Alcohol and concealed carry

[Trolljegeren]

Wow! The self-appointed Supreme Overlord of the 2nd Amendment is swinging his sceptre with gusto!

My apologies Your Highness! I didn't realize the Supreme Emperor of the Forums was in the house! A thousand pardons, majesty...please don't hit me as you swing your ****.

This thread is about a restriction to the 2nd amendment. My examples of restrictions to other parts of the constitution (and to the 2A) are entirely valid in this thread.

There exists no restrictions to the Second Amendment. It looks as though you missed the gist of the entire thread - alcohol and guns. Your dubious statements prompted several of us to (rightfully) question the validity of your claims.

Yes, people legally own machine guns but they need permits to do so. You would have no such restrictions.

And those 'restrictions' are illegal. BTW, they need to pay the $200 Federal Excise Tax fee - NO PERMIT. Yes, I'd like, as the Second Amendment suggests, free Americans to posses machine guns without governments 'approval.'

Artillery? Outside of an antique please tell me what private citizen residing in the US has a functioning, weaponized peice artillery that they can use to fire explosive rounds. Jet fighters? Not with guns on them. Ditto for tanks.

Americans own working tanks that fire live ammo. And how long does it take to install weapons to jets? You're an brainless idiot (since the moderators seem not to care).

I see you dodged the primary point of my post - that you believe anybody should be able to carry (or drive, or fly, etc.) any weapon any time.

I've subscribe to that notion, yes: everybody should be allowed to posses a firearm, excluding kids and violent criminals, even if drunk. What is your point? (Ask an idiot a question is asinine itself.)

Do you teach that in your self-defense class - dodging valid points folowed by a tactical change of subject?? LMAO!

You don't know anything about me, except the information I've chosen to divulge. You are so desperate that you need to even attack then fact that I teach the gun - have been for over 30 years in the military and as a civilian.

It must really get you PO'd knowing that millions and millions of people in this country (private property owners) can, under certain circumstances, completely deny you your 2A rights. I love it!

I'm not surprised at all that you represent one of the nuts in the Brady Bunch - totally an anti-liberty extremist. Only an idiot would miss the fact that the original intent of the 2nd was to keep the .gov in check. When the time comes, it's piss-pants like you who'll run.

I'd say you're hilarious if your POV wasn't so reckless and alarming.

As I mentioned in my prior post, it's people like you who have ruined this great nation - freaking traitor.

LOL! There are a handful of people on these boards who rely on nitpicking, hair-splitting, and petty semantics in an effort to make a point.

Now, take a spelling class or something.

======= :hang3: ===========

To the USACarry, how did you let this forum to degenerate to this point. This 2smallhead, for example, has been spewing his idiotic rants for a year and you have done nothing.

I'm sorry, but this forum is not worth an intelligent dialogue.

Flipping a finger like a viking.

 

[B2Tall]

My apologies Your Highness! I didn't realize the Supreme Emperor of the Forums was in the house! A thousand pardons, majesty...please don't hit me as you swing your ****.



There exists no restrictions to the Second Amendment. It looks as though you missed the gist of the entire thread - alcohol and guns. Your dubious statements prompted several of us to (rightfully) question the validity of your claims.



And those 'restrictions' are illegal. BTW, they need to pay the $200 Federal Excise Tax fee - NO PERMIT. Yes, I'd like, as the Second Amendment suggests, free Americans to posses machine guns without governments 'approval.'



Americans own working tanks that fire live ammo. And how long does it take to install weapons to jets? You're an brainless idiot (since the moderators seem not to care).



I've subscribe to that notion, yes: everybody should be allowed to posses a firearm, excluding kids and violent criminals, even if drunk. What is your point? (Ask an idiot a question is asinine itself.)



You don't know anything about me, except the information I've chosen to divulge. You are so desperate that you need to even attack then fact that I teach the gun - have been for over 30 years in the military and as a civilian.



I'm not surprised at all that you represent one of the nuts in the Brady Bunch - totally an anti-liberty extremist. Only an idiot would miss the fact that the original intent of the 2nd was to keep the .gov in check. When the time comes, it's piss-pants like you who'll run.



As I mentioned in my prior post, it's people like you who have ruined this great nation - freaking traitor.

LOL! There are a handful of people on these boards who rely on nitpicking, hair-splitting, and petty semantics in an effort to make a point.

Now, take a spelling class or something.

======= :hang3: ===========

To the USACarry, how did you let this forum to degenerate to this point. This 2smallhead, for example, has been spewing his idiotic rants for a year and you have done nothing.

I'm sorry, but this forum is not worth an intelligent dialogue.

Flipping a finger like a viking.

I see your inception date on this board is from this month however I get the feeling I've dealt with you before. Is that you, Ed?? I think it is. Still angry that I caught you in those lies and exposed you for the fraud you are?? Apparently.

