PA CCW and carrying while in a bar

[NavyLCDR]

Also, through a quick and dirty search (I'm not a lawyer and not going to review every law case involving a firearm for possible justifiable defense), the use of alcohol has been used as a means to disregard a person's claim to self-defense in court. If they can use it to disregard a claim to self-defense in using fists and head butting, are you saying it couldn't be used against you when using a firearm?

Link Removed

The same question in reverse could be asked of you. Do you know for a fact, that the use of alcohol has never been used against a person claiming self-defense?

In the two cases that you posted, the defendants were convicted because the circumstances were found to be not in self-defense warranting deadly force. The defendant being under the influence of alcohol had nothing to do with that finding. Then the defendants attempted to use the fact that they were intoxicated as a defense to being convicted because at the time they mistakenly believed the circumstance did require deadly force to defend themselves. The courts ruled that they could not use voluntary intoxication as a defense to making the mistake.

Now, if you think that at some degree of alcohol consumption you will make a mistake in your ability to determine when deadly force becomes a necessary defense - then you shouldn't drink to that level.

 

[CapGun]

This is simple. Don't complicate the original question. In PA the law is silent on this matter. Therefore it is not illegal to carry in a bar.
If you are in a bar you don't have to drink alcohol.
I would not open carry in a bar. Figure out all the negative reasons on your own.
As someone stated before: "Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
The introduction of alcohol will cloud any case and mind. You really want that? Not me!
Drinking and carrying shouldn't even be considered for a bunch of reasons no matter how hollow your leg is!

 

[apvbguy]

You no looka too hard... In public? Drunk? Armed? It's charged as a second degree misdemeanor I believe. Probably just a fine but an arrest record nonetheless.
.
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.

ok, I stand corrected on the using part of the statement, however if I felt a need to use my weapon the least of my concerns would be this law

 

[apvbguy]

Aside from the legal risks of carrying while drunk, why would any responsible citizen want to risk compromising their own judgement and skill, and end up hurting or killing another human being without justifiable cause? Wouldn't that weigh heavily on your conscience?

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

I think you've never met anyone who can have a drink or 2 and not be impaired, guess what it is possible. today I've been drinking since 4pm and it is now half past 11 and wow, I'm not drunk, how can that be???
answer is that we all have different tolerances, some people can become plastered after having a glass of wine while others seem to have a "wooden leg". the moral to the story is one size does not fit all and don't make proclamations about what is right and wrong like you've just made

 

[Firefighterchen]

Those who can't trust their judgement after a couple beers or a glass of wine, probably shouldn't trust their judgement to carry any kind of weapon at all.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[wolf_fire]

In the two cases that you posted, the defendants were convicted because the circumstances were found to be not in self-defense warranting deadly force. The defendant being under the influence of alcohol had nothing to do with that finding. Then the defendants attempted to use the fact that they were intoxicated as a defense to being convicted because at the time they mistakenly believed the circumstance did require deadly force to defend themselves. The courts ruled that they could not use voluntary intoxication as a defense to making the mistake.

Now, if you think that at some degree of alcohol consumption you will make a mistake in your ability to determine when deadly force becomes a necessary defense - then you shouldn't drink to that level.

And with the first link I provided June Russell's Health Facts: Alcohol Effects of One Alcoholic Drink that degree of alcohol consumption to affect judgment begins with the first drink with BAC as low as 0.02.

To each their own. Personally, I would recommend, as I first posted, to think carefully while carrying whether that drink is truly worth it. For me, it's not. For others, have at it, but realize that their judgment and reflexes are being affected even with one drink.

 

[CapGun]

I think you've never met anyone who can have a drink or 2 and not be impaired, guess what it is possible. today I've been drinking since 4pm and it is now half past 11 and wow, I'm not drunk, how can that be???
answer is that we all have different tolerances, some people can become plastered after having a glass of wine while others seem to have a "wooden leg". the moral to the story is one size does not fit all and don't make proclamations about what is right and wrong like you've just made

Well said! I am sure that the Cop,DA and everyone on the jury will agree.

 

[CapGun]

Those who can't trust their judgement after a couple beers or a glass of wine, probably shouldn't trust their judgement to carry any kind of weapon at all.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

Sounds like a judgement of those that will not drink and carry. In that same spirit I say that for some, their judgement may be impaired before they even have a drink.

