Consuming Alchohol While Carrying

[RatDrall]

I'm curious as to what other shooters think about this...

In PA there is not specific law, that I am aware of (jump in and correct me if I am wrong) that prohibits being intoxicated while carrying. We don't have rampant bar violence, anymore than states where the subje...er citizens are prohibited from drinking while carrying, or even going into a bar. If you do something stupid in PA, like commit a felony, while drunk and armed, you are prosecuted for the crime that you commited.

If a responsible person wants to have a drink while carrying, I couldn't care less, until they become, or cause, a problem. What do you guys think?

 

[bikerdoc]

I dont do polls so forgive me, however I must comment.

In Virginia, thanks to VCDL, the law was recently changed from prohibiting carrying in establishments that serve alcohol to it being allowed if the cwp holder does not drink. Effective july 1.

Obviously guns and any degree of impairment do not mix.

 

[jcwit]

Drinking and carrying is about as responsiable as drinking and driving. Thats my opinion.

 

[hso]

Sounds like you're asking a philosophical question more than a legal one since you want people's opinion on whether they approve of carrying while consuming alcohol more than a discussion of the laws. We've had plenty of discussions of people's attitudes about this in General and the answers are all the same, some think alcohol and arms don't mix when carrying (no drinking), some think there's nothing wrong as long as one stays sober (a man's got to know his limitations), and a very few don't think you should not even be carrying around where alcohol is consumed (don't even go around alcohol with a gun).

Should there be laws about alcohol and arms? Some will say "Yes" and others will say "No". The majority of members will say "No", even those that think you should make the personal decision to not drink and carry. Nearly as many people will say "Yes". The folks that say "Yes" will point out that the government already prohibits drinking and driving as a means of protecting public safety against the increased potential for harming the public. Some of the "No"s will point out that driving isn't an enumerated right and that the 2A trumps the public safety argument. Others will provide stats from states that have laws on the books permitting carrying without consumption while in an establishment that serves alcohol for consumption on the premises (TN,soon) and for states that allow consumption (IN) arguing that the rates for firearms deaths are not affected either way.

Opinions rarely change.

 

[Lanyard]

Better said ^^^


hso slipped in while I was typing.

 

[JoeMal]

Drinking and carrying is about as responsiable as drinking and driving. Thats my opinion.

Not quite

In a car, you operate it. You touch it, you press the accelerator/brake, you turn the wheel, you react to other traffic.

A gun, you may never touch when drinking (Unless you get happy feelings and decide it's 'show and tell' time, but that would make you stupid). It sits in your holster, snug as a bug. You put it on before you leave the house, it comes off before you go to bed. What happens in the middle doesn't involve a firearm (But you still got a ride home). Far different IMO....not saying it isn't dangerous, I just don't think it's comparable to drinking and driving.

I personally try to limit the combination of drinking and firearms...but I'm not totally opposed to it. Just be smart

 

[aka108]

The bad guy in all the Western movies always goes into the bar and has a few belts before going out in the street to shoot it out with the good guy. The bad guy always ends up buying the farm. Even Hollywood had it right about booze and firearms.

 

[jcwit]

I'm curious as to what other shooters think about this...

Asked for what I thought or in other words "My opinion".

Not quite

I gave my opinion, and I'll stick to it. No has to agree with me, thats their prerogative.

 

[SkylandsRover]

Take my comment with a grain of salt since concealed carry is only a fantasy here in NJ...

But ive seen firsthand how alcohol can make reasonable people do insane things. I agree its just a bad idea.

 

[Wadero]

Much like a weapon, alcohol can not actually commit a crime. Irresponsible use of either can result in something terrible but it should ultimately be up to an individual to choose what path he takes.

I choose to retaint my carry unless I plan on over-indulging. If I decide to have a beer and a burger with a co-worker before going home, it stays with me.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Just spent a bit more than a week on the wagon while I was in Arizona. I carried all the time (have an Arizona permit). While the law has been changed to permit entering a non-posted establishment serving alcohol while carrying (with a permit) a concealed weapon, the law prohibits drinking while armed.

But even if I had been legally permitted to drink while armed, I would have chosen not to do so. Carrying a gun involves assessing situations and making judgments. Alcohol can impair one's ability to do both.

