On Monday’s World News with Charles Gibson, ABC’s Steve Osunsami filed an unusually balanced report on the issue of gun control as he recounted a legal dispute in Tennessee over a recently enacted law that allows conceal carry holders to bring concealed guns into bars and restaurants. While Osunsami informed viewers of the concerns of some restaurant owners who believe the law makes their establishments more unsafe, and who are suing to block the law, he also relayed the case of a woman who believes she could have fought back against a man who murdered her husband if only she had been legally allowed to take her own gun into a restaurant:
NIKKI GOESER, WIDOW OF MURDER VICTIM: He pulled out a gun and he murdered my husband right in front of me.
STEVE OSUNSAMI: Today, Nikki Goeser says she would have certainly had a gun at her side and would have shot the gunman dead under current law.
GOESER: Crime exists. It happens in schools, it happens in churches, it happens in establishments that serve alcohol. I would have tried to protect my husband.
Below is a complete transcript of the story from the Monday, August 17, World News with Charles Gibson:
CHARLES GIBSON: We're going to take "A Closer Look" tonight at a growing gun control controversy. Should concealed guns be allowed in bars and restaurants? Only eight states, interestingly enough, expressly prohibit handguns in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. Arizona has just removed itself from that list. And another state, Tennessee, has decided to expressly allow licensed gun owners to keep their guns concealed when they go out to eat. In Tennessee for us, Steve Osunsami.
STEVE OSUNSAMI: Across Tennessee frustrated bar and restaurant owners can't believe the new law.
DAVID SMITH, ATTORNEY: The Tennessee legislature has, in effect, put guns in bars, and has encouraged shootings in bars.
OSUNSAMI: It is now legal for gun owners who have a permit to carry concealed weapons into any bar or any restaurant that serves liquor. Randy Rayburn runs a bar and restaurant in Nashville, and worries that bar fights will turn into gun fights.
RANDY RAYBURN, BAR OWNER: And I’m a proponent of the Second Amendment and a gun owner, but I keep my gun at home. And our concern is that the one or two percent Dirty Harry wannabes will be trying to impress a girl.
OSUNSAMI: State lawmakers who pushed for the change say that residents have the right to bear arms even in places where alcohol is served.
STATE REP. CURRY TODD (R-TN): I think that you, as a permit holder, have that right and responsibility to protect your family.
OSUNSAMI: At the firing range, they agree with the lawmakers.
PAUL CARR, FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR: Requiring somebody to leave their firearm in their car every time they go into a restaurant to eat just doesn’t make any sense.
OSUNSAMI: In April, 49-year-old Ben Goeser was gunned down at a sports bar in Nashville. His wife was there.
NIKKI GOESER, WIDOW OF MURDER VICTIM: He pulled out a gun and he murdered my husband right in front of me.
OSUNSAMI: Today, Nikki Goeser says she would have certainly had a gun at her side and would have shot the gunman dead under current law.
GOESER: Crime exists. It happens in schools, it happens in churches, it happens in establishments that serve alcohol. I would have tried to protect my husband.
OSUNSAMI: There is one way for restaurants to get around the law and keep the guns out. They can post a sign like this one, saying no. Restaurant and bar owners worry that the signs alone aren't enough, and that they'll have to enforce them and start checking their customers for guns at the door.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: A family with children coming in wants to know has there been an incident here in this restaurant, is this restaurant safe for me to come into?
OSUNSAMI: The bar owners are now suing the state to repeal the law.
RAYBURN: We want to maintain ourselves as Music City, USA, not become Dodge City, USA.
OSUNSAMI: They're arguing that guns and liquor don't mix. Steve Osunsami, ABC News, Chattanooga.
—Brad Wilmouth is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Who's counting
August 19, 2009 - 06:55 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsHmmm, let's make a list. In the first column we will put the number of people (per day, week, month, year, pick one) in the USA murdered by licensed gun owners. In column number two, we will put the number of people murdered by persons illegally possessing said gun. Now, think hard, which number will be consistently higher?
Why can't the media do simple math?
D
Write Congress and Senate and tell them what YOU think!
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
This is where people seem to
August 19, 2009 - 07:47 ET by ninerdogThis is where people seem to lose understanding of there rights. The fact is the constitution keeps the federal government out of it. It says nothing about state laws. That falls on the state constitution. If the state you live in says no guns then the fed can not override that. Almost all states allow gun ownership. The DC gun ban was found unconstitutional because DC is under the federal law it is in fact not a state. It is like education and no child left behind. The constitution does not in fact give control over the education of the people. It belongs to the states. That is why very few states are complying. They don’t have to.
So you're saying that all of
August 19, 2009 - 11:36 ET by kg333So you're saying that all of the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution are subject to the laws and constitutions of the individual states? I think you've overstepped yourself there; states have no more right than the federal government does to restrict and regulate, say, freedom of religion, or freedom of the press. The Second Amendment is right up there with the rest, and no state could legally ban gun ownership. That would be a situation where I would like to see the federal government step in and say "that's enough."
too true
August 19, 2009 - 12:57 ET by wizardjrThe Supreme Clowns found years ago that what's in the US Constitution is automatically in a State Constitution. If forget which clause they quoted but I think it came out of the 14th Amendment.
A State may generate its own laws regarding carry, possession, and use as long as it does not step on the 2nd Amendment (which DC did).
2nd Amendment & Fed vs State Govt
August 19, 2009 - 16:34 ET by Brad WilmouthIt looks like to me that because the Second Amendment does specify federal or state govt, then it was meant to apply to govt at all levels. By contrast, the First Amendment starts off with the words "Congress shall make no law," thus applying itself only to the federal govt.
