Even though gun-rights advocates in the Senate narrowly failed on Wednesday in a vote to greatly broaden the freedom to carry concealed weapons, two states acted last week to make it easier for armed gun owners to hang out with drunk people.

Last Tuesday, a new guns-in-bars law took effect in Tennessee after a judge in Nashville refused to issue a temporary injunction blocking its implementation. A few hours later, Arizona followed suit with a measure signed into law by the state’s governor, Jan Brewer. The Arizona Republic reported that the governor’s action “expanded the rights of gun owners by allowing those with a concealed-carry permit to take their firearms into establishments that serve alcohol.”

As my colleague Katharine Q. Seelye reported last month when the guns-in-bars bill passed in Tennessee: “Gun-rights advocates say expanded rights are needed so that law-abiding citizens can protect themselves in more situations.” In this video report from Nashville, the BBC heard from Nikki Goeser, a resident who supports the new law. Ms. Goeser told the BBC that she might have been able to prevent the murder of her husband in a bar if she had had a gun on her at the time.

In both states, there is a catch. The new laws stipulate that armed patrons have to refrain from drinking while in the bars — in effect, creating a new category of customer, the designated shooter.

Not surprisingly, some bar owners in each state have objected to laws that leave it up to them to tell armed customers that they can’t drink. Metromix Phoenix reports: “Scottsdale bar and restaurant owner Les Corieri said he thinks the new law permitting the state’s 137,766 carriers of concealed-weapons permits to bring firearms into bars and restaurants is insane.” According to the video report from News Channel 5 in Nashville embedded below, “Many bar and restaurant owners are already taking steps to prohibit the weapons by using a provision of the law that allows them to post signs saying guns are not allowed.”

One important correction should be made to this local television report: the anchor’s closing statement that “nearly 40 other states have a similar law in place” is incorrect. On Wednesday, The Lede spoke with David Randolph Smith, whose Nashville law firm is leading the fight to have Tennessee’s law declared unconstitutional. Mr. Smith says that his legal research team looked closely at the gun laws in every state, and found that there are just 14 states that issue permits allowing patrons to carry firearms in restaurants that serve alcohol.

Mr. Smith has posted the results of his legal team’s research on his Web site, beneath this statement: “The claim that ’40’ states have ‘similar laws’ to Tennessee’s new guns-in-bars law is false and misleading.” In fact, Mr. Smith writes, “because bars, saloons, nightclubs and restaurants with bar areas are notorious for fights, assaults and breaches of the peace, carrying loaded guns is expressly prohibited by law in bars, nightclubs or bar areas serving alcohol in 24 states [23 now that AZ changed its law].”

After reviewing state gun laws in detail, Mr. Smith concluded: “No state, by statute or regulation, expressly allowed firearms to be brought into bars until the Tennessee legislature passed” the new law. Mr. Smith told The Lede. “No state has ever said, ‘we want you to bring a gun into where real drinking is happening.’ ”

As The Tennessean reported this week, while industry groups “expect roughly four out of five restaurants in the state to opt out of a new law,” some bars and restaurants in the state are planning to allow guns, at least for the moment:

Drew Dixon, co-owner of Legends Sports Grill in Lebanon, said the restaurant is allowing guns, though it’s doing so “with open eyes.” “We did think about it for a week or so,” Dixon said. “We just said we’ll go along with Tennessee state law unless there’s a scuffle or, heaven forbid, anything happens.”

Meanwhile David Randolph Smith is pressing ahead with his effort to have the new law declared “void for vagueness.” The same judge who refused to grant a temporary injunction to prevent the law from taking effect plans to hear his case soon.

In both Tennessee and Arizona, bar owners have complained to the media that their objections have been ignored by politicians looking to score points with a powerful pro-gun lobby. Last week The Colbert Report profiled one of the political leaders of Tennessee’s fight to get guns and alcohol in the same room:

David Randolph Smith drew our attention to a report from Jeff Woods, a Nashville blogger, which seems to undercut the argument made by Nikki Goeser, whose husband was fatally wounded in a bar. Last week, Mr. Woods wrote:

Since her husband was shot to death in a Nashville sports bar this spring, Nikki Goeser has become the public face of the NRA’s campaign to make it legal for Tennessee’s licensed gunmen to go armed into drinking establishments. She contends that if she’d only had a gun with her at Jonny’s Sports Bar, she could have saved her husband’s life. […] Well, it turns out that even the folks at Jonny’s apparently don’t buy the NRA’s logic. The Nolensville Road bar is one of many that have posted signs banning handguns on their premises. Pith called Jonny’s and asked to speak to the owner or manager. The guy who came to the phone confirmed Jonny’s has banned guns but wouldn’t talk about it. […] “We put the signs up,” he said, “but I don’t want to be quoted at all.”

A reader who supports the new laws suggests that “permit holders are much less likely to commit violent crimes than the general public.” In March a Tennessee newspaper, The Memphis Commercial Appeal, published a report headlined “Armed and dangerous: Dozens with violent histories received handgun carry permits,” which suggests the permit process in Tennessee may not be keeping guns out of the hands of people with violent histories. The newspaper reported that by searching a database it had compiled — and published on its Web site — of people with permits in one local county, it had “identified as many as 70 county residents who were issued permits despite arrest histories, some with charges that include robbery, assault, domestic violence and other serious offenses.”