If I need to use my gun in self defense, my assessment of the situation and my judgment that lethal force was necessary will be second guessed by the authorities. If I was under the influence of a mind altering substance at the time, they have one more possible basis upon which to challenge the soundness of my judgment. I can't predict how much that may hurt my legal position, but it absolutely will not help it. And I need a drink a whole lot less than I need that kind of grief.

 

[BADUNAME37]

My take on it is, if you only pull out your weapon when your life is in danger (you fear for your life and/or the lives of those with you), then it should be pretty clean-cut as for any decision to fire a round.

Some people may be "under the influence" if they take an over-the-counter allergy medicine - exactly as prescribed. Should those people leave their weapon at home?

If someone is approaching you with a baseball bat and another with a tire iron, it doesn't take too much analyzation of the 'situation' to determine you are about to get your head bashed in. How about if someone is about to tie you up in a back room and they are holding you at gunpoint. Does it take many brain cells to realize you may be in the middle of walking to your death?

Other user's mileage may vary.

 

[danez71]

I didnt vote because the one I would choose isnt there.

IMO, if you want to CC in public, the allowed BAC (blood alcohol content) should be the same as driving; seems to be usually .08% BAC.

Or, if there is a specific BAC level to be considered dunk in public, use that.

The law would at least have consistancy.

 

[Big Boy]

It is illegal to be intoxicated and have a firearm where I am from.

I will not drink, nor purchase alcohol while open carrying. That's my own personal choice.

Now, if we were out at a restaurant, and I where concealed carrying, nothing would keep me from having a beer with dinner, nor would it be illegal.

Having one or two isn't illegal, you just can't be legally drunk and still have a firearm in your possession. It's still the same laws even when OC'ing, but I prefer to keep myself at a higher standard when OC'ing because everybody can see it, and they are all already judging you in the first place.

 

[308win]

If the proposed Ohio law passes any establishment serving liquor will have the right to post just as does any business now . Anyone carrying concealed who obeys the law is required to stay out of posted establishements if carrying. Our right to carry doesn't abrogate others rights to use of their property.

 

[Frank Ettin]

My take on it is, if you only pull out your weapon when your life is in danger (you fear for your life and/or the lives of those with you), then it should be pretty clean-cut as for any decision to fire a round...

But in real life things are often not that clear cut.

Consider the Arizona case of Harold Fish who was attacked by a man apparently unarmed, but was younger and bigger than Fish. Fish's attacker came charging at full tilt downhill toward Fish shouting he was going to kill him [Fish]. Fish, in fear of his life, shot and killed his attacker. He was convicted of manslaughter by a jury and sent to prison. He did win his appeal and is now free. But his judgment that he needed to use lethal force was certainly second guessed by the prosecutor and then the jury.

Consider another Arizona case, that of Larry Hickey. The charges have finally been dismissed, but he had to undergo two trials, with two hung juries, before he got off the hook (http://www.examiner.com/x-18115-Coc...a-County-Superior-Court-dismissed-all-charges).

We all know that "a good shoot is a good shoot." The problem is that you’re not the one who gets to decide if it’s a good shoot.

If you’re involved in an incident and expect to claim it was self defense, whether your use of force was justified will be decided by others. First, the investigating officers will form an opinion. Then the question will be considered by the local prosecutor’s office, and then maybe by a grand jury. If you’re really unlucky, it will finally be up to a judge and a trial jury to decide if it was a “good shoot.”

So maybe the evidence was clear that you were acting in justified self defense. But then again maybe not. Maybe there are no witnesses, or the witnesses tell conflicting or equivocal stories. Maybe the only witness is the nice gentleman you happened to shoot, and his story is that he had the knife out to cut some salamis for a snack. Maybe the physical evidence isn’t clear one way or the other.

So maybe a lot is going to depend on your story and what the cops, DA, grand jury, et al think of you and your story. And a number of things can affect what those folks think of you and your story. One thing that can affect what those folks think of you and your story will be whether your judgment may have been impaired by alcohol or some other substance, even a prescription or over-the-counter, legal drug.

...Some people may be "under the influence" if they take an over-the-counter allergy medicine - exactly as prescribed. Should those people leave their weapon at home?...

Be that as it may, anything that might have impaired your judgment could become an issue in a self defense case. That's just real life. Whether one leaves his gun at home is a decision he has to make.

...If someone is approaching you with a baseball bat and another with a tire iron, it doesn't take too much analyzation of the 'situation' to determine you are about to get your head bashed in....

