Consuming Alchohol While Carrying

[Nushif]

Didn't vote either for the same reason as someone above.

When I carry I pretty much consider myself driving. Meaning I limit myself to one beer per meal. I *think* that's the legality here in OR, by the by. But I'm not sure.

 

[308win]

Alcohol is just one tiny bit of the bigger question.

That alcohol impairs a person's judgement is a fact. When the stress and uncertainty of the moment already has a person operating at less than 100% of their normal capacity why add to the level of impairment?

 

[45B@cav]

In Texas the establishment is supposed to have a sign that states 51% or more of the sales are from booze. You are not allowed to carry in these places. As far as my oppinion as a CCL holder I don't think you should get tanked if you are carrying but a beer or two should not be a problem.

 

[nyrifleman]

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've done martial arts for considerable time and one of the most important lessons I've taken away from them is that ANY strike that connects with you may be lethal. Not in and of itself, but any strike can stun you for long enough that others can be delivered. If you end up on the ground, you can be killed even by a single unarmed assailant. If there are two or more assailants, not only can you be killed, but you can be killed EASILY. (Without the ability to maneuver, it's impossible to simultaneously defend yourself against attacks from two different directions.)

Sure, it's one situation where you get into a brawl with some drunk idiot who wants to see "who's is bigger" (if you will excuse the colorful language) and will be satisfied after landing one or two "good ones" before being pulled away by friends or bystanders. It's another situation if you get attacked by someone tough, motivated and interested in taking you down as quickly as possible (such as a lot of gang youth).

Personally, if I feel that I am facing the threat of injury or death, I will shoot to kill. (Sure, I'll try using the weapon to warn someone off first, shoot into the air, etc., but ultimately I will be prepared to kill.) If someone comes running at me with their hand in their pocket saying they have a knife, and do not change their mind after I draw my weapon, I will shoot. If they were bluffing and I end up being found guilty, too bad for me.

Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. And as my Russian grandfather liked to say "there are worse things than prison".

 

[REAPER4206969]

Sure, I'll try using the weapon to warn someone off first, shoot into the air, etc.

Your post was going so well until this.

 

[BADUNAME37]

Well, if nothing else, you all have given me good reasons to step back and 're-think' about my 'plan of action'.

This is a good thing, thank you for telling me all this.
It will get registered in my "gray matter!"

I certainly do not want to be beaten to a pulp, then in a wheelchair for my remaining days!

 

[Sam1911]

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?

Yup.

I carry. I go to restaurants that serve alcohol. (Rarely bars for lack of interest, but it has happened.)

I have sat down to a beer or two (maybe even three on a rare evening) on a great many occasions without the slightest change in my behavior towards others or my safety with my sidearm.

It isn't against the law, here in PA, and we don't seem to have any problems with it, whatsoever.

 

[Mags]

I just don't see why consuming alcohol is all that important. It sure isn't in my life and it shouldn't be more important than the RKBA. It is against the law here and the number of DUI deaths in this state reflect people's irresponsibilty with alcohol. With that being said it still shouldn't be illegal maybe immoral but that is a personal choice. As long as you ain't bothering nobody what's the problem? Of course the other side of that is once you do bother someone it may be too late.

 

[ArmedBear]

When the stress and uncertainty of the moment already has a person operating at less than 100% of their normal capacity why add to the level of impairment?

Perhaps because a civilian living his/her entire life, for the sole purpose of maximum combat readiness, is about as screwed up as living one's life for the sole purpose of getting drunk?

 

[BADUNAME37]

I was out of control drinking and stopped completely over 25 years ago.
I have not had one sip of anything alcoholic for over 25 years. The reason is, if I say yes to just one beer, I will have a second, then third, then a six-pack, and then I will be right back where I was over 25 years ago. Several shots of Jack Daniels and a six-pack of Miller EVERY NIGHT.

Had I kept that up, I probably would either be dead by now, or close to it!

Yup, I don't miss it one bit. I don't care if people at my table want a beer or drinks with their dinner, I'll stick with water, thank you!

I won't ever go into a bar again, and I shy away from restaurants where I have to sit at a table near the bar. I notice it gets louder and louder to the point where I have to scream across the table to my wife just so we can hear each other.

LOL (I can laugh about it now) LOL

 

[BADUNAME37]

Perhaps because a civilian living his/her entire life, for the sole purpose of maximum combat readiness, is about as screwed up as living one's life for the sole purpose of getting drunk?

Good one!
Right on!

 

[Frank Ettin]

...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....

An excellent point, and one that I had forgotten about.

...Other people really do think they are significantly impaired after drinking a beer. And maybe they are. I've certainly seen people who were....

