B2Tall
Stirrer of the Pot
You mean the ones where the cowboys can't bring their guns into town because they get too drunk and shoot the place up???
Unforgiven, Tombstone, Destry Rides Again, etc. etc.
I love those movies!:biggrin:
Alcohol and concealed carry
- Thread starter Ryker
- Start date
You mean the ones where the cowboys can't bring their guns into town because they get too drunk and shoot the place up???
Unforgiven, Tombstone, Destry Rides Again, etc. etc.
I love those movies!:biggrin:
Seeya
New member
The 2010 Florida Statutes(including Special Session A)
Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 790
WEAPONS AND FIREARMS View Entire Chapter
790.151 Using firearm while under the influence of alcoholic beverages, chemical substances, or controlled substances; penalties.—(1) As used in ss. 790.151-790.157, to “use a firearm” means to discharge a firearm or to have a firearm readily accessible for immediate discharge.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “readily accessible for immediate discharge” means loaded and in a person’s hand.
(3) It is unlawful and punishable as provided in subsection (4) for any person who is under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substance set forth in s. 877.111, or any substance controlled under chapter 893, when affected to the extent that his or her normal faculties are impaired, to use a firearm in this state.
(4) Any person who violates subsection (3) commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(5) This section does not apply to persons exercising lawful self-defense or defense of one’s property.
History.—s. 1, ch. 91-84; s. 1210, ch. 97-102.
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
Read (2) for purposes of this section, "readily accessible for imediate discharge" means loaded and in a persons hand.
That is pretty clear to me, means you can have a wepon on you so long as you do not have it in your hand.
Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 790
WEAPONS AND FIREARMS View Entire Chapter
790.151 Using firearm while under the influence of alcoholic beverages, chemical substances, or controlled substances; penalties.—(1) As used in ss. 790.151-790.157, to “use a firearm” means to discharge a firearm or to have a firearm readily accessible for immediate discharge.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “readily accessible for immediate discharge” means loaded and in a person’s hand.
(3) It is unlawful and punishable as provided in subsection (4) for any person who is under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substance set forth in s. 877.111, or any substance controlled under chapter 893, when affected to the extent that his or her normal faculties are impaired, to use a firearm in this state.
(4) Any person who violates subsection (3) commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(5) This section does not apply to persons exercising lawful self-defense or defense of one’s property.
History.—s. 1, ch. 91-84; s. 1210, ch. 97-102.
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
Read (2) for purposes of this section, "readily accessible for imediate discharge" means loaded and in a persons hand.
That is pretty clear to me, means you can have a wepon on you so long as you do not have it in your hand.
Beau
I was never here.
Wow. And this tells me everything I need to know about you. You believe that standing behind the Constitution and Bill of Rights to be a copout.
Also what common sense have you pointed out? All I have seen is you going on about how people need to be controlled or they might do something stupid.
Unfortunately most people get their education and form their world view from the things they see on t.v.. I now have a better understanding of why you hold the opinions you do.
Hey B2Tall: I agree with your statement that there are people out there who should not be walking around CC. The problem is who is suppose to be the "decider" and what should be the standards? Personally, the simplest standard is the 08. If that is good enough for a driver who can kill, it should be good enough for a CC. IMO, as I have stated, the penalties for both should be very very clear, very very strict and draconian, and should be enforced to the fullest. You are given a privilege and if you are a kindergarden child when it comes to your responsibilites, you ought to be spanked---harshly. I am sick and tired of everyone having excuses for immoral and illegal behaviour in this country.
Using .08 is fine for a legal standard.
But if a person is carrying because of fear of facing a life threatening situation, then why would they reduce the effectiveness of their weapon, by reducing their ability to respond, by .07 or .06 or .05 or .04 or .03 or .02 BAC?
It is difficult to take someone seriously who says "I need to carry to protect my life, unless of course I feel like having a beer or two, then the need to protect my life is not as great as my desire to have a beer or two."
And do you really want someone with a .04 to .07 BAC making decisions about whether to discharge a weapon in a public setting?
I sure wouldn't want them driving my children anywhere.
But if a person is carrying because of fear of facing a life threatening situation, then why would they reduce the effectiveness of their weapon, by reducing their ability to respond, by .07 or .06 or .05 or .04 or .03 or .02 BAC?
It is difficult to take someone seriously who says "I need to carry to protect my life, unless of course I feel like having a beer or two, then the need to protect my life is not as great as my desire to have a beer or two."
And do you really want someone with a .04 to .07 BAC making decisions about whether to discharge a weapon in a public setting?
I sure wouldn't want them driving my children anywhere.
J
JSDinTexas
Guest
They have a drive thru - no waiting.
I just broke ALL the rules!
Wife, daughter and I went to Applebee's for my wife's birthday. I had 2 that's right, TWO beers with dinner and then after dinner we went shopping at Wal Mart. As always, I open carried the entire time.
OMG... I guess I am lucky to have survived and am alive and well to tell this tale!
The only thing lacking was that I forgot to wear my CCW Badge...