But what if that's not what happens to you. What if what happens to you is that you're accosted on a deserted street by a man with his hand under his coat and telling you he has a knife and is going to cut you up if you don't give him your wallet and that he just might cut you up anyway? You believe him. He starts towards you, and you shoot. When the smoke clears, you find that you had shot an unarmed man; he was just bluffing about the knife.

You can't know what's going to happen.

 

[Boba Fett]

Just spent a bit more than a week on the wagon while I was in Arizona. I carried all the time (have an Arizona permit). While the law has been changed to permit entering a non-posted establishment serving alcohol while carrying (with a permit) a concealed weapon, the law prohibits drinking while armed.

But even if I had been legally permitted to drink while armed, I would have chosen not to do so. Carrying a gun involves assessing situations and making judgments. Alcohol can impair one's ability to do both.

If I need to use my gun in self defense, my assessment of the situation and my judgment that lethal force was necessary will be second guessed by the authorities. If I was under the influence of a mind altering substance at the time, they have one more possible basis upon which to challenge the soundness of my judgment. I can't predict how much that may hurt my legal position, but it absolutely will not help it. And I need a drink a whole lot less than I need that kind of grief.

+1

I voted for Handgun carriers should be allowed into bars, but they shouldn't be allowed to drink
Though I don't think it should have to be a legal "not allowed" - I would hope it would be common sense........probably too much to hope for though

In addition to what fiddletown said, alcohol will also affect your physical ability to use your firearm. That means reaction times, drawing, aiming, not hitting bystanders, etc. will all be impaired.


I enjoy a drink with friends from time to time. Always responsibly and always in moderation. But if I ever needed a drink so bad that I couldn't be alright with carrying and not drinking, I'd check myself into AA.

Drink responsibly...carry responsibly...don't mix the two.

 

[BADUNAME37]

But in real life things are often not that clear cut.

Consider the Arizona case of Harold Fish who was attacked by a man apparently unarmed, but was younger and bigger than Fish. Fish's attacker came charging at full tilt downhill toward Fish shouting he was going to kill him [Fish]. Fish, in fear of his life, shot and killed his attacker. He was convicted of manslaughter by a jury and sent to prison. He did win his appeal and is now free. But his judgment that he needed to use lethal force was certainly second guessed by the prosecutor and then the jury.

Consider another Arizona case, that of Larry Hickey. The charges have finally been dismissed, but he had to undergo two trials, with two hung juries, before he got off the hook (http://www.examiner.com/x-18115-Coc...a-County-Superior-Court-dismissed-all-charges).

We all know that "a good shoot is a good shoot." The problem is that you’re not the one who gets to decide if it’s a good shoot.

If you’re involved in an incident and expect to claim it was self defense, whether your use of force was justified will be decided by others. First, the investigating officers will form an opinion. Then the question will be considered by the local prosecutor’s office, and then maybe by a grand jury. If you’re really unlucky, it will finally be up to a judge and a trial jury to decide if it was a “good shoot.”

So maybe the evidence was clear that you were acting in justified self defense. But then again maybe not. Maybe there are no witnesses, or the witnesses tell conflicting or equivocal stories. Maybe the only witness is the nice gentleman you happened to shoot, and his story is that he had the knife out to cut some salamis for a snack. Maybe the physical evidence isn’t clear one way or the other.

So maybe a lot is going to depend on your story and what the cops, DA, grand jury, et al think of you and your story. And a number of things can affect what those folks think of you and your story. One thing that can affect what those folks think of you and your story will be whether your judgment may have been impaired by alcohol or some other substance, even a prescription or over-the-counter, legal drug.

Be that as it may, anything that might have impaired your judgment could become an issue in a self defense case. That's just real life. Whether one leaves his gun at home is a decision he has to make.

But what if that's not what happens to you. What if what happens to you is that you're accosted on a deserted street by a man with his hand under his coat and telling you he has a knife and is going to cut you up if you don't give him your wallet and that he just might cut you up anyway? You believe him. He starts towards you, and you shoot. When the smoke clears, you find that you had shot an unarmed man; he was just bluffing about the knife.

You can't know what's going to happen.

Oh, I agree with you 100%.
I also believe one can be SO CAREFUL that they never carry their weapon anywhere. Some people don't fly because they fear the jet may crash. I could never drive my car again, out of fear that I may have a collision.

Personally, if some man came running toward me telling me he was going to kill me, I would trip him as he approaches and then take it from there.

No "visible weapon?"
No gun gets drawn on my part.

