Alcohol and concealed carry

[BruceGAtl]

...... I find it a bit amusing Somebody pointed out that there's no "blood flowing in the streets" in states where carrying in bars is OK. I'll use that same logic and say that there's no blood flowing in bar parking lots because of BGs preying on unarmed patrons who're walking out to their vehicles. In 10+ years working for my present employer, I don't recall a single incident of a robbery taking place anywhere in or outside of any of the 5 places he owns. Looks like the BGs aren't exactly lined up to pounce on non-carrying folks as they walk out of the bars. Nor are the thugs coming inside armed and terrorizing the helpless masses who're enjoying a frosty adult beverage. That's not to say something like that has never happened anywhere...it just means it's pretty unlikely. I believe that being in a room filled with buzzed/drunk strangers who're packing is far more dangerous than the off-chance that somebody might jump me in a parking lot.

Don't like it?? Stay out of bars in Florida and any other state that prohibits such carrying.

Then there is clearly no reason to carry at all... I mean, the BG are clearly imaginary (since it's not happened outside the establishments that you know). We hire police officers for this reason, to prevent, stop, head off crimes, so why would ordinary people, doing ordinary things, in the course of their ordinary lives need to carry.

People don't need to carry in bars/restaurants 'cause bad things don't happen
People don't need to carry in churches 'cause bad things don't happen
People don't need to carry on school campuses 'cause bad things don't happen
People don't need to carry into government buildings (post offices, police stations, etc.) 'cause bad things don't happen.

This is the mantra.... learn it... live it... believe it... 'cause clearly we have imagined all the bad things that we thought were happening around us. And behaving like responsible adults, we are only likely to MAKE it happen because we cannot be trusted.

and NO... I do not slap a Brady label in people that disagree with me... I use that label for folks that believe that "people" cannot be trusted with guns and the government should ban/regulate/restrict their activities. As for Florida law, should I have the occassion to be in Florida, I will follow the laws that are in place because I AM a responsible adult... Can you say the same for criminals with the intent to commit a crime - will they too follow the laws that state the armed robbery is illegal ? or that murder is illegal ?

Just because you haven't seen it... doesn't make it less real nor does my belief that it could happen make it more real !

 

[NavyLCDR]

Hey NavyLT: Check me if I am wrong but you are for an after-the-fact crackdown and arrest on 2A or CC or OC, meaning that after you have either shot someone or are walking down the street waving your firearm, totally wasted or seemingly above 08, someone or society should do something about it---I guess we should also close the barn door after all the cows are gone---it makes no sense. You do not believe that anyone should limit your 2A, CC or OC because you are a responsible person and can be trusted to take care of yourself. I understand where you are going in a perfect world but when you witness or have been intimately involved in a car accident(this could be a firearm) with deaths because someone believes that they can be trusted to take care of themselves and not be intoxicated when they drive (or carry), it tends to change their minds about your argument. If you can really tell me what in the world is so darn difficult to understand or agree to about having society impose a limit on alcohol or any drug ingestion as it relates to dangerous activities that can injure, maim, or even kill someone, I would like to know what it is. If your answer is about personal responsibility and 2A et al, I would suggest that you may understand your responsibilities but, just based on statistics alone, there are many out there who do not. Yes, this is mostly about driving but it easily follows that it is about firearms. I absolutely agree with your premise but this is not a perfect world and, in this instance, asking you to basically not drink if you drive or CC is not asking a whole lot. It sure as heck is a lot less than Brady etal are asking about, which is a red herring, IMO, in this whole argument.

Let's compare your argument to drinking and driving, shall we? If we enacted the same types of laws that you suggest for carrying a firearm, to driving, then we would need to enact a law that made it illegal to drive to a bar. Or be in possession of car keys while intoxicated. Is that a good idea? By how many factors more are people killed by cars with drunk drivers than shot by drunks with guns? 100x? 1000x? Yet I haven't heard of one instance where someone has suggested making it illegal to drive a car to a bar, or possess car keys while drinking. Why is that? Wouldn't that be "logical" and "reasonable regulation?"

Again, you are focusing on the mere possession of the gun, rather than the irresponsible use of the gun. Why? Because it's easier to sell that way. All I am saying is that just happens to be the way the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun groups do business. It's much easier to regulate the object itself or possession of the object, than it is to regulate the behavior of the person USING the object.

It is illegal to OPERATE a car while intoxicated. Everybody here will say that's enough right? Well, why the hell is it not enough to say it should be illegal to OPERATE a gun while intoxicated? Why the double standard?

 

[nogods]

There is a big difference between having a set of car keys in your pocket while ingesting alcohol and having a locked and loaded glock on your hip while ingesting alcohol.

 

[NavyLCDR]

There is a big difference between having a set of car keys in your pocket while ingesting alcohol and having a locked and loaded glock on your hip while ingesting alcohol.

You are exactly correct. The gun is protected by the 2nd amendment to the Constitution. The car keys aren't.

And.... exactly what is the difference, anyway? They are both objects.

You are many, many, many times more likely to be killed by someone taking car keys out of their pocket and using them in a car than you are by someone taking a gun out of a holster.

