Drinking Alcoholic Beverages While Armed.

[Deanimator]

Moreover, how is anyone going to know your BAC after a shooting?

Via court order, if the authorities believe that you are intoxicated and that that was a factor in the shooting.

 

[Sam1911]

Your carrying a loaded firearm in public while intentionally ingesting substances with a documented propensity for impairing mental function unreasonably exposes me to harm.

In your opinion. I and my state, both disagree with the level of risk imposed upon you by my holstered firearm, regardless of what I've had to drink.

In my state, this has proved to be no problem at all and any perceived need for a law to prohibit it has been exhaustively proven unfounded.

Are people different in your state than in mine? I submit that they are not, and you'd be in no more risk from your fellow citizens than you are from mine.

-Sam

 

[Sam1911]

Via court order, if the authorities believe that you are intoxicated and that that was a factor in the shooting.

Fortunately, if you are still concerned about their opinion, it means that you were able to do what you had to do to live through the event.

That's a good thing.

-Sam

 

[Cosmoline]

All I know is that you want to be able to carry a firearm while drinking. You say that alcohol is not a problem for you. Lots of people say that

It's a matter of simple biology. A shot of single malt for someone of my size and age doesn't even make a dent in the BAC, let alone lead to any impairment. I do not drink to get high, let alone get drunk. I drink for the TASTE. If I can't spring the cash for the very best beverage I'll get a coke instead. For someone my size it would take an entire six pack to even start to get woozy, and an entire bottle of gin to get drunk. The last time I did it was back in law school 12 years ago, and I didn't like the experience at all.

This is something a lot of guys from other backgrounds simply don't understand. To them drinking is ABOUT getting a buzz. There's no other reason. Which is why they drink beer that isn't fit for a hog and unspeakable rot gut. That's fine. I don't care. What really irritates me is when these same fellows are convinced that everyone drinks like they do--or like they used to. Not everyone does.

However, enough guys do that it remains a very poor tactical choice to even set foot in a bar. Whether you drink or not! Avoid bars, they are the nexus of crime. Believe me I've seen the hard data to back that up.

 

[oneounceload]

These discussions of the definition of alcoholism or how many drunks you've known that didn't know they were drunks should be taken to PMs or off forum. They are not pertinent to the discussion and could get it locked.

I'll disagree mainly because what I am seeing is that certain folks think that anyone who drinks is an alcoholic (not true), and that all alcoholics are thereby drunk and therefore they should not be carrying a firearm - also not true.

If you're going to be out partying all night, it would seem reasonable and prudent to leave your gun at home; however, if you're going out to dinner, having some wine, beer or what have you, then carrying your gun should not be an issue. Seems some think that is.....

 

[unloved]

Going back to the original post reveals that the topic is/was "is it irresponsible to drink while armed?"

Actually, the topic is/was:

Responsible adult + responsible consumption of alcohol + holstered pistol = problem how? Exactly?

I should know, I wrote the OP.

This is a great discussion everyone. Thanks. Unfortunately, a respected and well liked member of my 'home' forum (a state specific firearms forum where I do most of my posting) was murdered by her husband last night, so my heart just isn't in this today. I'm looking forward to continuing later.

 

[inherentical]

Unfortunately, a respected and well liked member of my 'home' forum (a state specific firearms forum where I do most of my posting) was murdered by her husband last night, so my heart just isn't in this today. I'm looking forward to continuing later.

How horrible. You have my most sincere condolences on the loss of your friend.

 

[Sam1911]

Unfortunately, a respected and well liked member of my 'home' forum (a state specific firearms forum where I do most of my posting) was murdered by her husband last night

Oh! I'm sorry! That's awful. What a shock!

-Sam

 

[jimmyraythomason]

"In my riper age I will not take a ride from a driver who is drunk, unless I'm having a heart attack or bleeding to death". Any speculation as to how many times these events happened as a result of getting into a car driven by a drunk? How about the driver wasn't drunk when you got into the car but was before you could get out?

 

[oneounceload]

Was that the "soccer mom" on the news? Sorry to hear that

 

[jimmyraythomason]

unloved ,forgive me but how does what I said and your original question differ?

 

[X-Rap]

Firearms can be dangerous if mishandled. Why anyone in their right mind would want to be handling one with anything less than 100% of their mental faculties is beyond me.

So then someone who is sick and certainly not at 100% say under cancer treatment or treatment for cronic pain should be restricted from carry? Maybe they have a physical impairment like loss of vision or injured hands.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Not to quibble, but the examples provided are largely pre-conditions and not prohibitions. ...

Well, they're prohibitions unless the pre-conditions are met. And they exist because of a perceived risk of harm, and require certain forbearance even though no harm as occurred.

