The only way that I could argue towards nefarious intent would be to play devil’s advocate with a point that I don’t necessarily believe is accurate. So here goes….

The law is written without stated intent so it is our job to determine said intent. This amendment to current law represents an effort to prohibit ABC licensed establishments from becoming havens for gangs. By limiting an establishment’s ability to choose its own clientele the state is thereby able to dictate this decision to the private enterprise under threat of termination of business. The targets of the state’s amendment are gangs. Rationale for limiting a gang’s ability to congregate in a public place is not stated in the amended law therefore we are left to determine this on our own (in the same manner that the ABC and law enforcement departments and prosecutors offices across the state will have to). By limiting a group’s ability to congregate in public, the group is further marginalized to the outer fringes of society. Marginalization of specific groups that tend to be racially segregated has historically proven to cause further marginalization of said racial group (regardless of their participation in the group that was originally targeted). Therefore this law serves to further divide our society while providing minimal benefit in return.

Ps. Out of sight out of mind isn’t an acceptable public policy, irregardless of how much we might wish it to be so.

actually, not so much. kids have good looking fakes and get served with them all the time. in spite of the fact that it may be difficult for a bartender to identify a fake (i.e. they may be unaware that the individual they are serving is underage), they (and the establishment) are still liable. is it fair that a bar could lose it’s license (and a bartender their job) over this?

this seems to be one of the very same questions you’re raising with regard to the difficulty of identifying gang members. and yet you claim to have no ‘qualms with any part of the current law.’

i just don’t see the negative side of this. people seem to be afraid that it will lead to individuals being profiled, but no one has made a very strong case for that or explained why under the current law (which i believe you agree with) we haven’t seen problems with bartenders having to profile people because they’re uncertain as to whether or not they’re serving a prostitute or whatever.

i don’t mean to be combative. i’d just like to see people be able to explain why they believe what they believe. are you concerned that this law will be unduly applied to hispanic bars? if so, i’d be interested to talk about it.

lets get away from the groupthink knee jerk reaction though and try to make reasonable points.

(as far as who the new part of the old law targets, it targets bars that would cater to gangs in the same way that the old law targets bars that cater to people who are underage. i really fail to see the nefariousness of it. can someone convince me?)

It is a new PART of the law. I don’t think anyone here is expressing qualms with any other part of the current law in this thread, just the NEW part.

If you think the local police aren’t involved in enforcement (in this case, alerting the board to review/revoke an alcohol license), read this from the VA ABC site: “Virginia ABC special agents, state police and local law enforcement enforce these laws. The violation of these laws is punishable as a criminal act with fines and/or jail time. 4.1-100 is the beginning section of the ABC Act of the Code of Virginia.”

I should think it’s quite a lot easier to card someone (for age) or see if they have dice or cards out (for gambling) or are unclothed (for stripping) than it is to know if they and the people in their company are members of a criminal street gang. What do you propose a bartender who wants to follow the law should do to make sure they’re not? Is there some kind of “I’m not a criminal street gang member” government document they can check for that I’m not aware of? Look at it another way, if the law said that a license could be revoked for allowing their joint to become “a meeting place or rendezvous for members of a” dogfighting ring, or insider stock tip ring, or some other criminal group that’s not actually committing crimes in the bar, how would you pick them out of the crowd?

I don’t get your combative tone here. The question is who is this law targeting and how will it be enforced in any kind of fair manner?