In the cases you describe, it wouldn't matter if the shooter had no beer, one beer or a six pack as they would have had the exact same problems any which way they went. The only way they would NOT have had a problem is to keep the weapon in its place.

I would take some punches to my face and possibly even lose some teeth before I would draw my weapon.
I will not, however, let someone kill me.

I have other methods of stopping someone attacking me, without having to resort to using my daily carry.

 

[torotoro]

It seems to me that most people that are legally carrying would be more circumspect than others and generally would not allow themselves to get into a self caused dangerous situation. I say that it should be allowed.

 

[REAPER4206969]

No "visible weapon?"
No gun gets drawn on my part.

I would take some punches to my face and possibly even lose some teeth before I would draw my weapon.

I will not, however let someone kill me.

You will want to rethink those quotes then.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...In the cases you describe, it wouldn't matter if the shooter had no beer, one beer or a six pack as they would have had the exact same problems any which way they went. The only way they would NOT have had a problem is to keep the weapon in its place....

It's true that alcohol wasn't a factor in those cases. But the point is that the defender's judgment and actions were second guessed. From what I know about those cases, having talked with people involved, including Massad Ayoob, and having heard Larry Hickey speak, they were legitimate uses of lethal force in self defense, but for various reasons it took each defender a great deal of time, trouble and expense to get exonerated. Had they not used their weapons, Harold Fish and Larry Hickey might not have survived or would have been grievously injured.

...I would take some punches to my face and possibly even lose some teeth before I would draw my weapon.
I will not, however, let someone kill me....

Maybe. Then again, maybe not. Maybe, depending on how good your assailant is, and whether or not he has a hidden weapon, once he gets in punching or grappling range, you may or may not be able to keep him from killing you.

...I have other methods of stopping someone attacking me, without having to resort to using my daily carry....

As do we all. But what about when they are inadequate?

 

[Warhawk83]

Intoxication causes serious lapses in judgment and inhibition.

Alcohol and guns don't mix IMO.

 

[Warhawk83]

I want to change my vote,whoops.

I didn't read thoroughly enough,I voted "guns and alcohol don't mix".

I feel like a permit holder should be allowed to carry into a bar as long as he/she doesn't drink.

 

[BADUNAME37]

I know and am 100% certain of my final eternal destination. It will be much nicer where I am going than it is here. Death here will only be a temporary inconvenience and may involve some pain.

No one can take from me my eternity.
There are those who can kill the body, however that is all they can do to me.

I'm not arguing, but am rather agreeing with what everyone is stating.

 

[ArmedBear]

hso is exactly right. Every such thread ends up this way.

Some people equate any alcohol consumption whatsoever with drunkenness. My guess is that they are either teetotalers, unfamiliar with alcohol, or they have a problem, and drinking "a couple beers" to them does not mean "two beers over a couple of hours", but rather "two beers a minute for a couple of hours." If that's so, it's good that they know themselves -- though they don't know everything about me, or anyone else. Sometimes I drink nothing but a measured 1/2 oz. of good single malt, total.

Other people really do think they are significantly impaired after drinking a beer. And maybe they are. I've certainly seen people who were. This is good to know, and I'm betting that we all know what our thresholds are, if we're honest with ourselves (and sober when considering things).

What this says to me is that we all need to be responsible for what we do, and decide what our boundaries and ethics are BEFORE a questionable situation arises.

Should you carry a gun when you know you are very upset and barely able to control yourself? (Imagine that there's a good reason, like you just came home to find out that your spouse has been having an affair, or whatever is likely to upset you most.) Should you drive, ski or operate dangerous machinery under these circumstances?

What about when you're feeling very ill, or very tired, and are barely able to perceive your surroundings accurately?

How about prescription drugs? Sometimes, a combination of illness and a prescription for it can make me a lot more impaired than two beers do. While legally, in Idaho, restrictions on CC are the same as those on driving (.08% BAL, etc.), morally and ethically, there may be times that I should not drive or have a loaded gun within reach because I don't have all my faculties together -- even though I can legally do both.

These are all questions we need to ask ourselves BEFORE the situation arises, because our judgment is likely to be less-than-perfect in the situation. They are answers that each of us can only know for ourselves, and it is our responsibility to figure these things out if we are going to carry loaded guns.

Alcohol is just one tiny bit of the bigger question.

I love freedom. With freedom comes responsibility. We really ought to be proud to exercise it.

My 2 cents.