And consider that if you need to use your gun in self defense after having had a drink (or taken certain prescription of over-the-counter drugs), it may be less of question of whether you were actually impaired than whether a prosecutor believes he can convince a jury that you were impaired sufficiently for it to have clouded your judgment. Maybe a jury won't buy the prosecutor's pitch, but you'll still need to try to overcome it; and there's always the chance that the jury likes the prosecutor's story better than yours.

A mind altering substance in your blood stream becomes one more thing you'll have to explain. Anytime you have to explain something there's the possibility that someone who matters won't accept the explanation. And you wouldn't have had to explain that drink if you hadn't had it. Is that drink worth it?

...Personally, if I feel that I am facing the threat of injury or death, I will shoot to kill. (Sure, I'll try using the weapon to warn someone off first, shoot into the air, etc., but ultimately I will be prepared to kill.)...

Two off topic points:

[1] You might want to reconsider saying that you shoot to kill. Those of us who have taken formal personal protection classes at places like Gunsite or from instructors like Massad Ayoob are taught that we shoot to stop. And those of us who teach personal protection teach that we shoot to stop. Yes, effectively shooting to stop may require inflicting multiple wounds to vital parts of the attacker's body, which might well be mortal wounds. But the goal is to stop, and if the attacker stops and survives, that's a fine result.

[2] Warning shots, like a shot in the air, are a very bad idea. The bullet has to wind up somewhere, and that may be somewhere you don't want it, like in the body of your neighbor's kid or the old lady in the dress shop down the street. If the attacker stops when he sees your gun, that's a fine result. But if you have to shoot, you need to shoot to hit your target, not just to scare.

Perhaps because a civilian living his/her entire life, for the sole purpose of maximum combat readiness, is about as screwed up as living one's life for the sole purpose of getting drunk?

I agree, and it comes down to a highly personal balancing test.

 

[Cosmoline]

I see no problem with a rule prohibiting those who carry from drinking alcohol at a bar. Bars are a nexus of a huge percentage of violent crime. Believe me I've seen the police records for this, and it's jaw dropping. Ask any cop. I would advise everyone to avoid them, period. Just as a matter of sound tactics. That's not even getting into the human misery, the stench and the idiocy.

But that doesn't mean we need to impose some rule barring anyone from having access to a firearm while they're drinking anything. The drinking of wine or beer with a meal has about as much in common with bar drinking as a pleasant summer wind has with a tornado.

We don't have rampant bar violence,

State College, PA. Nuff said ;-)

 

[degunner]

The law dosent prohibit one from operating a motor vechicle after drinking, it prohibits one from operating a motor vechile while intoxicated. There is a big difference between the two, depending on ones size, metabolism and level of tolerance to booze it may be a huge difference. We are allowed to consume alchohol and drive home, we are not allowed to drive home drunk! I feel the same should apply to firearms. However being drunk in a parking lot is not a crime (if on private property), why should being drunk and armed be different? If no crime has been commited what is there to penalize. If an individual improperly used or discharged his weapon while drunk I feel they should be penalised further than if sober.
However I limit my intake while carrying and my friends understand and respect this. Like several others have said a drink with dinner or two on the way home with friends is not enough to put me over the limit, since we are drinking socialy we typicaly consume 1 an hr while shooting pool, smoking cigars and catching up on the drama of the last week. I gave uppower drinking a long time ago and I pay for quality booze i wanna enjoy it

 

[Boba Fett]

...Personally, if I feel that I am facing the threat of injury or death, I will shoot to kill. (Sure, I'll try using the weapon to warn someone off first, shoot into the air, etc., but ultimately I will be prepared to kill.)...

[1] You might want to reconsider saying that you shoot to kill. Those of us who have taken formal personal protection classes at places like Gunsite or from instructors like Massad Ayoob are taught that we shoot to stop. And those of us who teach personal protection teach that we shoot to stop. Yes, effectively shooting to stop may require inflicting multiple wounds to vital parts of the attacker's body, which might well be mortal wounds. But the goal is to stop, and if the attacker stops and survives, that's a fine result.

[2] Warning shots, like a shot in the air, are a very bad idea. The bullet has to wind up somewhere, and that may be somewhere you don't want it, like in the body of your neighbor's kid or the old lady in the dress shop down the street. If the attacker stops when he sees your gun, that's a fine result. But if you have to shoot, you need to shoot to hit your target, not just to scare.

Excellently put.


Read Massad Ayoob's books and learn how to speak and think about self-defense shootings.

And please, for the love of God, do not shoot in the air as a warning shot. There are a lot of self-defense myths out there and this is one of the worst IMO as it can get someone other than the BG killed. I understand the sentiment, but it is dangerous, does not play well in court, and is impractical in application.

