Other articles by Howard Fischer:

2 bishops urge OK of ballot ban on gay marriages Lawsuit could void photo-radar tickets Judge to keep hands off election-fund law, for nowBiz finances survived AZ smoking ban Phx. TV station wants to ease cameras' access to courtrooms Judge scraps part of Ariz. public-election law Affirmative-action foes give up on 2008 ballot Taxes collected in Arizona continue to shrink Attorney seeks end to public matching funds Judge stalls ballot mailing over Prop. 104

General
VALLEY PROTECTIVE SERVICES
SECURITY OFFICERS Health Care
Sonora Behavorial Health
Executive Assistant Trades/Construction
innovative manufacturing
CNC LATHE SETUP Technical
Unitek USA
Satellite Installers Trades/Construction
Mechanical Systems, Inc
Plumbing/Piping Superintendent Education
CESAR CHAVEZ SCHOOL NETWORK
K-12 MUSIC PROGRAM DIRECTOR General
Maintenance Technician

PHOENIX — A state lawmaker may have crafted the most politically acceptable plan yet to let diners at restaurants that serve alcohol carry their guns.

The bill by Sen. Jack Harper, R-Surprise, would leave the decision about weapons to each restaurant owner.

Harper's proposal is worded so guns would be allowed only if the proprietor specifically posted a sign saying they are permitted. That means those eating establishments that didn't want armed diners would not have to do anything to keep it that way.

That verbiage — and the opt-in provision — might be enough to get the Arizona Restaurant and Hospitality Association, which helped kill prior versions of this measure, to remain neutral.

"I doubt we will support it," said Steve Chucri, the organization's president. "But we may not oppose it, either."

SB 1132 does have an interesting provision: The signs required to permit guns would not actually have the word "guns" or "weapons" on them. So the only people who likely would know the sign means the patrons might be armed are those who are familiar with gun laws, most likely the gun owners.

But Harper said he doubts would-be diners would choose to go elsewhere if they actually knew there would be weapons on the premises.

This nearly perennial fight has pitted the rights of gun owners to protect themselves against the rights of businesses to keep their premises free of weapons.

State law does not permit guns anywhere alcohol is served. The result, according to foes of the statute, is that gun owners are forced to leave their weapons in their vehicles, leaving themselves unprotected both in the parking lot and while dining or drinking.

Gov. Janet Napolitano vetoed legislation three years ago to repeal the ban on taking guns where liquor is served, even though it contained a provision that prohibited those who are armed from drinking.

Since then the debate has turned to restaurants that also have liquor licenses.

But measures to allow weapons into those businesses have faltered amid various objections, including from restaurant owners, even with an opt-out provision. They complained that would force them to post signs to keep their businesses free of weapons.

Harper said limiting the law to restaurants, with an opt-in approach, solves the problem.

That, however, still leaves the question of who would know which restaurants do and do not allow guns.

Harper's legislation says the notice owners must post to permit weapons would say "These premises are posted pursuant to A.R.S. Section 4-229," referring to the proposed new law.

"I'd imagine that sign would be very recognizable to folks that carry a firearm on a regular basis," he said.

And everyone else?

"To tell you the truth, those patrons are less likely to be victims should a firearm be allowed to be carried in by a law-abiding citizen," he said. "I don't think there will be very many at all in the general public that will want to avoid establishments that allow law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm."

Harper said the measure should satisfy all sides.

"This truly is a property-rights and Second Amendment rights issue," he said. "The owner can make that decision and post to allow firearms if that's what they want to do, rather than the state making the decision of no firearms for them."

Unlike the 2005 measure, though, nothing in this proposal forbids those who want to be armed from actually drinking.