Shooting and Drinking at a BBQ?

[PJSprog]

That's just silly. Frank is not going to shoot me, nor I him. There isn't enough alcohol in the state of California to change that.

You've missed my point entirely. Judging by your continued combative posture with others, not the first time in this thread, I suspect.

This wasn't about you, Ed. It never was about you.

 

[stonecutter2]

Wow, this is a divisive conversation.

I've met the two kinds of people who are clashing in this thread, and you will never resolve their difference of opinion on this:

Group A, "Any amount of alcohol can impair judgment. Drinking and shooting don't mix, don't do it. If I'm near it, I'm leaving, or I'm avoiding the situation completely."

Group B, "Reasonable/limited drinking (1 or 2 drinks) is no big deal. Shoot away, but don't get stupid about the amount of drinking while shooting."

My friend and I have clashed on this even, and agreed to disagree.

The main argument made that I fully agree with is - when it comes to legal repercussions, if ANY injury or death happens and you have ANY alcohol in you, you will be put through the wringer and left out to dry. As in any situation, you are responsible for your actions, but you'll face steeper charges and penalties if your BAC is above .00 and the "accident" argument goes out the window.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I've met the two kinds of people who are clashing in this thread, and you will never resolve their difference of opinion on this:

Group A, "Any amount of alcohol can impair judgment. Drinking and shooting don't mix, don't do it. If I'm near it, I'm leaving, or I'm avoiding the situation completely."

Group B, "Reasonable/limited drinking (1 or 2 drinks) is no big deal. Shoot away, but don't get stupid about the amount of drinking while shooting."

My friend and I have clashed on this even, and agreed to disagree....

That's only one dimension of the discussion -- the personal dimension. People indeed differ regarding what they believe represents a responsible attitude toward alcohol when various types of potentially hazardous activities are involved.

But I think much of the focus in this thread is the legal dimension.

...The main argument made that I fully agree with is - when it comes to legal repercussions, if ANY injury or death happens and you have ANY alcohol in you, you will be put through the wringer and left out to dry....

And there are two dimensions to the legal side of things:

1. The actor's potential legal exposure if he has consumed alcohol and he then does something that results in injury to someone else.
   
   
2. The potential legal exposure of an organization putting on a shooting event at which alcohol is permitted or served, if someone who has consumed alcohol does something that results in injury to himself or someone else.

About the only things definitive we can say about those issues are:

1. The only way to entirely eliminate the potential legal exposure is to completely eliminate the alcohol -- don't consume it, allow it or serve it.
   
   
2. If alcohol is going to be consumed, allowed or served, all that can be done is take steps to mitigate or manage the risk.
   
   
   • The individual mitigates or manages the risk by controlling his consumption. He should be aware of local law, especially to the extent that local law has set standards for being under the influence or inferring impairment.
     
     
   • The organization allowing or serving alcohol will want implement policies and procedure reasonably calculated to mitigate the risk of participants being at increased risk by being under the influence and impaired. What a court in the particular jurisdiction is likely to find reasonable will best be understood by looking at cases both finding liability and finding no liability. Those court decisions will effectively define the standard of care for an organization allowing or serving alcohol at a social function, i. e., what a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances would do to avoid the foreseeable risks of injury to persons or property.

 

[cdk8]

From a social standpoint, we tolerate the risk because individual liberty increases collective happiness more than the attempt to increase collective security can.

In other words, we accept the risks involved in people driving around after a beer or two because if we were to take the steps necessary to prevent it, we would all be less happy and our quality of life would be worse than if we didn't take those steps. We know this because we have tried it. We actually outlawed Alcohol in the US and it was one of the greatest public disasters in American history.

Interestingly, the same holds true for firearms. The reason it is reasonable that someone who doesn't like guns, and doesn't want to own guns, should be exposed to the risks of living in a society where just about anyone can own guns (and don't kid yourself, there are very real risks), is that the collective quality of life, the collective happiness, and the total risk, would be worse in a society that took the steps necessary to enforce a prohibition. On the risk front you swap gun risks for gun prohibition risks, and the drug war has given us a very clear picture of that with no-knock raids, civil asset forfeiture, 800% increases in incarceration rates, and so on. We are happier and lead better lives with the gun risks than we would with the gun prohibition risks.

