly reports on other topics (link )(including number suspended and revoked per year).

        I suspect they are counting suspensions and revocations to get their number. But whatever they did, the number of ARRESTS is not really relevant. What matters is convictions, which is extremely low. The yearly reports that I linked above show percentages of CHL holders vs percent in the population.

        1. I dumped the reports of 2004-2009 (last 6 years available), and I added up to 750 CHL holders convicted, out of 378,032, which is two tenths of a percent.

          It would be interesting if the conviction rate of CHL/Non-CHL follows the arrest rates.

  8. Pyrotek85:

    You are right about auto safety inspection. C. 1981 the state of PA itself commissioned a study that showed it accomplished nothing at all, safety-wise, but was costing consumers something like $300 million a year (in 1981 dollars). The governor’s response was “But Pennsylvanians are used to it!” My state rep at the time told me he was targeted for defeat by the service station lobby, just for voting to reduce the frequency of inspection from twice a year to once a year.

    Again, we may be digressing, subject-wise, but you can usually find a firearms law analogy in these things somewhere.

    1. Yeah it pisses me off. Last inspection they decided I needed new brakes, even though I had drove so few miles (less than 5k I believe) in the past year that I didn’t even need an emission test. I need to start doing the work myself and find a mechanic who’s honest about inspecting so I don’t get screwed every year.

  9. Auto “safety” inspection. Hilarious.

    I took a ’92 Roadmaster in for inspection just to get the long list of what is wrong with it so I can fix it (it ended up being a 3 page list), and among the things necessary to fix is that the 1/4″ tabs sticking out of the rear passenger door to hold on a missing trim panel would have to be ground down, as someone’s clothing could get snagged and dragged along. Never mind the fact that I’d cold-cock them with the mirror first…

  10. AK is about right, though we do restrict bar carry. We have “no drinking” restaurant carry.

    C’mon 822, let’s start the race to the bottom already! =)

Comments are closed.