Drinking Alcoholic Beverages While Armed.

[DAVIDSDIVAD]

OTCs CAN impair people, but in different ways than alcohol can.

For instance, Some cough medicines act on the opioid receptors in huge doses, but you never get to that response, since that's what the labels are for.

Alcohols, on the other hand, can effect dopamine and endorphin actions.

These are two very different things happening in your body.





Behavior =/= sleepiness, that's how, guys.


Also, the variation in effect between people is extreme when compared to OTCs.


I'm assuming alcohol has a very wide spread ED50 response curve. (some people hold liquor better than others)


That's why someone can have 1 beer and be experience a great effect, while some can drink 20 beers and be more or less sober (one of my professors weighed 100 pounds soaking wet, and she could down about 30 beers and be only buzzed)




It's just a weak argument to say "neener neener, you can't take nyquil and carry a gun if I can't drink and carry a gun"



P.S. Unloved, that sounds like something worth mentioning to your pharmacist






I'm not saying "DONT DRINK AT ALL!"


What I am saying is "err on the side of safety"


Have 1 less drink than you would if you weren't carrying.

 

[21bubba]

You want to drink and carry, fine with me. You want me to believe that you are the best judge of how impaired you are? not so fine with me.

This seems to me to come down to responsibility not a law or no law. If you can honestly say that you know if you're impaired or not and can make the decision to act normally, then by all means drink and carry. I've just never heard of any one saying " I wasn't nearly as drunk as i thought i was".

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Still just a tool....

There are tools and there are tools. A hammer is a tool. An electric hand drill is a tool. A chain saw is a tool. An air hammer/forge is a tool. They each pose different risks, and the safe management of each makes different demands on the user.

If the FAA believes that a pilot is too impaired to perform safety related functions from what essentially amounts to one drink in the 8 hours before he reports, that would also seem a fair standard for someone carrying a gun in public.

...So he's had some drinks. Someone attacks him. WHAT SHOULD HE DO? DIE? You've given him few and relatively ineffective options if you say he can't be armed. So, what is it to be?...

Life is full of choices. Learning to forgo one thing we may like in order to have something else that we may believe could be more important is part of growing up and becoming a mature, responsible adult. We learn, hopefully, early on that sometimes we need to pass up on that party we'd like to go to to study for the test that can help us get a better grade and subsequently a better job.

So if one wants to have the protection of going about legally carrying a gun in public, he simply chooses that over having that beer he'd like. Or if he wants that beer so badly, maybe he has to make the choice to take the risk and go without his gun.

...we're debating whether the law should disarm the law abiding folks who would enjoy a drink. To that end, your opinion (vote) matters...

If you're going to put it that way, I would not object to a law that prohibited someone legally carrying a gun in public from consuming any alcohol while armed, or, for that matter, setting a standard on the order of that set by the FAA for pilots.

Many of us enjoy our wine or other strong drink. But many of us are also willing to forgo the pleasures of intoxicating beverages when carrying our sidearms.

I don't considering that to be disarming you if you would enjoy a drink. It's only disarming you if you actually have that drink.

...2-3 beers or glasses of wine with dinner doesn't mess me up. ...

That will begin to impair you. See http://www.ou.edu/oupd/bac.htm .

 

[Cosmoline]

There's drinking and there's *drinking.* I don't do the second one. I've only been intoxicated once since law school. It's a bad idea to go into bars or to get intoxicated because these things make you more vulnerable to attack. Sipping my Laphroaig is not going to intoxicate me or impair me. It's $65 a bottle and I try to make it last a week at least since I can only afford it once every other month or so.

There's no comparison between that kind of drinking and slamming down shots or factory pilsners until you can barely stand. Unfortunately there are a lot of idiots out there who don't seem to be able to stop drinking once they start. I'm not going to disarm myself because they have a drinking problem.

You can have my Laphroaig when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers! Actually you can't even have it then. I want to be buried in peat for a hundred years then dug up and burned to make more of the stuff.

 

[PT1911]

there is no justifying it or this much is ok but this much isnt... IT IS A BAD idea.. period....

so you are in a bar and drinking, having a good time.. say your BAL is .04 (couple beers on an empty stomach.) and a situation arises in which you are "forced" to use your weapon... your BAL alone doubts any credibility to your story... it is just a bad idea... alcohol and guns do not mix any better than alcohol and cars... I dont care what you or anyone else says, how well you think you can control your drinking, or how much it takes to get you drunk vs how much you have had to drink... your judgment is flawed, your reactions are slowed, and your credibility is shot.

