A Tennessee lawmaker who was the lead sponsor of a law allowing permit holders to bring guns into bars has been arrested on DUI charges and possession of a gun while under the influence, The Tennessean reports.
Rep. Curry Todd, a Republican state representative from Collierville, was stopped by police in Nashville on Tuesday, failed a roadside sobriety test and refused to take a breathalyzer, according to court documents.
The newspaper says a loaded Smith & Wesson 38 Special was found in a holster stuffed between the driver’s seat and the center console.
“The subject was obviously very impaired and not in any condition to be carrying a loaded handgun,’ ‘the arresting officer says in his report.
Rep. Curry couldn’t be reached for comment, by the way. I just bet he couldn’t.
Curry’s gone from DUI to PUI (Possession of a handgun while under the influence).
Ever since that town in Kansas, I suppose we should be used to gratuitous lawmaking where guns and conservatives are concerned. Arizona almost allowed guns on campus, but the governor vetoed it, but other states may soon follow suit. Virginia students will be treated to a series of “campus safety” demonstrations organized by a group advocating guns on campus. Now there’s even a movement advocating guns in church.
Ohio legalized guns in bars this summer, as did Virginia. When taken in context with an utter lack of any agreement on what constitutes “reasonable restrictions” regarding guns or gun ownership, the push to allow guns in more places makes me wonder how many different ways this could go wrong.
Guns in bars seems like just asking for trouble. So, you’ve got people in place where they’re more than likely drinking. So, their inhibitions are lowered, their judgments impaired, and their reflexes dulled. And you think it’s a grand idea for them to be armed? I’m not saying everyone who drinks gets drunk, but it still seems like a recipe for having barroom brawls becoming barroom shootings.
Not that it couldn’t happen without guns in bars, but the guy who’s got to go back to his car to get his gun before he can shoot the guy he’s pissed with at least has some time to reconsider while he’s walking and fumbling with his keys. Maybe even enough time for someone to lock the door behind him and call the police. Definitely enough time for those patrons who’d rather not be in the middle of boozy firefight to head for the exits.
My guess is that the gun lobby’s answer on barroom shootings would either be something like “That’s the price of freedom,” or “That’s the risk you take with liberty,” or that some other bar patron can now draw and shoot the would-be first shooter before he gets off a round. (Which takes me back to impaired judgment, dulled reflexes, etc.)
But here’s what I wonder. We can require people to be licensed in order to drive a car, which means passing a test. We can require that those licenses be renewed. We can limit where and how fast they can drive those cars. So, what’s the deal when it comes to guns?