In my example at Applebees there was absolutely no difference between the car keys in my pocket and the gun in my holster. I would not use either one during/after dinner unless my life or someone else's life was in danger.

 

[B2Tall]

You are exactly correct. The gun is protected by the 2nd amendment to the Constitution. The car keys aren't.

Neither is drinking alcohol

And.... exactly what is the difference, anyway? They are both objects.

What's the difference?? Really? Well we could start with what each is primarliy used for.

You are many, many, many times more likely to be killed by someone taking car keys out of their pocket and using them in a car than you are by someone taking a gun out of a holster.

That's a ridiculous comparison and always has been. Every day in this country 100 million+ people actively use their automobiles in public. How many people pull out firearms and start shooting in public?? You're rife with very, very weak combacks.

In my example at Applebees there was absolutely no difference between the car keys in my pocket and the gun in my holster. I would not use either one during/after dinner unless my life or someone else's life was in danger.

Huh?? You'd only use your car keys if your life were in danger?? I can see it now....NavyLT draws his car keys in the face of a BG and says "don't make me use these!"

99.9999999% of the time cars are used to go from point A to point B. Unfortunately sometimes they become inadvertant weapons by people who've had too much to drink. Guns?? They're weapons 100% of the time, plain and simple. The rules are different, as well they should be.

 

[NavyLCDR]

99.9999999% of the time cars are used to go from point A to point B. Unfortunately sometimes they become inadvertant weapons by people who've had too much to drink. Guns?? They're weapons 100% of the time, plain and simple. The rules are different, as well they should be.

Sorry....I just simply fail to see any difference between being in possession and control of an automobile and being in possession and control of a gun. They are both only objects, incapable of doing anything by themselves, and are both dangerous to other people ONLY because of the people operating them.

 

[JSDinTexas]

The original question, in case we've forgotten, was: "Is it legal for a concealed carry permit holder to consume Alcohol while carrying a firearm ..." The answer is, with variations, yes (and I'm assuming the post is talking about 1 or 2, say with dinner or after work).
But let me offer this: after a shooting incident, the police and then the DA will determine the course of events and charges. If alcohol has been consumed by the good guy, the whole senario can change from self-defense (justifiable homicide) to manslaughter or maybe murder 2nd. I don't carry and drink.

 

[nogods]

You are exactly correct. The gun is protected by the 2nd amendment to the Constitution. The car keys aren't.

Possession of a weapon in a public place is not presently protected by the second amendment. It is a privilege if allowed by the state in which in live. Just like driving a car.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Possession of a weapon in a public place is not presently protected by the second amendment. It is a privilege if allowed by the state in which in live.

That is one area where you and I disagree. Did D.C. v. Heller CREATE the Constitutional protection of the individual right to keep and bear arms in the home for self protection in Washington D.C.? NO. The right was protected by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution since it was ratified. The US Supreme Court in D.C. v. Heller simply APPLIED the PRE-EXISTING protection to keep and bear arms.

Did McDonald v. Heller CREATE the Constitutional protection of the individual right to keep and bear arms in the home in any state? NO. The right was protected by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution since it was ratified. The US Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago only APPLIED the PRE-EXISTING protection to keep and bear arms.

I don't see anything in the 2nd Amendment that limits the individual right to keep and bear arms to only inside one's home, do you? I don't see a US Supreme Court case that says that the right to keep and bear arms is limited to inside the home and does not apply in public, do you? The protection of the right to keep and bear arms in public places is already protected by the 2nd Amendment. All that is lacking is for the US Supreme Court to APPLY the EXISTING rights protection to keeping and bearing arms in public places. Just like Heller and McDonald - their rights were ALREADY protected. To CREATE new Constitutional protection of rights requires an amendment to the Constitution, which neither Heller nor McDonald did.

 

[BruceGAtl]

The original question, in case we've forgotten, was: "Is it legal for a concealed carry permit holder to consume Alcohol while carrying a firearm ..." The answer is, with variations, yes (and I'm assuming the post is talking about 1 or 2, say with dinner or after work).
But let me offer this: after a shooting incident, the police and then the DA will determine the course of events and charges. If alcohol has been consumed by the good guy, the whole senario can change from self-defense (justifiable homicide) to manslaughter or maybe murder 2nd. I don't carry and drink.

Thanks jsd....

You are correct on all counts ! The question was one of rule of law and the correct answer is... depends on where you are !
Georgia law makes it illegal to DISCHARGE your weapon under the influence - exception being that you or a third party is
under direct threat of death or extreme bodily harm.
You are correct again in that if there is ANY doubt as to the reason for the incident, the presence of alcohol will most probably change the opinions of the investigating officers and the DA.

So once again... we come back to individual responsibility....
Responsible enough to stay ON TOPIC and responsible enough to make sure that if you draw your gun, you are doing so for the right reasons and that you are in control of your own actions...

That was fun.... can we NOT do it again soon....

 

[Axeanda45]

NO WAY! Not worth loosing the privlege!

Uhmmmmm, it is a RIGHT, not a privilege......