I think there will be a lot of disagreement as to where the bar sits on the happiness aspect. For example, people who have been the victims of accidents caused by drivers that have consumed alcohol but were not legally drunk may have strong feelings one way or another. I don't think we have a consensus here and perhaps that is problematic with all laws.

I think people should have all the right in the world to choose whether they want to engage in recreational drug usage and I would agree with you that formal law is often not the solution. But thousands of lives could potentially be saved if people exercised better judgment when using drugs recreationally, and this includes alcohol. Drugs cause impairment, even when the dosing is relatively small. Consequently, I do not think that a range outing should not be serving alcohol while the firing line is hot.

 

[oneounceload]

I do not believe there should be any 'acceptable level of impairment'

So, how about the person who didn't a good night's sleep the night before? Or who an argument with his wife or kid just before he comes to the BBQ? Or the person on scrip meds that can cause drops or rises in blood pressure or blood sugar? What about them or does your diatribe against only alcohol come solely from your unfortunate situations earlier in your life?

If "impairment" is such a concern, then take into account all of the possibilities, not just alcohol.

 

[Sam1911]

If "impairment" is such a concern, then take into account all of the possibilities, not just alcohol.

That is absolutely true, however, to the point of this thread, the legal system hasn't quite caught on yet how to capitalize on that to the same degree as alcohol.

While a person who had a horrid night's sleep or took Nyquil before coming out to the range might actually BE more impaired in the moment than the guy who just had a beer (and very likely IS so) there is an easy and pretty much automatic path of blame (and dollars) if the beer was involved. No one will ever stand up in court and say, "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, how COULD this association POSSIBLY allow someone who'd hadn't any sleep the night before handle a LOADED FIREARM!?! I plead with you to find in favor of the plaintiff and please award my client all of the money in the club's piggy bank!"

But if the organization allowed that guy to consume a beer? Well...

 

[EIB0879]

I grew up around BBQ where there were firearms and alcohol. Probably explains how a kid could outshoot so many adults.

 

[Frank Ettin]

So, how about the person who didn't a good night's sleep the night before? Or who an argument with his wife or kid just before he comes to the BBQ? Or the person on scrip meds that can cause drops or rises in blood pressure or blood sugar?...

Anyway, beyond Sam's good comment, the hypotheticals you propose really are inapposite.

The club doesn't know how you slept the night before. The club didn't participate in your argument. The club did nothing to encourage your use of your prescription medication, nor did it supply the drug.

However, looking solely at basic common law tort principles, if at a club sponsored shooting event a club officer observes someone at the range with a gun and manifesting signs which would cause a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the guy with the gun might be impaired, and if the officer of the club does nothing about it, and if the guy with the gun does something that results in someone being injured, the question of whether the club failed to exercise due care to avoid foreseeable harm might well be up to a jury to decide.

Deciding a question of civil liability based on negligence principles always involves exercising a certain amount of judgment based on the totality of the circumstances.

 

[oneounceload]

You do know I am playing devil's Advocate here, and there is a touch of deep sarcasm?

I'm for freedom and with it comes responsibility, not having someone play nanny because they find something inappropriate.............

 

[lobo9er]

Deciding a question of civil liability based on negligence principles always involves exercising a certain amount of judgment based on the totality of the circumstances.

yep it sure does

 

[jaysouth]

Personally I would never shoot with anyone I didn't trust enough to drink with.

The nanny state is about to overtake all of us.

 

[Gun Master]

Priorities Strait First

Did you come to :

Shoot?
Drink?
Or eat BBQ (which is what it's called at the "BBQ")?

 

[JohnKSa]

...there is no lack of forethought.

Forethought means thinking ahead. A club officer with forethought would look ahead, consider the risks of mixing drinking and shooting at a club event, weigh those risks and make a decision that maximized the safety of all present and, most importantly, didn't endanger the continued existence of the club. Forethought also generally implies at least some level of ability to predict realistic outcomes. One won't generally be credited with having forethought if the scenarios he/she predicts are not reasonably consistent with reality.

So you can say there's no lack of forethought, but the problem is that you won't be the one who gets to make the call. The insurance company and/or the courts will make the call and there's not a lot of doubt of how things will go if there's an incident at a club where members were drinking and shooting at the same event.