 

[unloved]

Citations of cases in which lawfully armed individuals employed justified deadly force but were convicted due to prior consumption of alcohol anyone?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Citations of cases in which lawfully armed individuals employed justified deadly force but were convicted due to prior consumption of alcohol anyone?

Possibly there has not been a case of someone with a measurable blood alcohol having been involved in a shooting in which he claimed self defense. I suspect it would be a very rare occurrence in any case. Maybe you'd like to be the first.

As a lawyer, I do know that if I were prosecuting such a case, I'd sure make an issue of the defendant's blood alcohol level, and I'd put on expert witnesses to give testimony about the physiological and psychological effects of such a blood alcohol level. How much an effect that will have on the jury may be hard to say, depending on exactly what else is involved. But it's not going to help the defendant any.

 

[nwilliams]

WOW!!!

Eight pages and 182 posts in less than 24 hours. That has to be some kind of record!

My only contribution is to say that I'm a firm believer that alcohol and guns should never mix.

I have no problem with people being armed in bars so long as they are not consuming alcohol.

If I know I'm going to go out and probably have a drink while I'm out then my gun stays locked up at home. I never want to be involved in a defensive shooting with any trace of alcohol in my system. Of course I don't really drink much anymore so it's not really a problem.

 

[carebear]

Functional impairment is not objectively determinable across people a priori, every individual metabolizes, and is effected by, alcohol differently. you have to test them, after the fact, to tell.

Whatever scientific generalities were applicable via mere BAC have long since been set aside in favor of ever decreasing percentages due to MADD's neo-Prohibitionary crusade against alcohol in general.

In the end, for DUI (impaired by drink, OTC, lack of sleep, or attention focussed on cell phone) the point should be to solely penalize actual actions that result in harm to others. Alcohol is merely one of many contributory factors in any action.

Similarly, a gun that is carried, but never unholstered, by anyone of any BAC, is only comparable to a car left in the parking lot. Therefore, to penalize an arbitrary amount of alcohol consumed by a gun carrier (not user), especially "zero BAC", that is far less than any scientifically applicable average that might be statistically relatable to impairment in some majority of any give gun-carrying population, has no rational basis.

It is strictly based on emotionally-driven views of alcohol as a "root of all evil", not any rational judgment of risk.

The fact that several states allow carry and consumption and yet have exactly the same rates of permit revocations as states that are zero-tolerance absolutely proves the fact that such laws are worthless in "reducing risk". As in driving, crime or anything else, safe people are safe in all things, alcohol involved or not.

Punish those who actually commit crimes, not those who "might, maybe, cause I don't happen to like their decisions".

 

[slabuda]

Lets put this into perspective...A gun can take a life as well as it can save one. Mistakes happen sober or drunk. I think we can all agree on this one.

You had one beer at the game and were robbed in the parking lot at knife point by a crack head as he grabbed your wife killing the guy. His wife sues you because you were .02 BAC and claims thats the reason you couldnt make a good decision that he would never have REALLY stabbed you, he just needed money for his drugs and would have left you alone. She wins and now you are homeless and penniless because of the civil suit.

So in another situation a doctor can save a life or loose one. And have mistakes, hey they are human after all. Would you feel safe if your doctor had a glass of wine with lunch (lets just say this was not against the law) then performed a surgery on your wife? Heck he wasnt drunk he only had one and could handle himself and it was a while ago so he was only .02 BAC. Now there are complications in the surgery, not his fault, complications happen all the time. But you lost your wife and there was an investigation and you find out the doc had been drinking before the surgery. What do you do?

Your little girl runs out between two parked cars after her puppy, a driver with .03 BAC hits and paralyzes as a quadrapeligi. Even a sober person could not have reacted in time as she was so close to the car. He is under the legal limit and not cited as they police determine no one could have reacted in time and was under the BAC. What do you do? Sue because he was "drinking" knowing you wouldnt win if he was sober but hey you need to help your daughter for the rest of her life now and need the money to do so.