Your short-sightedness has left you completely out of touch with reality. If you really are a "troll hunter" then you would have whacked yourself a long time ago.

 

[Ruger357SP101]

Well I hope you turn in all the police you have in your town cause last I checked they are allowed to carry in bars and drink alcohol whiled armed.

Now what makes you feel safer with them doing that then your fellow citizens I don't know. But it goes to show that you do not comprehend what the second amendment says.

For if you make rules for people to follow you yourself should follow the same rules you will be enforcing.

How about not twisting what I actually SAID, poster?

Being in the same room as beer DOESNT make one drunk.
DRINKING makes one drunk.

Easy enough distinction ?

And I know EXACTLY what the 2nd says.
What it DOESNT say is that drunks shouldnt be regulated while in public.
Can we assume YOU like to drink a few while packing a gun ?

 

[Ruger357SP101]

Those who oppose beer and guns ought to think what the Second Amendment means.

No, those who dont oppose drunks with guns need to get a psych evaluation.
They are just one more reason why RATIONAL non gun owners want guns banned.
They are part of the problem because they CAUSE unnecessary fear rather than being RESPONSIBLE gun owners.

 

[Ruger357SP101]

Those who support an alcohol/guns mix ought to take the blinders off and think about what the constitution means as a whole.

A "No Drinking While Carrying" law does not hinder somebody's 2A right in the least. Not even the tiniest bit. It give somebody a choice. You can have one or the other, just not both at the same time. Such laws simply mean that if you choose to drink alcohol you are temporarily surrendering your right to carry. "Choose" being the key word there - it's up to you as an individual. You don't have to if you don't want to. It's no different than if you choose to walk out of the house today w/o a gun. Drinking alcohol is not a right, it's a highly regulated priviledge that has strings attached to it. This is one of those strings.

It's no different from a law that forbids convicted felons from carrying. It's no different from a law that forbids a person from carrying on a plane or on private property when the owner says "no". Don't like being in those situations?? Then choose not to put yourself in one.

Exactly.

A gun owner cant blame anyone else for his CHOICE to be a drunk.

 

[Ruger357SP101]

I do beleive we have debated this before. To me it's the same as "gun free zones". The law says we can't carry but doesn't make sence. The law abiding citizen is once again is unable to protect themselves. I said it before a threat is a threat it doesn't matter if I've had a few drinks or not. If I'm at home and had a couple and someone comes in and threatens me or my family am I not able to use my gun to defend us. I'm sure more quoestions will be asked and more problems will arise but my family will be safe. You could always do what I was told about my drivers license, get your pic taken with a hangover, that way if you get pulled over drunk or hungover you look the same as your pic. :laugh:

At HOME, friend, you arent a danger to someone else who might be out having a good time.
I dont want your drunk ass getting into a fight and me, my wife or grandsons being shot because YOU cant aim your gun because of those supposed 'few' drinks youve have.

Personally I think anyone caught drinking while armed should have their CCW license revoked for a year minimum...and in states where they permits arent required the person should be lawfully restricted from carrying for the same duration.

The second offense would be permanent removal of CCW rights/privelidges.

Frankly I dont give a rats rear who disagrees...and I certainly DONT care if some here dont think I understand the Second Amendment or not.

The Second Amendment simply acknowledges the right to bear arms.
It does NOT recognize YOUR 'right' to put ME needlessly into danger because you cant keep from drinking when your packing a deadly weapon.

 

[Ruger357SP101]

Hey guys: You are given a drivers license to move something around that can easily cause fatalities and does so at alarming regularity. You are given a CCWP to carry a firearm that can easily cause fatalities but, to my knowledge, at infinitesimal regularity, even if above the established 08 rule. Personally, I see no difference--if anything, based on statistics, I would have greater penalties and stricter enforcement for the drivers than the CC person. At the very least, strict penalties and strict enforcement for both permitees should be consistent. The idea that a CC someone. after belting down a few, is going to go on a rampage, while his counterpart is not going to kill someone in his car does not make sense. Bottom line: same criteria for both, but I would up the ante on penalty--severely. No car, no gun, for some length of time and expensive fine for first time; jail for the second time, really bad jail time for anytime after.

Its not just about going on some rampage...altho if you dont think alcohol makes one more aggressive in many cases, I say you havent been to very many bars in your lifetime....clearly.

The more immediate problem is not that the driver is going to mow people down intentionally but may ACCIDENTALLY hurt someone because he is impaired.
The SAME applies to the CCW.
He may not be INTENDING to do harm but being IMPAIRED absolutely makes ACCIDENTS more of a possibility.

Anyone who denies that is deceiving themselves.

 

[Ruger357SP101]

Ah, a personal attack. :yu: MODERATORS !!! :yu:

Somehow I think the word 'troll' in your username is fitting...

