Hmmm … Is Ax-Throwing in Bars Really a Good Idea?
The current operators in Connecticut appear to being doing a good job in protecting their patrons, but darts are one thing—axes are quite another.
August 01, 2019 at 04:58 PM
4 minute read
Wikimedia Commons
Public regulation has never been able to anticipate what smart and not-so-smart people can come up with. Most recently, ridehailing, e.g., Uber and Lyft, headed on down the road long before government could catch up. Short-term-rentals—and here we have Airbnb and VRBO—have been a boon for some homeowners and the bane of local governments and the neighbors who suffer with party houses next door.
Now comes ax throwing in bars. It’s hard to find out where this inane and insane idea started. We do know that 13 years ago, the Backyard Axe Throwing League was formed in Toronto among a group that had set up a target in Matt Wilson’s backyard. Wilson became the founder and CEO of the league. The league, in turn, became one of the founders of the National Axe Throwing Federation (NATF), with 36 members and 6,000 throwers. Like others “sports,” there are many other leagues, such as the World Axe Throwing League.
Go to Wikipedia, the source of all things obvious, and you can read this important caution: “The sport of axe throwing deals with a potentially dangerous weapon, so the throwing area must be kept safe at all times. … A First Aid kit and a person trained in First Aid and CPR should be at hand in the event of an emergency.”
Then come the defenders, such as ClutchAxes, a company selling throwing axes, which makes the oh-so-compelling argument that it is safe because ax throwing is mostly done in bars: “[I]t goes to show just how safe it really is when just about every single location offers alcohol. As previously mentioned, the people that work inside are trained to spot misconduct almost instantly, and the logistics of it all really makes it difficult to cause an accident even if you are being careless.”
Proof positive of the inherent danger can be found in the lawsuit recently brought against Fox News because “Fox and Friends” host Peter Hegseth overthrew an ax and hit Jeff Propserie, causing permanent injuries when the ax hit his elbow broadside. It could have been much worse.
It is a mixed bag across the country and here in Connecticut. Myrtle Beach denied an outdoor one in 2018, but this year two will open indoors. Brooklyn Community Board 1 denied a beer and wine license for “Bury the Hatchet,” a Greenpoint bar, because of the ax throwing. In Enfield, Connecticut, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved one. That one joins others in Newington, Hartford and Wallingford, and another reportedly forthcoming in Fairfield County.
Is the risk worth the reward? Ax throwing is fine, if that’s your thing, but not where alcohol is served, unless the activity could be limited to those who are sober. The SuperCharged electric go-kart track in Montville has a full-service bar and reserves the right to require a Breathalyzer test for any driver. No one can race if they are above 0.00. That may be impractical elsewhere.
Perhaps if the ax throwing area were off on its own as they typically are, participants took a breathalyzer test, threw their axes, and then adjourned to the bar to brag about their skill … that might work and would be fun. But starting in the bar and advancing to ax throwing is not a good idea.
Connecticut needs to take a long, hard look at this combination of ax throwing and alcohol, and consider banning alcohol where people are throwing axes, or requiring all participants to pass a Breathalyzer test, or at least mandating some significant insurance, safe design, and state-approved informed consent. The current operators in Connecticut appear to being doing a good job in protecting their patrons, but darts are one thing—axes are quite another.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All![ADVANCE Act Offers Conn. Opportunity to Enhance Carbon-Free Energy and Improve Reliability With Advanced Nuclear Technologies ADVANCE Act Offers Conn. Opportunity to Enhance Carbon-Free Energy and Improve Reliability With Advanced Nuclear Technologies](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/391/2024/10/Paul-Corey-767x633.jpg)
ADVANCE Act Offers Conn. Opportunity to Enhance Carbon-Free Energy and Improve Reliability With Advanced Nuclear Technologies
![Winning a Custody Appeal Based on Abuse of Discretion Isn't Easy Winning a Custody Appeal Based on Abuse of Discretion Isn't Easy](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/391/2023/01/Elisa-Reiter-and-Daniel-Pollack-767x633.jpg)
Trending Stories
- 1Dentons Taps D.C. Capital Markets Attorney for New US Managing Partner
- 2Auto Dealers Ask Court to Pump the Brakes on Scout Motors’ Florida Sales
- 3German Court Orders X to Release Data Amid Election Interference Concerns
- 4Litigation Trends to Watch From Law.com Radar: Suits Strike at DEI Policies, 'Meme Coins' and Infractions in Cannabis Labeling
- 5Judge Gets Public Reprimand for Favoring Cops
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250