Drinking Alcoholic Beverages While Armed.

[inherentical]

Let's say you have a mishap with your gun. Can you be responsible for and remedy, or cover, the damage caused? What if your negligently discharged bullet strikes someone paralyzing him? Can you pay his medical and rehabilitation bill? Can you pay for the lifetime care he will need? Can you make up his lifetime loss of income? And aside from the several million dollars in monetary damages, how can you make up the non-monetary losses to him and his family?

Can you do this better completely sober?

 

[jackstinson]

If I wasn't armed while drinking, I'd have to leave my mug on the bar and suck beer through a straw......ba-dump-dump

Anyway; 90% of the times when I am in a bar, I'd just smack the bad guy over the head with my open carry guitar...

 

[unloved]

I'm struck by the apparent intense NEED of some people to drink in public...

I'm struck by the apparent inability of some people to differentiate between responsible, social drinking, and alcoholism.

It's possible that I missed it, but I haven't seen anyone in this thread express an intense need to drink in public.

 

[Frank Ettin]

"Prior restraint," remember?

What does prior restraint have to do with this? I suspect that you don't understand the legal meaning of "prior restraint."

"A prior restraint is an official restriction of speech prior to publication. Prior restraint refers to an unconstitutional attempt to prevent publication or broadcast of any statement, which is restraint on free speech and free press prohibited by the First Amendment to the Constitution. The ban on prior restraint allows publication of libel, slander, obvious untruths, anti-government diatribes, racial and religious epithets, and almost any material, except if public security or public safety is endangered and some forms of pornography. The theory, articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Near v. Minnesota (1931) is that free speech and free press protections have priority, and lawsuits for libel and slander and prosecutions for criminal advocacy will curb the effect of defamation and untruths...."(http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prior-restraint/)

So the legal doctrine of "prior restraint" has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.

I'm struck by the apparent inability of some people to differentiate between responsible, social drinking, and alcoholism....

Oh, we understand the difference. It's just that some of us believe it's irresponsible to engage in social drinking while out in public carrying a gun.

Can you do this better completely sober?

The point is to take special care to avoid causing the harm. That's pretty much the best I can do.

 

[Wes Janson]

Oh, we understand the difference. It's just that some of us believe it's irresponsible to engage in social drinking while out in public carrying a gun.

Reality doesn't care whether you choose to believe it or not.

It strikes me as interesting that the majority of those in favor of outright prohibition seem to have little interest or experience in any form of alcoholic drink. Trying to explain the differences between chugging a case of Steel Reserve and sipping a pint of St. Bernardus is just as utterly lost on those individuals as the difference between an StG-44 and a WASR-10 is upon the gun prohibitionists.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

Let's see. 11 pages of opinion and no laws have been passed or repealed,no minds have been changed,no ground gained or lost by either side. The only thing that has been accomplished for me is that my list of possible shooting and hunting buddies has been reduced considerably. P.S.to Wes Janson I am a tee-totaler BECAUSE I once lived on the other side and am WELL AQUAINTED with drink.

 

[oneounceload]

It strikes me as interesting that the majority of those in favor of outright prohibition seem to have little interest or experience in any form of alcoholic drink. Trying to explain the differences between chugging a case of Steel Reserve and sipping a pint of St. Bernardus is just as utterly lost on those individuals as the difference between an StG-44 and a WASR-10 is upon the gun prohibitionists.

It also strikes me as odd that a lot of these same people seem to be acting just like the liberals they say they despise - wanting to take away freedoms of others where they do not approve, while screaming for "their" rights.......
I sense a conundrum coming on......

 

[ArmedBear]

Trying to explain the differences between chugging a case of Steel Reserve and sipping a pint of St. Bernardus is just as utterly lost on those individuals as the difference between an StG-44 and a WASR-10 is upon the gun prohibitionists.

Like guns, alcohol is perceived as magical. This perception seems to be common both among teetotalers who don't know anything about it, and among 12-steppers who believe that they're powerless in the face of a beer.

Alcoholic drinks, to me, are like a baked potato or a good tapenade. They go with certain meals, and can be enjoyable in moderation.

If someone thinks alcohol is something magical, he/she is not thinking like a rational adult.

 

[Sam1911]

So then are you against drunk driving laws?

As a general thing, yes. Actions should be judged as then affect others. Arbitrary, preemptive arrest is contrary to the very basis of a free society.

If you should be able to carry a firearm regardless of your BAC, why should you be prohibited from driving under the same circumstances?

First of all, driving and self-defense are two very different level of "right."

Second, as I've said, now MANY times in this thread and others, driving (USING) your vehicle is very different from carrying (POSSESSION OF) your sidearm. You are NEVER authorised to USE your gun in any but the very most extreme of circumstances. But when those extreme circumstances arise, your need to USE it trump ALL of the conventions of society that would normally prohibit you from doing so -- including intoxication!

