Winston Salem Journal Lies about HB 111

That there would be opposition to allowing carry in restaurants that serve alcohol is a given. That it would be so meretricious is not. The Winston Salem Journal has an unattributed editorial out entitled Hidden Handguns in Restaurants is a Bad Idea that hits all the typical, emotion laden arguments, while avoiding facts of any kind.

The editorial starts of by alleging that the law will allow people to purchase alcohol while carrying concealed. In point of fact, it is now, and will remain illegal for someone to be drinking and carrying a concealed handgun. This notion that suddenly you will have a bunch of drunk bubbas with handguns in restaurants is simply untrue. Look at the experience in Kentucky, in Tennessee, and lately in Virginia. Are North Carolinians a lesser breed? Do you really want to say that to your audience?  Because you are, you know.

Then there's the usual:

We support the Second Amendment on this page, and have long done so. We believe in guns for sporting purposes, and support the rights of individuals to protect their homes.

As soon as I see this sort of argument, I know what is coming next. The Second Amendment was not written to preserve hunting or target shooting. Indeed, the "sporting purposes" idea did not enter American law until 1968, and it should be yanked from American law with extreme prejudice. What they are really saying here is that is fine for Fudds to have weapons, because they aren't afraid of these types of people. They grew up with people hunting with expensive rifles and shot guns that cost as much as the plantation house. But handguns? It's bad enough that just anyone can have a permit to carry by applying for it, but now in restaurants (as Scarlett O'Hara faints)?  Oh my!

Then to get people really exited, they cite a 2007 case where a policeman was shot by a drunk outside a nightclub as an example. It is heart rending to be sure. But it is not obvious that it is relevant. First of all, (once again) the law will not allow people to drink while carry a gun, period. Second, I can find no evidence that Carter had a concealed handgun permit in any of the reporting. Indeed, I suspect if he did, that information would have been featured prominently in the news.  So if someone who wasn't supposed to be carrying in his car gets out of hand, how is that relevant?

Finally, they have a police chief who speculates that, just to make the point clear, alcohol and guns don't mix.  He further speculates that if the law is passed, we'll have more incidents like the 2007 case of Carter killing a police officer.  But factually, alcohol and guns can exist side by side in the same room.  It happens all the time in the homes of numerous people.  Factually, what should be stated is that someone whose perceptions and ability to react have been diminished by drinking alcohol should not be handling guns.  That goes for police, prosecutors, judges, as well as the citizen.  But again, the law does not allow people who are carrying concealed to "belly up to the bar" unless they are ordering coffee.  Frankly, I would be more inclined to listen if the police chief were speaking from actual experience, rather than just speculating.

If the paper wishes to have an agenda, they should none the less have to use facts to back up their arguments.  They shouldn't be able to lie, tell half truths, and create fear out of emotional stories and still call themselves a "journal."  That is not journalism; that's propaganda.