What is the difference between the three? All of them were under any legal limit and it was not illegal for any of them. I dont see the difference between them at all. Thats why I take no chances at all. I wont even have 1 beer and drive. If I had an accident that was not my fault and the other person was killed I dont want to put my self in a position for a civili suit or I go through life wondering what if I didnt have a beer. Could I have reacted that split second faster and that other person stayed alive. And why I wont drink and carry my CC weapon. I hardly drink ever and the only time I will have a gun in my hand while drinking is if my door is kicked in by thugs and I am at home watching the game having a beer.

 

[JohnKSa]

Citations of cases in which lawfully armed individuals employed justified deadly force but were convicted due to prior consumption of alcohol anyone?

Just read an interesting Ayoob Files article from the Sept/Oct 2009 American Handgunner.

The shooter was an off-duty cop who had been drinking prior to the shooting but there was no conclusive evidence that he was over the legal limit for his area. Witnesses at the bar indicated that his intake (about 1 drink an hour) was not at all excessive and none of them even hinted that he was impaired.

The off-duty cop pursued a drunken man who stole his vehicle from the parking lot of the bar and upon confronting him the man moved toward him and brought his hands up as if he had a weapon.

The off-duty cop shot several times hitting the man at least once--the man was not badly injured. The cop was tried in criminal court and his alcohol intake was definitely a factor in the trial. He managed to escape being convicted--primarily due to good legal help. He was on unpaid leave for the two years that it took for him to have his day in court. He lost his job after serving 16 years as an officer and there is currently a civil suit pending.

Was alcohol the ONLY factor that cast the shooter in a bad light and resulted in a trial? No, we're talking about the real world--things aren't usually as clear cut as we like to imagine they will be. But on the other hand, there were also factors that gave the shooter credibility and reputation enhancement in the eyes of the jury that you and I might not enjoy.

The only thing the case proves is that alcohol consumption definitely CAN and probably will be a factor if one is subsequently involved in a deadly force confrontation.

 

[THE DARK KNIGHT]

I love all these posts talking about people who drink but don't get drunk. I'd love to know your secret!

 

[kanook]

Know When to Say When. If you can't go out and only have 1 drink, That's when you have a problem.

 

[Sam1911]

I am SURE that somebody in this long thread has said this already, but drinking + CCW is a ticket straight to jail here in North Carolina. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200.

Unfortunately, NC has an awful lot wrong with it's CCW laws. You can't carry in a bank, a church, or a FUNERAL, and a lot of other places. I've carried there and just going about daily business was a hassle because the law was set up with so many traps that an honest person would be disarmed most of the time.

Criminals, of course, would still be armed. Funny how that happens.

-Sam

 

[Sam1911]

Agreed. But, why abuse the rights you have?

I reject UTTERLY that exercise of a right is abuse of that right. If I go about my business and harm no one, I have NOT "abused" my rights.

Why make stupid or in the very least, less than wise decisions just because you can? This is only opens the door to governmental mandate(s). Give someone enough rope....so the saying goes.

So, don't exercise my rights because the government might see that I am and decide to take them away? Somehow I'm sure that would make folks at HCI and VPC really happy, but NO.

To reiterate, though, I do NOT advocate making stupid decisions. Carrying a firearm is a heavy responsibilty. I think through my social activities carefully and do not consider my actions in any way "stupid" or "less than wise." I simply ask that the law reflect that it is MY choice to conduct myself as I please -- and that it judge only my actions as they affect (or don't affect) others. Not to place "prior restraint" as rbernie explained.

I guess what Im saying is...if you want to maintain certain uninhibited "rights," then why treat them in ridiculous and potentially harmful ways? Be smart and try not to give "the powers that be" any reason to step in and make things worse. I mean, dont many, many out there hate guns enough? Why add fuel to the fire through irresponsibility? It makes no sense.

Well, I certainly agree completely! I only disagree in that you seem to be implying that what I do treats my rights in "ridiculous and potentially harmful ways" and I ADAMANTLY do NOT.

I harm no one and carry myself in safe and respectable ways. The law should apply no further penalty or restriction on me.

-Sam

 

[Sam1911]

The bottom line is that if you are under the influence of any substance (legal, illegal or prescription) that affects judgement and/or coordination then it is up to you to be responsible in what sort of activities you engage in.