...this is the insurance company's business. It makes them neither happy nor sad.

You can mince words if you want but it doesn't change reality. Insurance companies business is making money. Losing money makes them "sad" and makes them disinclined to continue coverage, or at the very least, disinclined to continue coverage at the same rates.

The point is that the primary cost of implementing a system which will prevent *you* from overserving your guests, and therefore being liable for their actions, is a rubber stamp.

Come on. Are you really trying to claim that hiring professional bartender who is willing to take responsibility for the liability involved with mixing shooting and drinking will cost less than a rubber stamp?

Umm...you realize that that's the only reason anyone hires a bartender, don't you?

Actually, I realize that's not the only reason. It may be one reason some people hire a bartender, but it's absolutely not the only reason and it's kind of ridiculous to claim otherwise.

Frank's egregious behavior is not a result of a lack of control. It is a common strategy amongst lawyers. You intentionally try to emotionally agitate your opponent, via bullying, dismissal, coming as close as you dare to insults, and other tactics, because most people will either cower and accept what you say, or get flustered and make mistakes. It is a primary tool used by prosecutors to convince innocent people to accept plea bargains, for example, or to get witnesses to undercut themselves.

Oh brother! So it couldn't be that you're wrong and he's right--it's just a ploy to intimidate you into giving up...

If he's wrong then you should be able to prove it. The fact that you've instead chosen to try to "poison the well" says a lot about the strength of your position.

If any accident happened at this event, the alcohol would be blamed, even if it was not a factor.

Now THAT is a person with forethought and with a grasp of reality. That's the kind of person you want protecting your club's interest, not someone you hired to serve drinks and equipped with a rubber stamp.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Umm...you realize that that's the only reason anyone hires a bartender, don't you?

Actually, I realize that's not the only reason. It may be one reason some people hire a bartender, but it's absolutely not the only reason and it's kind of ridiculous to claim otherwise.

I do need to point out that hiring a bartender does not insulate the club from legal liability.

Under basic common law principles adopted in every State, the club as the employer will be held financially liable for the acts of the bartender. That is known as the doctrine of respondeat superior:

[Latin, Let the master answer.] A common-law doctrine that makes an employer liable for the actions of an employee when the actions take place within the scope of employment.

The common-law doctrine of respondeat superior was established in seventeenth-century England to define the legal liability of an employer for the actions of an employee. The doctrine was adopted in the United States and has been a fixture of agency law. It provides a better chance for an injured party to actually recover damages, because under respondeat superior the employer is liable for the injuries caused by an employee who is working within the scope of his employment relationship.The legal relationship between an employer and an employee is called agency. The employer is called the principal when engaging someone to act for him. The person who does the work for the employer is called the agent. The theory behind respondeat superior is that the principal controls the agent's behavior and must then assume some responsibility for the agent's actions.

An employee is an agent for her employer to the extent that the employee is authorized to act for the employer and is partially entrusted with the employer's business. The employer controls, or has a right to control, the time, place, and method of doing work. When the facts show that an employer-employee (principal-agent) relationship exists, the employer can be held responsible for the injuries caused by the employee in the course of employment....

 

[Inebriated]

Saw a lot of the same arguments from the D camp fighting HB937 here in NC...

Comes down to this... If you don't like that the establishment allows alcohol consumption as well as shooting, don't go there anymore.

 

[TimSr]

Saw a lot of the same arguments from the D camp fighting HB937 here in NC...

Comes down to this... If you don't like that the establishment allows alcohol consumption as well as shooting, don't go there anymore.

If it the thread I am thinking of, the major difference was that those who consumed were not permitted to shoot as opposed to drinking, then shooting, or while shooting.

 

[Ryanxia]

Going to a barbecue tomorrow with a few thousand rounds of ammo and a box of toys. Usual deal. The beer will be there as usual. Everyone knows the deal. More than a couple of beers and you''e done shooting. Means theres a lot of shooting in the morning and only the teetotalers shooting in the afternoon.

This.