 

[Ruger357SP101]

Ummm... just so you become aware.... the police are not expected to intervene if something happens....

Police have no responsibility to protect individuals (reference)

I think you are taking that WAY out of context.
LEOs are not legally responsible for the individuals safety...meaning if you are hurt during an assault the LEO isnt responsible...ie YOU cant turn around and sue the LEO because YOU got hurt.

That decision was NOT about law enforcement sitting back and eating donuts while a crime occurs.

 

[jg1967]

At HOME, friend, you arent a danger to someone else who might be out having a good time.
I dont want your drunk ass getting into a fight and me, my wife or grandsons being shot because YOU cant aim your gun because of those supposed 'few' drinks youve have.

Personally I think anyone caught drinking while armed should have their CCW license revoked for a year minimum...and in states where they permits arent required the person should be lawfully restricted from carrying for the same duration.

The second offense would be permanent removal of CCW rights/privelidges.

Frankly I dont give a rats rear who disagrees...and I certainly DONT care if some here dont think I understand the Second Amendment or not.

The Second Amendment simply acknowledges the right to bear arms.
It does NOT recognize YOUR 'right' to put ME needlessly into danger because you cant keep from drinking when your packing a deadly weapon.

There is a difference between drinking and carrying and drinking at home. For the latter the law does allow some leeway as it should since you can't very well be expected to not defend yourself at home just because you had a beer with dinner (and you don't get to choose the point of time you are being attacked).

You should also cut everybody just a little slack because not everybody who ever consumes any alcohol is a drunk. Most are not.

Personally I do not carry and consume since I do not believe it to be a good mix and it's not legal here.

 

[tommy62]

Most states, from my understanding, absolutely prohibit drinking while your armed.
Honestly, I agree.
I dont know how many times I went out with friends who said they were just going to have a couple drinks who went home falling down drunk. They had the best intentions, but its just to risky when youre driving or carrying a gun to even take that first drink.

Frankly, Ive turned in guys with guns who were drinking. Its a felony charge here and it should be.

I agree.

 

[S&W645]

I think you are taking that WAY out of context.
LEOs are not legally responsible for the individuals safety...meaning if you are hurt during an assault the LEO isnt responsible...ie YOU cant turn around and sue the LEO because YOU got hurt.

That decision was NOT about law enforcement sitting back and eating donuts while a crime occurs.

No, what it means is that you have to protect yourself/loved ones and that the police will respond after the fact. They don't have to be there even if there is a restraining order and you can't sue if you get hurt/killed because they didn't guard/protect you. If you get hurt by a LEO because they did something wrong, you can sue.

 

[BC1]

Here in Fla just because a restaurant serves alcohol doesn't mean you can't carry there. It's all about the primary source of income for that establishment - food or alcohol. If alcohol is the primary bread-winner then the place is considered a bar and bars are a "place of nuisance" and carry is prohibited. It's perfectly legal for me to carry in a restaurant in Fla and have a beer or two so long as I'm not considered "intoxicated". The law is designed to prohibit carry in places where people are most likely to get poop-faced.

I Agree. We have to remember there are power drinkers out there who don't stop after a beer or two as the rest of us do. In NYS there is no law that limits carrying in a bar or restuarant, regardless of source of income. However, booze and bullets are a bad mix. Even where legal the potential for civil action arising out of negligence arises. Alcohol spoils our judgement and sound judgement is paramount when carrying a gun.

 

[Seeya]

Here in Fla just because a restaurant serves alcohol doesn't mean you can't carry there. It's all about the primary source of income for that establishment - food or alcohol. If alcohol is the primary bread-winner then the place is considered a bar and bars are a "place of nuisance" and carry is prohibited. It's perfectly legal for me to carry in a restaurant in Fla and have a beer or two so long as I'm not considered "intoxicated". The law is designed to prohibit carry in places where people are most likely to get poop-faced.

I do not see any mention of a licensed bar, the law also appears to be vague and so may be declared unconstitutional by the courts. just a quick reshearch got the below. Get a copy of Florida Firearms Law, Use & Ownership 7 th edition by Jon H. Gutmacher, Esq. Very informative.

Chapter 823 - PUBLIC NUISANCES :: 2005 Florida Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

823.05 Places declared a nuisance; may be abated and enjoined.--Whoever shall erect, establish, continue, or maintain, own or lease any building, booth, tent or place which tends to annoy the community or injure the health of the community, or become manifestly injurious to the morals or manners of the people as described in s. 823.01, or shall be frequented by the class of persons mentioned in 1s. 856.02, or any house or place of prostitution, assignation, lewdness or place or building where games of chance are engaged in violation of law or any place where any law of the state is violated, shall be deemed guilty of maintaining a nuisance, and the building, erection, place, tent or booth and the furniture, fixtures and contents are declared a nuisance. All such places or persons shall be abated or enjoined as provided in ss. 60.05 and 60.06.
History.--s. 1, ch. 7367, 1917; RGS 5639; CGL 7832; s. 24, ch. 57-1; s. 66, ch. 74-383; s. 1, ch. 75-24; s. 41, ch. 75-298.

