Guns and alcohol don't mix. I don't think you'll find very many people who will disagree with that.
However, that doesn't mean the state should get in a hurry to mandate what you can and can't do on either. Yet a number of states do, in fact, just that. Some prohibit using a firearm while intoxicated, for example, which might be fine unless you try to punish someone clearly acting in self-defense of their home simply because they had a few. Yes, it's happened.
Others don't allow people to carry guns in bars or other places that sell alcohol, even if they're not partaking. South Dakota is just one example that does something along those lines, but they're far from the only one.
South Dakota, though, might be revisiting that:
South Dakota advanced a bill that opponents say would allow individuals to carry concealed guns in bars and other places licensed to sell alcohol.
Lawmakers voted Wednesday to concur with amendments to House Bill 1218, an act to "address the imposition of firearm restrictions on certain employees, officers, volunteers, and other individuals."
The original form of the bill prohibits counties, townships, and cities from restricting their employees, officers or volunteers from carrying a concealed firearm and ammunition within buildings the political subdivision owns or leases.
The amended form of the bill repeals a section of state law that prevents everyday gun owners from carrying a concealed pistol into a "licensed on-sale malt beverage or alcoholic beverage establishment." The provision only applies to bars and other businesses that make more than 50% of total income from the sale of malt or alcoholic beverages.
Sen. Randy Deibert, a Republican from Spearfish, expressed opposition to the "guns in bars" bill, saying "guns and alcohol don't mix."
"That's the scary part of the bill," Deibert said.
Yep, they don't mix.
But I'm going to let Deibert in on a little secret: Most people who are carrying a gun understand the awesome responsibility that goes along with it and aren't going to drink, even if they're in a bar.
They'll just volunteer to be their buddies' designated driver.
We know it won't be a problem because it's not a problem in states where they've already got something like this on the books. If you're concerned, just apply a provision where they can be armed in the establishment, but they just can't drink. For the law-abiding, even those who don't think about the responsibility of carrying a firearm, that will be enough.
Where it won't be is among those who wouldn't pay attention to the prohibition in the first place.
Those are the folks who also aren't generally able to own a gun lawfully in the first place. They'll ignore whatever the law is to do what they want to do. Yet restricting law-abiding folks means they'll be at the mercy of these individuals should there be some kind of run-in.
That means innocent people being gunned down, which happens far more often than many realize, simply because no one who could lawfully carry was able to do so because they went to a bar.
South Dakota has the chance to fix this. They should do it.
I get the bar owners are concerned, but they'll get over it.