But be that as it may--

...My point is that prior restraint suggests a basic and fundamental MORAL argument (e.g. prohibition of a protected right in advance of a potential infraction is unacceptable)...

You're mixing apples and oranges here. On one hand, you refer to morality, but "protected right" and "infraction" are legal concepts. In any case, I see no reason to conclude that prohibition in advance of actual harm ("infraction" is the wrong term here -- since it's prohibited doing the thing is the infraction) is necessarily and universally immoral; and it's certainly can be legal.

 

[Sam1911]

see no reason to conclude that prohibition in advance of actual harm ... is necessarily and universally immoral

As I said, there is a special level of "injustice hell" for a law that would preemptively strip me of my right to defend my own life merely because of the risk of what I might do.

I would say that is a serious moral problem.

-Sam

 

[ENCPirate]

This might be slightly off topic but it reminds me of a question I have had. If I go out to dinner at a place that serves alcohol I have to lock the gun up in the car since Im in NC. But lets say I have a beer with dinner, I am still well under .08 bac so I can drive home without an issue. But would I legally be required to keep the gun locked up the rest of the ride home since I would probably have a small amount of alcohol in my blood?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Unfortunately, a respected and well liked member of my 'home' forum (a state specific firearms forum where I do most of my posting) was murdered by her husband last night,...

Simply awful -- my condolences.

So then someone who is sick and certainly not at 100% say under cancer treatment or treatment for cronic pain should be restricted from carry? Maybe they have a physical impairment like loss of vision or injured hands.

Perhaps, but certainly the responsible thing would be for that person to not carry, especially if he has had a significant vision loss or can't safely manipulate a gun because of a hand injury.

 

[inherentical]

Because at 0.08 people still experience some impairment of balance, speech, vision, reaction time, and hearing. One's judgment and self-control are reduced, and caution, reason and memory are impaired.

Sounds an awful lot like old age, too.

 

[X-Rap]

Any speculation as to how many times these events happened as a result of getting into a car driven by a drunk? How about the driver wasn't drunk when you got into the car but was before you could get out?
__________________

None at all, I am only pointing out that in real life positions change. I may not shoot with people drinking but in reality if the SHTF drunk or not I want the ability to defend myself much less if I am out for the evening and only have a few.
I don't frequent bars and have avoided being intoxicated in them for years but I do want the right to defend myself in the environments that I choose.

 

[Frank Ettin]

As I said, there is a special level of "injustice hell" for a law that would preemptively strip me of my right to defend my own life merely because of the risk of what I might do...

Just choose not to drink.

We're not talking about stripping you of the right to defend yourself. We're talking about you having to make the choice between going about in public armed and having an alcoholic beverage when out and about. Forgo the sauce and nothing prevents you from having your gun.

 

[X-Rap]

Perhaps, but certainly the responsible thing would be for that person to not carry, especially if he has had a significant vision loss or can't safely manipulate a gun because of a hand injury.

Then at least you agree that it should be a personal decision? And if that person decides otherwise then I believe they should be responsible for their actions against another, not simply their exercising of a right.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Sounds an awful lot like old age, too.

And for some folks due to impairment caused by the ravages of aging it may be irresponsible to drive a car, operate certain machinery or have a gun.

 

[X-Rap]

And for some folks due to impairment caused by the ravages of aging it may be irresponsible to drive a car, operate certain machinery or have a gun.

It really sounds as though you are a promoter of the nanny state and would wish to delve into peoples day to day lives and decide what is best for them and society.
I really can't have that disscusion since it runs counter to my core beliefs.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...if that person decides otherwise then I believe they should be responsible for their actions against another,...

But will they have the financial capacity to be responsible for their actions (see post 248). It's fine to say that one would be responsible for his actions, but if the potential harm he could cause exceeds his capacity to offer compensation, isn't the only thing left to do everything possible to avoid a situation in which he could cause that harm?

 

[Sam1911]

Just choose not to drink.

We're not talking about stripping you of the right to defend yourself. We're talking about you having to make the choice between going about in public armed and having an alcoholic beverage when out and about. Forgo the sauce and nothing prevents you from having your gun.

Again, circumscribe your life and you may enjoy your rights?

So I should change my lifestyle (which has a LONG track record of harming NO ONE) and forego my pursuit of happiness, or disarm myself and increase my risk of suffering violent death?

And all because of what other people have done and because of what I might do? I don't buy it. And, here in PA, I don't have to "buy it."

I get the feeling we've said these things before.

-Sam

 

[qajaq59]

And for some folks due to impairment caused by the ravages of aging it may be irresponsible to drive a car, operate certain machinery or have a gun.

Hey people, you can pick on the drinking, but leave the old folks alone. Congress is already sticking it to us real good without any help needed in here!!!!