1Note.--Repealed by s. 3, ch. 72-133.

 

[Seeya]

all this talk about LEOS & Police Officers

to the best of my recollection they are private citizens authorized by our elected servants to investigate crimes and make arrests based upon thier investigation.

does anyone know if this definition is correct or can enhance it?

just curious because from my experience they lack knowlege of article six of the Constititution of the Republic of the United States of America.

not trying to stir the pot. it's already a whirlpool.

 

[Kasper]

Weird I know I typed it in english but for some reason you anti 2nd amendment people just over looked it.

What makes a government officials safety more important then my safety? If you are willing to let off duty police carry their firearms in to bars for their safety why is it that my right to safety is being infringed upon?

Well I see that no one has been willing to answer my question. So I will edit it so you will provide an answer.

The questions below is open for answering by any one who can read and comprehend it.

What makes a government officials safety more important then my safety?

If you are willing to let off duty police carry their firearms in to bars for their safety why is it that my right to safety is being infringed upon?

 

[BruceGAtl]

It's amazing how only one post actually answered the OP question.

I TOTALLY Agree....
NavyLT answered the QUESTION that was posed with FACT and not personal opinion.
Thanks NavyLT for bring common sense to the conversation.

Georgia Law DOES NOT prohibit a person from carrying into a restaurant and actually enjoying dinner and an adult beverage. WITH the owners permission we can even carry into a bar and drink.

The prohibition comes with doing something stupid - DISCHARGING your weapon while under the influence.

Strangely enough - contrary to PERSONAL OPINIONS in this thread and dire predictions when the law was changed, there have been no shoot outs in restaurants or bars caused by law-abiding citizens taking steps to ensure their personal protection while partaking or an adult beverage.

My personal opinion goes both ways - getting stinking drunk at any point is stupid, compound that with carrying or driving is bad news BUT.... I see no reason that I should not be permitted to have dinner in a restaurant and a glass of wine/beer/scotch with my dinner. Same can be said for sitting in a sports bar watching a game on a mega screen and having a beer and wings.
Since I have to drive home, I am pretty danged careful about my drinking.

Driving, drinking, carrying are all adult activities that require responsible adults to act in a responsible manner. If you feel that YOU cannot be responsible, OK... then don't do it... but don't sit there and promote a mentality that leads to a law that further restricts our 2A rights or the next time you carry... it may only be as far as your front door :fie:

btw - you might want to check out John Lott's article on campus carry which points out that license holders (or whatever you call it in your state) are LESS likely to break the law - with our fingerprints on file and background checks done every couple of years... I can't imagine why :laugh:
Should Bans Against Carrying Concealed Weapons Be Lifted On College Campuses? - FoxNews.com

 

[Ruger357SP101]

No, what it means is that you have to protect yourself/loved ones and that the police will respond after the fact. They don't have to be there even if there is a restraining order and you can't sue if you get hurt/killed because they didn't guard/protect you. If you get hurt by a LEO because they did something wrong, you can sue.

What it means is just what it SAYS.
LEOS are NOT your personal guardians/body guards. They arent LEGALLY responsible for YOUR life...or loss thereof.
It does NOT mean that they are allowed to ignore their duties.
If they dont do their job that is for their superiors to deal with.

 

[Ruger357SP101]

There is a difference between drinking and carrying and drinking at home.

I agree.
Although if I were in the mood to drink a bit Id certainly make sure I put my guns well out of reach beforehand.

For the latter the law does allow some leeway as it should since you can't very well be expected to not defend yourself at home just because you had a beer with dinner (and you don't get to choose the point of time you are being attacked).

No here in Ohio.
Drink while carrying and you lose your CHL.
Hopefully they make it a felony charge if it isnt already.
Sorry....zero tolerance on this one as far as Im concerned.

You should also cut everybody just a little slack because not everybody who ever consumes any alcohol is a drunk. Most are not.

Irrelevant.
Using a drug that mentally and physically impairs a person is absolute STUPIDITY when carrying a deadly weapon.
No one has to agree with me...feel free to simply put me on ignore if you want....just as everyone else here can who doesnt like what Ive got to say about it.

Personally I do not carry and consume since I do not believe it to be a good mix and it's not legal here.

so you admit that its not a good mix, but Im supposedly out of line if Im saying the same thing and being adamant about it?

 

[kelcarry]

Hey Ruger: To requote jg's quote, "there is no difference between drinking and driving and drinking and carrying"---THEY BOTH KILL