Wife, daughter and I went to Applebee's for my wife's birthday. I had 2 that's right, TWO beers with dinner and then after dinner we went shopping at Wal Mart. As always, I open carried the entire time.
OMG... I guess I am lucky to have survived and am alive and well to tell this tale!
The only thing lacking was that I forgot to wear my CCW Badge...
Lakeland Man
New member
I'm glad that you had an uneventful dinner and shopping trip. However, don't think that just because nothing has ever happened to you, that it won't happen in the future, or it won't happen to someone else. I think the point some of the posters are trying to make is that there is a possibility that something could happen. In that case, your abilities would be impaired, even having had only 2 drinks.
Its a personal choice. I choose not to drink at all. Others choose to drink. Last time I checked, it was still legal to do so. In my opinion, I think its a poor choice to drink and carry. But each person has to make that choice for themselves.
I'm so glad NavyLT finds it humorous to drink 2 beers and open carry. No one is talking about 2 beers here--at least when it comes to a standard of behaviour, which, right or wrong, (at least for driving) is 08. When NavyLT takes the same kind of attitude after 5 or 6beers in say an hour or some kind of alcohol intake that will make him blow greater than 08in some kind of LEO stop, I doubt he will be so humorous. This subject is not funny--too many people die from it--at least by cars. Not sure what, if any, firearm injuries/fatalities can actually be attributed to being drunk, but it would seem that confrontations that could or have led to problems is a certainty.
BruceGAtl
New member
I'm sorry... common sense went which way ??
Excuse me while I run over to the Brady folks and let 'em know that they HAVE won the war. We are now (apparently) in favor of legislating away everyone's right to carry unless they can show incontrovertible evidence that they do not, have not and never will use or come in contact with any type of mind altering substances.
For those of us that cannot show such proof... anyone that has ever had or thought of having a drink, used any type of cough/cold medicine, smoke a cigarette (or any other smokable), gone to the dentist and had gas used (perhaps even novacaine) or been in the presence of paint thinner.... All of you... line up, turn in your guns and await your victimization.
Yeah, yeah... a bit extreme but.... do you really think that if we cannot take responsibility for one situation and allow it to be forged into legislation that any of the others are far behind. Isn't this the prohibition theory... since "people" cannot be trusted to use alcohol in moderation, then we (the nanny state "we") MUST in fact enforce by rule of law total obedience to abstention.
All of the items listed above, and many many more I am sure, create at a minimum a euphoric state, so shouldn't they be listed as disqualifiers ?? I mean... can you REALLY trust a house painter that used turpentine to clean his brushes ???
It amazes me that we are SOOOOOO quick to complain about be regulated to death, having to get a carry license, having our constitutional rights infringed and then we turn around and look for ways to make someone else (the government) responsible for our behavior. I find NOTHING funny about NavyLT's narrative. I think that it's ridiculous that he has to justify his action to a group of people that SHOULD know better. John Lott, in a recent article, commented that license holders are MORE responsible and less likely to break the law than many other citizens. Perhaps what he should have said is that they are better regulated into proper (insert liberal definition here) behavior, because all I hear is folks trying to regulate/legislate others behavior. If you are concerned with your own ability to make a rational adult decision, then by all means leave your gun at home and risk being a victim, or stay at home and lock up your guns and send the keys to Paul Helmke to look after for you.
Either way, make sure that you have 911 on speed dial... and good luck !!!
My rant for the week...
Excuse me while I run over to the Brady folks and let 'em know that they HAVE won the war. We are now (apparently) in favor of legislating away everyone's right to carry unless they can show incontrovertible evidence that they do not, have not and never will use or come in contact with any type of mind altering substances.
For those of us that cannot show such proof... anyone that has ever had or thought of having a drink, used any type of cough/cold medicine, smoke a cigarette (or any other smokable), gone to the dentist and had gas used (perhaps even novacaine) or been in the presence of paint thinner.... All of you... line up, turn in your guns and await your victimization.
Yeah, yeah... a bit extreme but.... do you really think that if we cannot take responsibility for one situation and allow it to be forged into legislation that any of the others are far behind. Isn't this the prohibition theory... since "people" cannot be trusted to use alcohol in moderation, then we (the nanny state "we") MUST in fact enforce by rule of law total obedience to abstention.
All of the items listed above, and many many more I am sure, create at a minimum a euphoric state, so shouldn't they be listed as disqualifiers ?? I mean... can you REALLY trust a house painter that used turpentine to clean his brushes ???
It amazes me that we are SOOOOOO quick to complain about be regulated to death, having to get a carry license, having our constitutional rights infringed and then we turn around and look for ways to make someone else (the government) responsible for our behavior. I find NOTHING funny about NavyLT's narrative. I think that it's ridiculous that he has to justify his action to a group of people that SHOULD know better. John Lott, in a recent article, commented that license holders are MORE responsible and less likely to break the law than many other citizens. Perhaps what he should have said is that they are better regulated into proper (insert liberal definition here) behavior, because all I hear is folks trying to regulate/legislate others behavior. If you are concerned with your own ability to make a rational adult decision, then by all means leave your gun at home and risk being a victim, or stay at home and lock up your guns and send the keys to Paul Helmke to look after for you.
