Boy is this eerily similar . . . talk about your inconsistency in reporting, and spin by those in power.
Several years ago, when the city of Columbus, Ohio was trying to ban competition rifles, the powers that be referred to these tools as "assault weapons." Simultaneously, however, the Columbus Division of Police was trying to purchase a number of these firearms. On all purchase order documents, and once the news hit the media, these very same guns were referred to as "patrol rifles."
Flash forward to summer 2009, the governor of Tennessee vetoed a bill to allow CCW holders to carry concealed sidearms in establishments that serve alcohol. In all instances, the media is reporting these establishments to be "bars." Ultimately, the Tennessee state legislature voted to override the governor veto, allowing CCW holders legal access to these facilities.
But the governor last week quietly signed a bill allowing off-duty police officers to carry concealed firearms into these same establishments. Most interesting, in all references, the powers that be and the media refer to said establishments as "establishments that serve alcohol."
It just goes to show . . . words matter.
BTW, in a related matter, a court today threw out a request for a temporary injunction to halt the implementation of Tennessee's new law, which goes into effect tomorrow. Seems a very loud, but very small handful of restaurant owners who claim they "might" face an increased liability by allowing CCW holders in their places of business filed a legal challenge. Not surprisingly, the judge rejected their insistence on an injunction to prevent restaurant goers from being able to legally defend themselves from violent attack with a handgun.
BTW, in a further related matter, the governor of the state of Arizona today signed into law a bill allowing CCW holders there to carry concealed self defense sidearms into "bars."