Correction
August 19, 2009 - 16:35 ET by Brad WilmouthThat should have read "does NOT specify federal or state govt."
An inconvenient truth...
August 19, 2009 - 07:04 ET by c5then"...The People's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
We have had this right infringed almost out of existance in the past 100 years. Now that the Supreme court has decided that the simple grammar does actually mean exactly what it says, maybe we can move on and declare all these little State and local restrictions as UNCONSTITUTIONAL so the people can actually have a somewhat level playing field with the criminals.
Throw 'da bums out!
no incumbent re-elected, with very few exceptions!
www.loyaltoliberty.com
GUNS & MARRIAGE...
August 19, 2009 - 07:36 ET by danybhoyLets look at guns & marriage, & I'm not talking about shotgun weddings...
Many on the left get upset over the fact that a "gay marriage" that is legal in 1 state, may not be in another. They think that it should transfer to whatever state they move to.
On the other hand, South Dakota Senator (R) John Thune sponsered a bill that would have allowed a person with a concealed gun permit in 1 state to carry it to another. It was voted down.
Here is the deal, marriage is listed NOWHERE in the constitution, so that gets thrown to the states. Which is why the age of consent is different in different states...But gun rights, ARE listed in the constitution with the 2nd Amendment. Sen.Thune's bill should have been passed.
That is an easy example of leftist hypocricy. Also, the constitution is what it is, it's not a "living, breathing document". Memo to Sotomayor & the other leftist/activist Supreme Court Justices, you apply the constitution, you don't interpret it. Remember that when "gay marriage" or 2nd Amendment cases come before the court next time.
"...How blind can you be, don't you see...
...that the gambler lost all he does not have..."
Nightwish
Actually....
August 19, 2009 - 08:30 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonThe Constitution IS a 'living, breathing document'.
Why else would the congress, courts, and the president be trying so hard to murder it in front of us?
http://gjresult.com
Article 4 Section 1 of the Constitution
August 19, 2009 - 09:34 ET by c5thenSays that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." This is not up for debate or discussion.
This is why a driver's license issued in one State is valid for driving through or visiting another State. The same should be true of gun licenses and permits. There was and is no need for the Thune bill.
This is also true of marriage licenses. This is why the DOM (Defense of Marriage Act) was so important to some people. So that their State didn't have to recognize any gay marriages performed in another State. Unfortunatley the DOM is in direct contradiction of Article 4 Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
If we went through and stripped out any laws and government agencies that are in violation of the U.S. Constitution we would have a Federal government that is 1/3 the size it is today and we'd all have most of our liberty back. We are like the proverbial frog that has been put in a pot of cold water and the heat gradually turned up.
Ben Franklin and most of the founders would be hugely dissapointed in us today.
Throw 'da bums out!
no incumbent re-elected, with very few exceptions!
www.loyaltoliberty.com
I have to disagree...
August 19, 2009 - 11:28 ET by onewiseguy"If we went through and stripped out any laws and government agencies
that are in violation of the U.S. Constitution we would have a Federal
government that is 1/3 the size it is today..."
The federal gov't would probably be closer to 1/10 the size it is today. The federal gov't has very few responsibilities, the biggest and most important being national defense. Defense spending is a small fraction of the overall spending done by the federal gov't. More is spent on entitlement programs than on national defense, the postal service and other constitutionally mandated federal functions.
Two points about gun control
August 19, 2009 - 07:28 ET by FeynmanFan1. Gun control only affects law-abiding people. Criminals don't care about laws and regulations or they wouldn't be criminals.
2. When I talk with people who are against guns I ask them if they would be willing to put up a sign in their yard that says "THERE ARE NO GUNS IN THIS HOUSE". No one has ever said yes, and the conversation usually ends there.
The real criminal in this
August 19, 2009 - 08:40 ET by BruzillaThe real criminal in this story is attorney David Smith. He's saying that this law encourages shootings in bars, and offers himself as a protector of the bar owners, but he would be in court suing those same owners tomorrow if he had a chance of making a buck off it. The issue that bar owners have is liability, and I can see their point.
I have a CWP, and I don't like having to keep taking my pistol on and off, but I can respect that the owners of establishments that ban guns are being asked to accept a tremendous amount of liability thanks to jerks like Smith.
restaurants yes, bars no
August 19, 2009 - 13:00 ET by wizardjrwith respect to restaurants, Texas comes to mind with regards to a massacre abetted by forbidding customers to have their weapons inside
as to bars, I think the smarter policy is to seperate guns and booze IMHO, fist fights are bad enough but I truly do see the chance for a drawn gun over an argument in this case
I have a TN HandGunPermit
August 19, 2009 - 14:09 ET by FuzzyLeeIt is against the law in TN to have a firearm of any kind if you have had even one drop of alchohol. There are NO exceptions.
(Well actually, if you use the firearm in a legitimate case of self-defense, is is an affirmative defense against any weapons violations. This also applies to carrying anywhere it is properly posted as illegal.)
That said, concealed means concealed. Gaston's best and his 16 little hollow-pointed copper jacketed buddies are my constant companions. The last time I was assisting the local police retrieving stolen items from the forest next to my house, I was verbally abused by multiple officers for NOT having my carry piece (I'd left it at the house to avoid misunderstandings), never again.
Attorney David Smith is attempting to argue that citizens have a right to be free from the presence of firearms. His basing this idea on...
wait for it....
South African law. What a nit-wit.
I've only seen a few signs restricting gun carry in restaurants since this bill passed. Every one was non-compliant per state law.(They have to be pretty specific.) I walk right on by and wouldn't dare inform the management of their error. :)
Screw 'em.
P.S. Golf clap for ABC giving Nikki some screen time, she can speak for me anyday.