IMO, I doubt you'll even have time for a warning shot in many instances. I would think that if you do have that much time, then you will have time to issue a verbal warning and time for the BG to see your firearm.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I agree that drinking and carrying is akin to drinking and driving. Not to mention if you do get into a shooting with any BAC, your defense is gonna be crap. But I don't think carrying in bars should be prohibited. It's just a place like anywhere else. There are times when I go out with friends, and would like to be carrying. I'd forgo the drinking and just spend time hanging out if it meant I could be armed while at the bar. Bars aren't usually in the best neighborhoods. Just as one has a designated driver, I can see a designated carrier being a smart thing in some situations/areas. And I do want to echo the point that drunk driving law does not prohibit consuming alcohol and driving. It prohibits having an unlawful BAC and also being visibly impaired, at least in my state. So if alcohol/gun laws mirrored alcohol/gun laws, I wouldn't see a problem. 1 beer with friends while playing pool should be ok. If they wanna get smashed, as long as you keep it to a minimum just because you're carrying, that's OK.

But I will say that if you are DRUNK and have a firearm, you should go to jail. And any shooting that takes place is gonna be hell for your defense, and rightfully so.

 

[KodiakBeer]

If carrying a gun means you have to change your life, then perhaps carrying a gun isn't for you? If you're a drunk, you shouldn't carry a gun, period.

If you like a glass or two of wine or beer with your dinner, then why not?

If you want to out to the bar and enjoy a local band or some conversation with friends - again, why not? Most people can consume alcohol without getting drunk, much less exceeding the driving BAC limits. If you're that kind of drinker, then why worry about it?

I don't carry in bars (I rarely go to bars...), but if someone else does, I have no problem with it.

 

[rainbowbob]

...since we are drinking socialy we typicaly consume 1 an hr while shooting pool, smoking cigars...

Wait a minute! You can smoke cigars in bars in your state?

In this nanny state (WA) - that's also illegal.

 

[Sam1911]

State College, PA. Nuff said ;-)

Spent 5 years of my life there. Didn't see any "rampant bar violence." Really didn't see any violence at all, to tell the truth.

Again, what is the pressing social problem these laws are going to prevent?

(...sound of crickets chirping...)

Right.

 

[Sam1911]

if you are DRUNK and have a firearm, you should go to jail

Because of the the crime you MIGHT commit, or because of the (made up) "crime" you have committed?

There are a great many things you MIGHT do that I suppose we should have preemptive laws to prohibit.

Again, in my state you can sit down at a bar and drink and get politely inebriated -- while carrying -- and you haven't committed a crime. So where is the "blood in the streets" that all these laws will stop the flow of?

More heavily punitive "malum in se" laws that "solve" a problem we DON'T have but that make everyone feel so much safer.

Oh goody.

 

[stickhauler]

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that impairment of any kind and firearms do not mix. Be it consuming alcohol, taking prescription or over the counter drugs, or whatever. You shouldn't have control of a firearm if you're under extreme emotional stress. If finding out your wife if having an affair makes you so angry you feel out of control, you don't need a gun handy.

I drive a truck for a living, as such, the BAC level allowed by law, whether I'm at work or off work remains the same, .04. If I come to work and they decide to do an breathalizer on the spot, the BAC better be nothing, or I'm not able to drive until it is. If I test above .04 in such a test, I'm suspended from driving for 6 months. If the government feels I'm too dangerous to drive a truck at .041 BAC, I'm sure the justice system will consider me too dangerous to have control of a firearm at that level.

 

[Warhawk83]

Wait a minute! You can smoke cigars in bars in your state?

In this nanny state (WA) - that's also illegal.

That isn't that bad. Especially considering cigar smoke smells horrendous. Unlit they smell fantastic though.

Getting to the point. In my state I can't carry even into a restaurant that serves alcohol. Which is every restaurant that doesn't serve fast food.

 

[jeepguy]

i believe that it should be the same as driving,which here in ohio it is .08%. im sure their are more people killed by drunk drivers each year then drunk shootings. which is why we have dui bac limits. so why not make them tha same. i personally dont believe they mix but we dont live in a perfect world. you are at home & had 2 glasses of wine with your spouse. someone breaks in are you not going to defend your family? will it bother you that you had the wine? or you have 2 beers watching a football game, your child has car trouble & needs help. are you not going to help? why not just make it the same as the dui laws. its not like you plan to have a few before going shooting. i try not to mix the 2, but i dont live in a bubble. secondly i also would not shoot over their head as a warning shot, becuse i dont know where that round will land. which is why i use hollow points so the round will dump the energy into the target and not pass through & hit someone or something else.

 

[wishin]

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

Agreed. The operative word is responsible.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Because of the the crime you MIGHT commit, or because of the (made up) "crime" you have committed?

There are a great many things you MIGHT do that I suppose we should have preemptive laws to prohibit.

Should a cop wait til you have hit someone before pulling you over for OWI?