Either way, make sure that you have 911 on speed dial... and good luck !!!
My rant for the week...
What I find sad is how far the propaganda of the Brady Campaign has spread into the gun community. To me, the 2nd Amendment is about Americans being able to carry a gun in normal everyday life doing normal everyday things. That means going to school to pick up your kids. That means going to church. That means going into a courthouse or police station to take care of routine matters. That means going into the post office to mail a letter. That means walking down the street without wondering where you cross within 1000' of school property. That means having a loaded gun in a car anywhere you dang well please. That means carrying in a bar. That means having a beer or two at dinner with the family.
I find it sad that we have let the Brady Campaign and others convince some of us that the mere carrying of a gun, by itself, in certain circumstances is irresponsible. Instead of demonizing the mere act of carrying the gun, maybe we should put the punishment where it belongs - on the irresponsible or negligent USE of the gun.
I have no problem with a law that would make it illegal to discharge a firearm while over the legal limit for intoxication. I would have no problem at all with a law that would make it illegal to discharge a firearm in a school building or post office or Federal building. With self-defense as an exception, of course. Those are the laws and concerns we should have. Not laws and concerns about where/when a gun is carried.
My post was meant as a humorous example of the way we have let the anti-gun folks affect us. Up until about the 1950's nobody would have raised an eyebrow at the thought or sight of a gun in a school, post office or bar. Heck, the presence of a citizen carrying a gun in any of those places was more to be expected than to raise concern.
Lakeland Man
New member
Why do you assume that the Brady Bunch have anything to do with an opinion that disagrees with yours? Frankly, I think thats pretty insulting. In essence, what you are implying is that anyone who disagrees with you is a Brady clone.
That's exactly right. But the most important words in that sentence are "To me". This is YOUR interpretation. Not everyone's.
I can understand your point about making it illegal to discharge a firearm in those locations, but that is legislation "after the fact" that will have no real effect on a BG who wants to shoot someone in a courthouse, or post office, or a school. I don't know if there IS a solution to that problem.
Would the massacre at Luby's have been less if someone there had been carrying a gun? Almost certainly. Would the Columbine shootings been prevented or lessened if one of the teachers had been armed? I would say yes. But by the same token, how many jurors or prosecution witnesses might be killed because the family of a BG want revenge and carry into a courtroom. When I was a LEO, I saw several people get attacked in the courtroom. I shudder to think how bad it could have been if they had been permitted to carry a weapon into court. We need to find that sensible way. I'm not the guy to decide what that is.
Sadly, we don't live in the 1950's anymore...or the 40's...or the 30's...etc. Take a look at the world we live in today and ask yourself if you really want some of these "people" carrying a gun near your children, or wife. And I don't mean the bad guys.
I believe in the 2nd Ammendment. I just don't interpret it the same way that you do. I'm not a Brady fan. I think they're very misguided and have a simplistic view of the world. The world would not be some grand utopia if we banned guns. We're not all going to sit around singing "Kumbaya" in a world with out guns. I carry my handgun because I believe in personal defense. And, maybe I'm fooling myself, but I also think I have better judgement than a lot of people I know. I'm not the smartest guy in the world. I don't know squat about nuclear physics. But I'm bright enough to know that I'm not the final arbiter of what is best for our society.
B2Tall
Stirrer of the Pot
I find it a bit amusing that so many on these boards who say they carry because of a perceived threat from anything with 2 legs are so quick to give the benefit of the doubt to those under the effects of alcohol. So....everybody is a potential threat unless they're drinking and then they're not a threat. Interesting. A tad self-serving, maybe?? Birds of a feather....
Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong but are there any states that outright ban drinking and carrying?? I don't believe so but I could be wrong. Florida doesn't ban drinking and carrying, they simply restrict some of the circumstances. Florida's restriction on CCing in bars does not infringe on a person's right to defend themselves. Not in the least. It gives them a choice and a decision - what's more important, "defending yourself and your family" or going into a bar and drinking. Nobody has to go into a bar and drink. It's voluntary.
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.
Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong but are there any states that outright ban drinking and carrying?? I don't believe so but I could be wrong. Florida doesn't ban drinking and carrying, they simply restrict some of the circumstances. Florida's restriction on CCing in bars does not infringe on a person's right to defend themselves. Not in the least. It gives them a choice and a decision - what's more important, "defending yourself and your family" or going into a bar and drinking. Nobody has to go into a bar and drink. It's voluntary.
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.
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.
ID9mm
New member
Drinking and carrying can only lead to a bad situation; even if its only one drink. Just think if you had just one drink and had to use your weapon in self defense. The police would be checking you out to see if you was drunk and asking you a lot of questions. Then if you had to go to court, the DA would be trying to say that you did not use good judgement because you was impaired. Regardless of what the law is, I choose not to drink anything while carrying. It just makes better sense. I will still carry in restaurants that serve alcohol, but I will not drink. Not even one drink.
