old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,631
No, for driving there is a blood alcohol limit. (And they really should institute a measurable limit for being under the influence of cannabis, but I digress...)
carrying in a facility that serves alcohol?
- Thread starter old lady new shooter
- Start date
fastbolt
Member
You can still be considered legally impaired below the presumptive limit with alcohol. Depends on the person. It's not like the presumptive level is forever chiseled in stone, and it's been lowered over time (FWIW, it was 1.0 here in CA many years ago, and then was lowered to .08).
The THC impairment is a bit thornier in that respect, as it's the objective signs of impairment due to THC that have to be used. Last I heard, it's not presently considered possible to develop the same sort of presumptive chemical test to show real-time blood levels present in the way done for alcohol testing.
Here's a lay person explanation in the media:
No Widely Accepted Way To Test Marijuana Impairment In Drivers
State House leaders expect to soon help define what constitutes driving under the influence of marijuana. But deciding what to require may be difficult.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,631
Very interesting about marijuana impairment, thanks for the link.You can still be considered legally impaired below the presumptive limit with alcohol. Depends on the person. It's not like the presumptive level is forever chiseled in stone, and it's been lowered over time (FWIW, it was 1.0 here in CA many years ago, and then was lowered to .08).
The THC impairment is a bit thornier in that respect, as it's the objective signs of impairment due to THC that have to be used. Last I heard, it's not presently considered possible to develop the same sort of presumptive chemical test to show real-time blood levels present in the way done for alcohol testing.
Here's a lay person explanation in the media:
No Widely Accepted Way To Test Marijuana Impairment In Drivers
State House leaders expect to soon help define what constitutes driving under the influence of marijuana. But deciding what to require may be difficult.www.wbur.org
But back to our topic, the rule for carrying doesn't mention impairment, it says "Be under the influence of any medication or drug, whether prescribed or not." Why not write "Be impaired due to the use of any medication or drug, whether prescribed or not"?
RetiredUSNChief
Member
You can still be considered legally impaired below the presumptive limit with alcohol. Depends on the person. It's not like the presumptive level is forever chiseled in stone, and it's been lowered over time (FWIW, it was 1.0 here in CA many years ago, and then was lowered to .08).
The THC impairment is a bit thornier in that respect, as it's the objective signs of impairment due to THC that have to be used. Last I heard, it's not presently considered possible to develop the same sort of presumptive chemical test to show real-time blood levels present in the way done for alcohol testing.
Here's a lay person explanation in the media:
No Widely Accepted Way To Test Marijuana Impairment In Drivers
State House leaders expect to soon help define what constitutes driving under the influence of marijuana. But deciding what to require may be difficult.
The issue of impairment is kind of a red herring, in my (non-medically trained) opinion. Legal BAC has dropped significantly since we first started setting legal limits. In most places it became 0.15 in 1938, then dropped to 0.1, and finally most places are at 0.08 today. It's fair to say that some people will show intoxication at or below this limit while others will not. Likewise, there will be people above the legal limit who will be intoxicated while others will not be. But the law doesn't care...if you're above the limit, you're above the limit.
So the issue with THC isn't really a problem with "what level produces intoxication" per se, it's "what level statistically appears to produce intoxication in some significant fraction of people" which could reasonably be used as a legal limit. They just need to do some studies and set some limits for the levels of THC, and then TEST FOR THC ITSELF...not THC metabolites.
There's no widely accepted way for a chemical blood test because they don't WANT one.
Historically, law enforcement never cared to know what the THC content in a suspect's blood was because the law wasn't about impairment; it was about whether they did any at all. To that end, they tested for the metabolites. These remain in the body for weeks after use, whereas THC itself is metabolized within a few hours.
What they need to do are some serious studies specifically dedicated to gathering, correlating, and studying precisely this issue. The road block here is that the federal government doesn't like that and has historically not given the thumbs up for human THC studies in the past. At least they can gather first hand information of the effects of THC by the various consumption means across a broad spectrum of people in various categories (age, sex, weight, etc.)
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,080
......same thing I hear from folks about drinking and driving.
...or texting while driving.
...or cheating on their wife.
...abusing their wife and or kids.
If you want to lower yourself to criminal levels,
I too.....don't care.
But to come to a site where safe, legal and responsible gun ownership is promoted as a top priority, and brag about it?
Lots of rules/regs/laws that I don't particularly agree with. One thing I do agree with is Shakespeare's quote "The better part of Valor, is discretion!".
Because it's a lot harder to measure objectively. I know guys who are far better drivers while "under the influence" than a lot of folks are stone cold sober.