-Sam

 

[Sam1911]

I never said anything about a law banning it although in Alabama your CCL is void if you are drinking or under the influence.

Well, that's what we're discussing, here. Should laws exist that punish folks who cause no harm, but have broken a statutory prohibition against possession of an object while under the influence (or are merely IN a certain location).

I didn't appreciate the cut BTW. Just because I live in the South doesn't make me a Nascar fan (in truth I can't stand it)by default.

Oh, Jimmy, I'm sorry. I didn't mean it as a cut. I don't know if you like either of those things, nor do I judge you if you do. I'm simply saying our disagreement on "sound judgement" should not translate into jail time for one of us!

-Sam

 

[rbernie]

What does prior restraint have to do with this? I suspect that you don't understand the legal meaning of "prior restraint."

"A prior restraint is an official restriction of speech prior to publication. Prior restraint refers to an unconstitutional attempt to prevent publication or broadcast of any statement, which is restraint on free speech and free press prohibited by the First Amendment to the Constitution. The ban on prior restraint allows publication of libel, slander, obvious untruths, anti-government diatribes, racial and religious epithets, and almost any material, except if public security or public safety is endangered and some forms of pornography. The theory, articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Near v. Minnesota (1931) is that free speech and free press protections have priority, and lawsuits for libel and slander and prosecutions for criminal advocacy will curb the effect of defamation and untruths...."(http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prior-restraint/)

So the legal doctrine of "prior restraint" has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.

The definition of prior restraint is not in play here, but the notion of what it means is absolutely relevant to the issue, since the legal definition of 'prior restraint' distills to the notion that a protected right cannot be removed based upon a 'what might happen' scenario.

Telling me that I should not legally be allowed to enter a bar while carrying a firearm (removing a fundamental and protected right based upon a presupposition of the harm that MIGHT occur but has not yet occured) is by nature the exact same argument that was argued in Near v. Minnesota.

 

[scurtis_34471]

I have a very simple rule of thumb that is also compliant with the laws in the state where I live. If I've had too much to drive, I've had too much to carry. Am I too impared to drive after having a glass of wine with dinner? Absolutely not. Is that enough alcohol to impare my ability to make good decisions or to safely and accurately operate a firearm. No.

 

[Sam1911]

A lot on here are trying very hard to justify themselves to people they don't even know. Says a lot.

It does? I don't personally HAVE to justify myself, as my state already recognizes my rights to operate as I do. I think THR has the role, and maybe the responsibilty, to dig into the reasons behind gun laws and to evaluate their goals, their effectiveness, and whether or not they should exist.

A debate like this ("among the faithful" so to speak) is a VERY healthy thing!

-Sam

 

[Sam1911]

And what does that have to do with me? If a "falling down drunk" brandishes or discharges a firearm, he gets the same treatment/sentence that a stone sober person would

But he sure gives the media something to blow clear out of proportion, and makes an excellent name for all the rest of us gun owners. We're having a hard enough time as it is.

So there should be a law that would make me a criminal for having a beer while I'm carrying a gun? Or just sitting in a bar?

So I should change my lifestyle (which has a LONG track record of harming NO ONE) or disarm myself and increase my risk of suffering violent death -- because of what the media might say about the incident, or SOMEONE ELSE'S PROBLEMS?

No thanks.

-Sam

 

[Sam1911]

Bad guys will have their guns in bars.

And I won't be there when they do.

Unless you maintain that you completely avoid establishments that serve alcohol, that's UNBELIEVABLY prescient of you.

How does one develop this super human level of foresight?

I suppose I could avoid places that hold a liquor license for the rest of my life. Of course, I could stop driving, stop playing sports or attending shooting matches, and not use electrical devices. Threre's lots of ways to reduce my risks, and most of them are MORE guaranteed to help prolong my life than simply avoiding bars/restaurants.

However, I don't accept such unreasonable constraints on my life.

-Sam

 

[jimmyraythomason]

Going back to the original post reveals that the topic is/was "is it irresponsible to drink while armed?" The legallity question has nothing to do with the original thought. None of us here have the ability to make or repeal laws(I DID but don't anymore) other than by voting. Is it irresponsible to drink while carrying?, to me the answer is definitely YES. Should it be illegal? That is up to your local lawmakers.

 

[Sam1911]

Laudable, and I agree. But let's also consider how well, or even if, you can actually shoulder that responsibility.

Let's say you have a mishap with your gun. Can you be responsible for and remedy, or cover, the damage caused? What if your negligently discharged bullet strikes someone paralyzing him? Can you pay his medical and rehabilitation bill? Can you pay for the lifetime care he will need? Can you make up his lifetime loss of income? And aside from the several million dollars in monetary damages, how can you make up the non-monetary losses to him and his family?

The point is that we are limited in our abilities to make up for some types of harm our improvident actions may cause. Even if the harm could be remedied by monetary compensation, the just amount may well be beyond our means.