Absolutely! Up to YOU. Not up to the LAW to prejudge you or place prior restraint upon you.

More to the point, if you are involved in a shooting incident, you may very well to get the chance to see if a jury of your peers agrees with your definition of responsible.

As is always the case ANY time you stand before a jury. If your concern that a jury may look at your self-defense shooting and say, "well, he was attacked and nearly died. He shot to defend himself. Buuuuuut, he'd had a beer so send him to the chair!" outweighs your need to be able to defend your life, then don't carry or don't drink.

Otherwise, your rights = your responsibility.

-Sam

 

[Sam1911]

I'm okay with those who think that ANY AMOUNT of alcohol causes impairment as long as they apply that same standard to whatever it is they may be taking.

Right! Or any number of other issues.

Certainly, old people don't have the muscle control or the mental acuity to shoot safely in a social environment. We shouldn't allow someone with Parkinson's disease -- or who MIGHT have Parkinson's disease -- to be carrying a gun to defend his life, right?

RIGHT?

C'mon...RIGHT?

-Sam

 

[Sam1911]

So it's not as simple as just saying: "I'm not impaired so it's not an issue." If you are involved in an incident while using a substance that is known to impair you won't get to to make the final decision as to whether or not it's an issue, or whether or not you were impaired for that matter. The legal system (criminal AND civil) will get the final word.

This is certainly true, but not really pertinent to the discussion.

The question is should the law prejudge (apply prior restraint to) you BEFORE you act, because of what you MIGHT do (right or wrong)? I say, emphatically, NO!

To your point, though, it comes back to the old saw, "rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6!" Sure, my motives and decisions will be judged by a jury if I do have to shoot. But at least I'll have had the chance to live to stand before them.

That's a trade I'll make all day, every day! (As any of us would, of course.)

-Sam

 

[Sam1911]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think this thread is ultimately about whether or not possessing a firearm while under the influence (from 1 or 100 drinks) should be the subject of legislation or a moral decision that each individual would have to make. I can easily see both sides of the argument, but I abhor the thought of people making decisions for me from afar, when I am perfectly capable of making them myself.

Maybe narrowing the argument to whether it should be illegal or not would add more clarity to the topic. I just read through all of the posts so far and there is quite a bit of discussion about whether or not you personally would or if it's right or wrong to carry while under the influence. No legislation should be enacted on anyone's personal preference.

You're exactly right, Leper! The thread is intended to be about the legislative aspect, rather than the moral or personal decision each must make.

However, it is informative to see how the debate will be framed, that even here in the hallowed halls of THR, so many people post their conditioned, gut reaction of "I'd NEVER touch a gun if I've had alcohol!" as though that a) answered the legal question, and/or b) was actually true in the immediate, life-and-death action instance of a self-defense shooting.

("Heck no! If I've had a beer, I'll GLADLY be beaten to death before I'll TOUCH a gun! Why, alcohol and guns JUST DON'T MIX!")

As a rather famous .sig line says, "A conclusion is merely a convienient place to stop thinking."

-Sam

 

[Sam1911]

Assuming a person makes the correct call and his judgement and coordination are unimpaired then the risk is all on his side. He can ignore it if he wishes. Of course things are very different if it turns out he really is impaired. Then his decision is no longer purely a personal one since it has real potential for negatively affecting others.

Why certainly he takes a risk. He takes an ENORMOUS risk the moment he draws (and certainly SHOOTS) his gun in a public place.

In that moment of extreme need, his risk of grave bodily injury or death outweighs ALL of these other risks and he does what he must do to survive. No man can know what possible permutations will affect his judgement at trial, but EVERY man deserves the chance to live long enough to state his case.

-Sam

 

[Sav .250]

All are not created equally in so far as guns and liquid refreshment are concerned.

 

[Sam1911]

If the FAA believes that a pilot is too impaired to perform safety related functions from what essentially amounts to one drink in the 8 hours before he reports, that would also seem a fair standard for someone carrying a gun in public.

But the pilot is merely going about his job. If he doesn't fly today, he lives to fly tomorrow. Maybe not so for the person who left his gun locked up at home.

...So he's had some drinks. Someone attacks him. WHAT SHOULD HE DO? DIE? You've given him few and relatively ineffective options if you say he can't be armed. So, what is it to be?...