Everyone saying 'controlling stupidity is hard enough already', well if your members are idiots when it comes to safety you need to give them the boot. While I save my drinking for after the shooting, I don't care if someone wants a few beers throughout the afternoon of shooting. A member only BBQ seems like should be all set.

 

[Kaeto]

Here in Michigan taking one drink and picking up a gun is an instant felony.

 

[Ed Ames]

I do need to point out that hiring a bartender does not insulate the club from legal liability.

Under basic common law principles...

That is correct but irrelevant. Hiring a bartender (who by definition has been trained to limit overserving, identify minors, and so on), is part of operating with due care. That in turn is part of a defense against claims of negligence etc.

Contracting out the bar to another company may "insulate".

So you can say there's no lack of forethought, but the problem is that you won't be the one who gets to make the call. The insurance company and/or the courts will make the call and there's not a lot of doubt of how things will go if there's an incident at a club where members were drinking and shooting at the same event.

There actually is a lot of doubt.

This is far from a common scenario in the US. The choice of relevant case law is far from clear. Is it a party shooting? In those cases the host may very well be a plaintiff suing the guest(s). Is it a club (as in night club) shooting? There are many of them, and plenty of lawsuits, but most of those aren't actually clubs in the long term membership sense and they don't have shooting as a primary purpose.

You can find plenty of examples of hunting club members shooting each other and suing, or night club patrons shooting, but there just isn't much evidence that the fact of members drinking and shooting at the same event, in and of itself, will automatically be considered causal or even contributive.

You can mince words if you want but it doesn't change reality. Insurance companies business is making money. Losing money makes them "sad" and makes them disinclined to continue coverage, or at the very least, disinclined to continue coverage at the same rates.

And raising rates allows them to increase their profit, making them happy.

Not that any of that is particularly likely, mind you.

Come on. Are you really trying to claim that hiring professional bartender who is willing to take responsibility for the liability involved with mixing shooting and drinking will cost less than a rubber stamp?

No, I am saying both methods have been used, and combining is cheap so use them both.

Actually, I realize that's not the only reason. It may be one reason some people hire a bartender, but it's absolutely not the only reason and it's kind of ridiculous to claim otherwise.

Find another reason that covers every type of event that has bartenders.

Oh brother! So it couldn't be that you're wrong and he's right--it's just a ploy to intimidate you into giving up...

Lol, no, in this case it really couldn't be.

Frank made a mistake. He assumed I was saying, "do whatever you want, it'll be OK." His assumption led him to start arguing against me without much thought to what I was saying. At this point the only way forward he sees is to prove me wrong, but the practices I'm suggesting are practices that are in place and working all across America. He himself pointed out that the people who devised them (I take no credit) included lawyers with direct experience in this area of law.

This is an area without a specific right answer. You cannot go to a lawyer and ask, "how do I hold this event without getting sued", and get back any certain answer. Anyone can sue over anything. You can't even get a certain answer to the question, "How do I hold this event and not lose any ensuing lawsuits?" Even barring alcohol doesn't remove the possibility of an alcohol related lawsuit. You need to be able to show that you considered the possibility of people drinking outside the event, and took steps to mitigate that risk.

Businesses with deep pockets, in-house lawyers, risk officers, cultural biases towards high standards of care, etc., get sued and lose. And they get sued and win. And they don't get sued. All the time.

If he's wrong then you should be able to prove it. The fact that you've instead chosen to try to "poison the well" says a lot about the strength of your position.

What makes you think that?

The only way to "prove" this sort of thing is in a real court. Frank has his opinion, I have mine. So far Franks has agreed with me on every specific point raised. His entire issue is that he doesn't like my style and assumed he could take me down a peg.

Oh really now. The reality is that you love to pontificate in broad, general terms, to be contentious, and raise a ruckus. But when someone requires that you prove your contentions or provide evidence, you try to deflect.

That would be more credible if your attempts to refute my points hadn't agreed with me.

You have claimed, with regard to the potential, legal liability for someone who serves alcohol for the acts of someone to whom he has served alcohol, that minimizing the risk is not difficult (post 62):

And the existence of millions of entities serving alcohol in a broad range of venues proves that point. If it was difficult, fewer would be doing it.

But you remain unable to support with legal authority your contention that the legally required standard of care isn't difficult to meet

That would be a problem if we were in court, and citations of legal authority were relevant here. But you are deep in "every problem is a nail" territory, and I prefer screws.