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,195
The moral difference with my decision is that I'm endangering no one except a violent criminal that chooses to attack me or my loved ones in an alleged "gun free zone".
fastbolt
Member
Probably because there's a long history of being under the influence signifying presumptive impairment? Changing legal definitions can come with its own potential problems.
Example for definition used here in CA:
under the influence
The phrase “under the influence” refers to impairment, to any degree, of an individual’s ability to safely perform the activity in question as a result of the use of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of both.
under the influence
Another way to describe "under the influence" (here) is if a driver is so impaired that he/she is unable to operate a vehicle with the caution of a sober person, meaning using ordinary care. And yes, 'drugs' refers to those considered both legal (prescribed or OTC) and illegal.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,631
Thank you, I feel a little better now.Probably because there's a long history of being under the influence signifying presumptive impairment? Changing legal definitions can come with its own potential problems.
Example for definition used here in CA:
under the influence
The phrase “under the influence” refers to impairment, to any degree, of an individual’s ability to safely perform the activity in question as a result of the use of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of both.
under the influence
www.law.cornell.edu
Another way to describe "under the influence" (here) is if a driver is so impaired that he/she is unable to operate a vehicle with the caution of a sober person, meaning using ordinary care. And yes, 'drugs' refers to those considered both legal (prescribed or OTC) and illegal.
I am gonna have to go back to Cali for at least a day to take care of a piece of business I have to be there in person for, very not looking forward to it.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,631
You make a good point.
But I still agree with the advice posted not to brag about it here (or anywhere online).
Terry G
Member
Just a bad idea whatever the law is. I believe that most CCW people are pretty sensible people. But let a DA get ahold of someone who is doing no more than having a Beer with Dinner and he'll blow it way out of proportion.
pharmer
Member
I have been carrying in Florida over 40 years, since 1988 with "permit." My experience is that absolutely no one gives 2 Schlitz if you are carrying. They do care just about everyplace, if you get hammered and make a "fool menace" out of yourself, armed or not. Joe
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,631
In AZ definitely nobody cares if you are carrying.
Charlie98
Member
That's exactly how I understand the law... as a TX CHL holder. I don't know about Constitutional Carry, however.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,080
Is your judgement the same after two beers or so as it is when sober? Does that impact on your judgement not endanger others around you?
....this was really the just of my original post. We have many new and inexperienced gun owners here and they take what other long time members say to heart. i.e., Heck, if Shawn can break the law, then it must be okay for me too. The chest pounding about disregarding the law reflects on all of us here, and it's not the reflection I want.
fastbolt
Member
Kinda depends where you have to go, I suppose. Many places are better than others, just like anywhere else.
starnbar
Member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2020
- Messages
- 431
ORLANDO, Fla. – Florida’s concealed weapons license allows people to bring their guns in many places, but there are gray areas when it comes to restricted locations.
For example, a gun owner with a concealed carry permit can bring a gun into a restaurant but they are prohibited under Florida law from having it anywhere near the eatery’s bar.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,631
NoHo
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,195
Decision-making is no different: the gun only comes out if someone is actively trying to kill me or a loved one and we're unable to escape.
Where I reside, the "bar area" of a restaurant is off limits to concealed carry but one can CCW in the "restaurant area" and inbibe all one wants to. So, if the restaurant area is full but there's seating in the bar area, then so what?
In addition, I'm not CCW'ing to be somebody else's bodyguard. My rationale is other folks have the same right to CCW as I do, and if they choose not to do so and they find themselves in mortal danger from a violent criminal(s) in my presence, then that's their problem not mine. They can wait for police to arrive to save them. I have exceptions for the elderly, the infirm/disabled, and children.
GBExpat
Member
JIC nobody has yet responded for Virginia, CHP Licensees here may frequent licensed beverage-alcohol establishments so long as they do not partake. 
fastbolt
Member
Ah, so basically, the urban equivalent of a wild animal safari ride?
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,631
<g>Ah, so basically, the urban equivalent of a wild animal safari ride?
Before I retired my job was in and out of all types of food establishments. I used to see these posted in some of the most inconspicuous places in these types. Made it hard to determine when you walked in. I have walked in carrying on more than one occasion and never saw a sign until after sitting down or even walking out the door. Yes one place had it posted where you saw on the way out. Another way up close to the top of tall ceiling behind the bar with all kinds of other stuff. I just went on about my business and didn't worry about it. Food was good as well.In Texas it is 51% of sales. If this sign:
is displayed you cannot carry in the premises. If the sign is not displayed you are good to go in with your carry gun.
fastbolt
Member
hutch51
Member
Kansas - "Not impaired"
I may have one or two when out; I weigh about 235. I go home to finish the job.
I may have one or two when out; I weigh about 235. I go home to finish the job.