Life is full of choices. ...
So if one wants to have the protection of going about legally carrying a gun in public, he simply chooses that over having that beer he'd like. Or if he wants that beer so badly, maybe he has to make the choice to take the risk and go without his gun.

So life is full of choices so, I can't have the choice to go about my life's activities as I decide, while armed? Where does this end? If I cause risk or harm to no one, why should my legal, responsible activities be legally circumscribed? Because of what someone else might do in that circumstance? Surely not! At the risk of abusing a hackneyed phrase, "this is AMERICA!"

If you're going to put it that way, I would not object to a law that prohibited someone legally carrying a gun in public from consuming any alcohol while armed, or, for that matter, setting a standard on the order of that set by the FAA for pilots.

Well, if you feel strongly that this should be so, the do vote your heart if you get the chance. I don't agree with you and would vote otherwise, should my state ever seek to impose such restrictions on me.

But, again, since you are so adamantly in favor of this law, please do stop to conisder PA (and other states') DECADES of experience with this issue, and NO law to stop such behavior. You're asking for a law, that carries great risk to folks who have committed no social harm, simply to prevent something that -- in PA's experience -- DOESN'T happen.

Do we not have enough "malum prohibidum" laws on the books that prevent otherwise benign activities? Who could in good conscience beg for MORE? You?

Many of us enjoy our wine or other strong drink. But many of us are also willing to forgo the pleasures of intoxicating beverages when carrying our sidearms.

That is a fine personal decision. The law should not require it. (See above.)

I don't considering that to be disarming you if you would enjoy a drink. It's only disarming you if you actually have that drink.

Maybe repharase that statement. I can't make sense of it.

-Sam

 

[Sam1911]

so you are in a bar and drinking, having a good time.. say your BAL is .04 (couple beers on an empty stomach.) and a situation arises in which you are "forced" to use your weapon... your BAL alone doubts any credibility to your story... it is just a bad idea... alcohol and guns do not mix any better than alcohol and cars... I dont care what you or anyone else says, how well you think you can control your drinking, or how much it takes to get you drunk vs how much you have had to drink... your judgment is flawed, your reactions are slowed, and your credibility is shot.

See, here again we see a completely self-defeating argument! If you HAD to use your gun in a justifiable shooting, it was DO OR DIE, NOW.

You're worried about "credibility" and what the jury MIGHT say, months from the incident. I'm pointing out that NO ONE here would say, "Oh, it's better to get beaten to death, shot, stabbed, or strangled than to live to face a jury."

Shooting a gun in a pubic place is ALWAYS a "bad idea." But sometimes your need to do so TRUMPS the fact that it would normally be a "bad idea."

So...answer again...should the law dictate that I don't get the chance to face that jury? Well...SHOULD IT?

-Sam

 

[Sam1911]

I apologize for taking the easy way out here, but cut-n-paste works wonders:

As a lawyer, I do know that if I were prosecuting such a case, I'd sure make an issue of the defendant's blood alcohol level, and I'd put on expert witnesses to give testimony about the physiological and psychological effects of such a blood alcohol level. How much an effect that will have on the jury may be hard to say, depending on exactly what else is involved. But it's not going to help the defendant any.

See, here again we see a completely self-defeating argument! If you HAD to use your gun in a justifiable shooting, it was DO OR DIE, NOW.

You're worried about "credibility" and what the jury MIGHT say, months from the incident. I'm pointing out that NO ONE here would say, "Oh, it's better to get beaten to death, shot, stabbed, or strangled than to live to face a jury."

Shooting a gun in a pubic place is ALWAYS a "bad idea." But sometimes your need to do so TRUMPS the fact that it would normally be a "bad idea."

So...answer again...should the law dictate that I don't get the chance to face that jury? Well...SHOULD IT?

-Sam

 

[Sam1911]

If I know I'm going to go out and probably have a drink while I'm out then my gun stays locked up at home. I never want to be involved in a defensive shooting with any trace of alcohol in my system. Of course I don't really drink much anymore so it's not really a problem.

So if you're out for a beer after work, and some dude thinks you're the guy that ???? his ???????? and he's going to get his revenge, you accept that you should just DIE, rather than face a jury after your act of self-defense?

Do you feel the law should make everyone face such a dire fate?

-Sam