Good points. Also off-topic. These factors exist regardless of the presence of alcohol, or the location of the incident. Every person who refuses to lay down and die in the face of violent attack must face the conseqenses of his/her response to that attack.

Booze or no booze. (How many times will we go 'round this one?)

...Bad guys will kick down your door no matter what your level of intoxication. Will you be prepared?...

You'll be better prepared if you hadn't been drinking.

And we're back to the teetotal suggestions that we must circumscribe our lives in order to be at our most capable at all times. That's humanly impossible, and an unreasonable requirement.

-Sam

 

[JohnBT]

Originally Posted by JohnBT <= that's me
But drunk driving laws DO NOT prohibit driving under the influence, do they?

"Actually, generally they do. Usually one can still be convicted of DUI if he manifests signs of impairment even if his BAC is below the legal limit." - you

Can be convicted based on SIGNS of IMPAIRMENT is not the same as what I said. The drunk driving laws do not prohibit driving under the influence. They don't. They can charge you with DUI if you can't stay in your lane, weave, drive with your lights off or any number of things, but it won't be a DUI based solely on your blood alcohol content/BAC, because your BAC is under .08.

So like I said, drunk driving laws do not prohibit driving after drinking and in some states driving while drinking. Remember, prohibit means flat-out absolute total ban. They don't prohibit, they restrict.

Somebody said we go back and forth on this topic, and others, and nobody changes sides and nothing is accomplished. See, it would be just like tennis if we changed sides every so often. And if we could scream names at the moderators and throw stuff.

John

 

[Sam1911]

It doesn't really matter how I feel about those laws - unless they're changed that's what I have to abide by.

Well, it DOES matter. Even as a LEO, you're still a citizen and you have the right, and some would say duty, to work to change the law to create the kind of world you want to live in.

For now, in your state, you must comply with that law. In other places, and maybe in your state someday, the law will be different.

-Sam

 

[oneounceload]

Is it irresponsible to drink while carrying?, to me the answer is definitely YES

And I'll counter with....."it depends"....if you're out partying till you puke, then yes it is....if you're out in a restaurant having dinner and some beer, wine, or cocktails in a responsible manner, then no......

 

[Frank Ettin]

It strikes me as interesting that the majority of those in favor of outright prohibition seem to have little interest or experience in any form of alcoholic drink....

What gives you that preposterous idea. I, for one, have long enjoyed my tipple. I don't drink beer any more, because I'm watching my carbohydrates, but I still enjoy my fine wines (I particularly like a good Hermitage when I can find one), single malt scotch (I favor Langavulin or Oban) and good bourbon (Blanton's when I can find it). But there's a time and place for everything, and it's neither the time nor place for my favorite potions when out with a gun.

...but the notion of what it means is absolutely relevant to the issue, since the legal definition of 'prior restraint' outlines how a protected right cannot be removed based upon a 'what might happen' scenario.

No, not at all. Prior restraint has never been prohibited by a court as such outside of the freedom of press context, and it therefore has no legal meaning except in that context. There are indeed many examples of legally accepted pre-conditions to the exercise of even Constitutionally protected rights, for example --

• a permit may be required in advance of holding a public assembly or parade;
• labling and advertisements for prescription drugs must have the approval of the FDA before being marketed in interstate commerce;
• solicitations of offers to purchase certain securities require the prior approval of one or more regulatory agencies.

These are all acceptable "prior restraints" on the exercise of the protected rights of free assembly or free speech. The mere fact that some regulation is a restriction on action prior to an event does not, in and of itself, make it improper. The only sort of "prior restraint" found to be improper as such by the Supreme Court has been in the freedom of press context.

...Telling me that I should not legally be allowed to enter a bar while carrying a firearm...

I have no problem with you entering a bar while carrying a firearm. But I think the responsible thing to do is just to have a Coke (I prefer a diet Coke or Pepsi, as the case may be, with a squeeze of lime).

 

[Sam1911]

What does prior restraint have to do with this? I suspect that you don't understand the legal meaning of "prior restraint."

You're probably right. I borrowed the phrase from rbernie's comments about 10,000 words ago.

My point was that placing a preemptory legal action on a person simply because they have the physical ability to do a thing is unjust.

[EIDT: I see rbernie has explained this much more completely than I could. Thx.]

-Sam

 

[Sam1911]

The only thing that has been accomplished for me is that my list of possible shooting and hunting buddies has been reduced considerably.

I'm sorry that you've taken this so personally. I really don't see why this should be so. We're arguing for or against a law. Not offering violence or insult to each other.

Why so upset?

-Sam

 

[Leper Khan]

Well, it DOES matter. Even as a LEO, you're still a citizen and you have the right, and some would say duty, to work to change the law to create the kind of world you want to live in.

Amen.

 

[21bubba]

Sam: that might be a " unreasonable requirement" to you but not everyone.

Are we not supposed to be S.A. at all times. What color are you at when out drinking?