 

[jg1967]

Possession of a weapon in a public place is not presently protected by the second amendment. It is a privilege if allowed by the state in which in live. Just like driving a car.

I will have to disagree on that. The second specifically refers to a RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, not a privilege. And it even goes so far as to deliberately mention that this RIGHT shall not be INFRINGED on. As in not outright denied but otherwise curtailed. Frankly I am surprised that any gun regulations could ever be passed with an amendment like that.

And I am not trying to start a food fight, I don't believe in drinking and packing, but I also think that we are all capable enough to make that call ourselves and don't really need another law telling us what we can or can't do.

 

[nogods]

The SCOTUS decides what is meant by "keep and near arms."

It does not mean "any weapon, in any place, by any person."

Presently, the SCOTUS has said it means the right to own a firearm of common usage for purposes of self defense in the home. Nothing more.

a state that prohibits carry in a bar isn't infringing on the right to own a firearm of common usage for purposes of self defense in the home.

 

[jg1967]

It's sad SCOTUS even had to look at that in the first place, the second is not that complicated IMHO. I actually agree with you, right now owning a gun or carrying is definetly handled as if it WAS a privilege. Despite the fact that the second specifies it explicitly as a RIGHT. Which, ironically isn't right again IMHO.

 

[Edsworld]

Hey NavyLT: Check me if I am wrong but you are for an after-the-fact crackdown and arrest on 2A or CC or OC, meaning that after you have either shot someone or are walking down the street waving your firearm, totally wasted or seemingly above 08, someone or society should do something about it---I guess we should also close the barn door after all the cows are gone---it makes no sense. You do not believe that anyone should limit your 2A, CC or OC because you are a responsible person and can be trusted to take care of yourself. I understand where you are going in a perfect world but when you witness or have been intimately involved in a car accident(this could be a firearm) with deaths because someone believes that they can be trusted to take care of themselves and not be intoxicated when they drive (or carry), it tends to change their minds about your argument. If you can really tell me what in the world is so darn difficult to understand or agree to about having society impose a limit on alcohol or any drug ingestion as it relates to dangerous activities that can injure, maim, or even kill someone, I would like to know what it is. If your answer is about personal responsibility and 2A et al, I would suggest that you may understand your responsibilities but, just based on statistics alone, there are many out there who do not. Yes, this is mostly about driving but it easily follows that it is about firearms. I absolutely agree with your premise but this is not a perfect world and, in this instance, asking you to basically not drink if you drive or CC is not asking a whole lot. It sure as heck is a lot less than Brady etal are asking about, which is a red herring, IMO, in this whole argument.

First off, I have lost my parents, a wife and a child.

We need to stop passing laws and legislation the prevents people from dieing. Over population is the biggest threat to this world and we keep trying to protect everyone from harm. " My poor son died because of this, we need to make a law against this." NOT! I understand grieving but it happens. People are suppose to die. I don't care how many laws you pass you are not going to stop people from dieing. All that is happening is we are living our lives more restricted. Before long we wont be able to do anything because it might kill someone. Now we have no freedom.

These are laws that say, if you do this this MIGHT happen, so we shouldn't let them do it. NOT!

Yes, there should be penalties( Very Stiff Penalties) for hurting someone or killing them if your drunk and at fault, but not a law against being drunk and carrying or driving or anything else you do drunk.

They just tried to pass a law against junk food. Now they are trying to ban toys in "Happy Meals".

Your freedoms are dwindling, so keep putting out more laws and restriction to prevent what "Might happen" to someone.

We are free to do what ever we want as long as someone says we can.

 

[nogods]

Yes, there should be penalties( Very Stiff Penalties) for hurting someone or killing them if your drunk and at fault, but not a law against being drunk and carrying or driving or anything else you do drunk.

You don't think there should be DWI laws?

 

[Edsworld]

You don't think there should be DWI laws?

No. It is a law against what MIGHT HAPPEN. Just because you drink and drive does not mean you are going to wreck or kill someone. The ratio of how many drink and drive and how many drink and drive and wreck is 10,00 to 1.

California for example has a population of 36 mil. people and there were only 1509 deaths related to drunk driving in 2006. Out of 36 mil. people how many do you think drove while drunk? I don't think their were only 1509.

In 1982 2799 fatal accidents related to alcohol in California. I put this in so you can't say the low number is because of the laws.

It never was a high number.

"That's 1509 people that should have lived." NOT! People have to die. We have no natural predators except our selves. If nobody ever died what would this world be like?

All laws like this do is restrict our feedom.

 

[nogods]

I don't think there has ever been a commercial passenger airline crash attributable to a drunk pilot - Do you think laws prohibiting pilots from flying drunk is a limitation on their freedom?

 

[Edsworld]

I don't think there has ever been a commercial passenger airline crash attributable to a drunk pilot - Do you think laws prohibiting pilots from flying drunk is a limitation on their freedom?

That should fall under company policy. Not law. If it is your own plane you should be able to drink and fly.

 

[Edsworld]

How many people have been shot by a drunk(Accidental or not) compared to a non-drunk(accidental)?

You should look that up.