That pretty much forces one to conclude that you have no clue what the applicable standard of care is, so you can have no idea whether it's easy or difficult to satisfy.

And yet you have agreed that the practices I recommend are vetted by lawyers, with reference to case law.

Now I have no interest in whether or not you accept my characterization of your statements. I don't particularly want you to either "cower" or "get flustered." I'm merely interested in demonstrating that your opinions are not well taken and that folks have good reason to not pay too much attention to your opinions.

If that is your goal you have been a failure. You have constantly tried to move the terms of the conversation to be less appropriate for the venue, making the field less even and excluding most thread participants, and proclaimed that if I didn't go along with your ideas of how the argument should be conducted I must not understand the subject...but that simply doesn't fly. It isn't even remotely logical.

This is not a court. This is not a law school. We are not here to convince clients that paying our hourly rate is a good investment. We are discussing a real world issue. The fact that you cannot discuss it in real world terms says nothing about anyone except you.

Anyone is entitled to expect that opinions expressed be supported. How well one is able to support his opinions is a measure of how much attention those opinions deserve.

So far, despite a prolonged attack on my method of supporting my opinion, you haven't actually shown any flaw in what I've said. You have declared flaws, but that's just bluster, not logic.

I think there will be a lot of disagreement as to where the bar sits on the happiness aspect. For example, people who have been the victims of accidents caused by drivers that have consumed alcohol but were not legally drunk may have strong feelings one way or another. I don't think we have a consensus here and perhaps that is problematic with all laws.

Agreed.

There are some fundamental questions that have open disagreements. E.g. most people agree a public interest is served when you legislate based on measured harm (history). A smaller majority agree when it comes to legislating based on risk (quantifiable potential for harm). How about legislating based on fear (something which seems to people like it has potential for harm, but the potential is unquantifiable/measures 0)?

In a world where educated, knowledgeable, people of good will disagree on fundamentals, it's obvious we will never have 100% consensus.

 

[Sam1911]

Here in Michigan taking one drink and picking up a gun is an instant felony.

And that's a good reminder of why it is very important to understand the laws in YOUR state. What Michigan law has to say on the subject is completely irrelevant to what Aragon's state might prohibit, obviously, just as if Kaeto was trying to figure out how to handle the situation and someone from California chimed in with what that state's laws said.

Law and morality, law and ethics, law and logic, law and right or wrong rarely are equivalents. Know the law, follow the law. Beyond that, you have to make your own choices.

 

[Ed Ames]

Here in Michigan taking one drink and picking up a gun is an instant felony.

Sorry, no.

In Michigan, a concealed carry licensee with a BAC of .02 - .07 faces a state civil infraction, $100 fine and up to 1 year CPL license revocation. Not a felony.


However, an event like this (private club) may or may not have anything to do with concealed carry.

 

[george burns]

Everyone's tolerance to booze is different. Some can drink all day long and show little to no effect, others get smashed after one drink. The best thing to do is to avoid the party. it may be sad right now, but catching a bullet from someone who doesn't realize how drunk they are is not worth the risk. Or have them all check their guns until they leave, I would never feel comfortable with a park full of drunks with guns. don't know why you would even consider going to such an event.
Once guys start drinking they don't just stop, it becomes a contest to see who is more manly. A recipe for disaster if I ever heard of one.
You know someone is going to take out their gun to show someone the new something or other they just had done, and that is how it starts. Stay home and watch a ball game, or have a guy there who checks everyone's gun as they come and go.
Either unloaded or no gun while drinking.

 

[oneounceload]

Yep better they finish up drinking and just hit the road!..........NOT

 

[shafter]

When events like this occurred at the club that I used to belong to, the police was to allow people to shoot all morning and once the drinking began all ranges would go cold for the rest of the day. It always seemed like a reasonable policy to me.

If I was in charge I would likely prohibit any alcohol on a public range. However I'm ok with the above policy as long as it's enforced.

 

[Zeke/PA]

Shoot until the Booze comes out THEN CLOSE THE RANGE !
You really don't wan't to have to go thru an accident/fatality syndrome.
Stay safe !!