 

[kwc]

I think you've never met anyone who can have a drink or 2 and not be impaired, guess what it is possible. today I've been drinking since 4pm and it is now half past 11 and wow, I'm not drunk, how can that be???
answer is that we all have different tolerances, some people can become plastered after having a glass of wine while others seem to have a "wooden leg". the moral to the story is one size does not fit all and don't make proclamations about what is right and wrong like you've just made

You aren't drunk or impaired after a full afternoon and evening of drinking? Okay. But even if you were plastered/drunk/impaired you still contend that it is okay to carry:

why do you not want to be drunk? in fla there is nothing in the law regarding when you are too impaired to be carrying or even using a weapon

I truly hope no one would take such a risk.

 

[apvbguy]

You aren't drunk or impaired after a full afternoon and evening of drinking? Okay. But even if you were plastered/drunk/impaired you still contend that it is okay to carry:



I truly hope no one would take such a risk.

you're really not the sharpest knife in the draw are you?
I don't see any kind of statement from me that advocates being impaired and carrying, I am just relating what the law is.
FWIW: I do not refrain from drinking while carrying and like I've noted earlier, regardless of my sobriety if the need to use deadly force ever presented itself I couldn't give a rats ass about what any law on the books says, my life is always more important than complying with some law restricting my right to self defense.

 

[kwc]

you're really not the sharpest knife in the draw are you?
I don't see any kind of statement from me that advocates being impaired and carrying, I am just relating what the law is.
FWIW: I do not refrain from drinking while carrying and like I've noted earlier, regardless of my sobriety if the need to use deadly force ever presented itself I couldn't give a rats ass about what any law on the books says, my life is always more important than complying with some law restricting my right to self defense.

You had asked, "why do you not want to be drunk?" That is the original statement to which I was responding.

No need to resort to personal attacks. Methinks thou dost protest too much.

 

[kwc]

you're really not the sharpest knife in the draw are you?

"draw" or "drawer?"

 

[BC1]

I do not refrain from drinking while carrying and like I've noted earlier, regardless of my sobriety if the need to use deadly force ever presented itself I couldn't give a rats ass about what any law on the books says, my life is always more important than complying with some law restricting my right to self defense.

I think in certain situations it could be a problem. If the shooters BAC level is very high and maybe no witnesses (like the GZ case) then the prosecutor attacks judgment? Says the threat was wrongly perceived by alcohol? In states where protections against civil litigation don't exist I would be more worried about a civil action. The standard of proof there is not based upon reasonable doubt, but rather a preponderance of the evidence, a much lower standard. often wondered if GZ had alcohol or even a little weed in his blood would the jury have hung?
.
Another hot spot is if the shooter misses the threat and hits an innocent. That person is gonna be pissed so I think a civil suit would result. If the innocent dies perhaps even criminal charges like manslaughter; the killing of a human being by the culpable negligence of another. Since the victim was not engaged in the altercation the shooting wouldn't qualify as Excusable Homicide.
.
Lots of people will have a drink while carrying their handgun. And when the law is silent on the subject it tells me they're apparently not causing a problem. They just need to be aware that prosecutors and personal injury attorneys might use that to their detriment. Otherwise, carry on.

 

[chilipeppernorm]

Back in post #8 I expressed my personal preference for alcohol and chemicals while carrying as well as my respect for the decisions of all on this forum to choose and take full responsibility as they will. Personally, I have a high tolerance for alcohol, drugs (prescription), and pain. My tendency under the influence is to be happy, jovial, and easy going and forgiving. None of this has any influence on my decision to be completely sober when handling or carrying of any loaded weapon by personal choice. Should my respected brothers and sisters on this forum all decide differently otherwise for whatever reason, God Bless. My sole concern is that whatever your opinion or that of family and friends of your alcohol or drug tolerance in relation to decision making will be moot in a court of law. You and they will simply be relegated to the status of character witness, while your prosecution may likely depend on scientific evidence of motor skill and cognitive degradation while under the influence and press their criminal or civil case as it may be before a group of 12 strangers who are supposed to be your peers. Bear in mind your freedom, finances, and the future of your family hangs in the balance. Chose as you will, I will not judge you regardless.

 

[apvbguy]

"draw" or "drawer?"

yup ya got me

 

[apvbguy]

I think in certain situations it could be a problem. If the shooters BAC level is very high and maybe no witnesses (like the GZ case) then the prosecutor attacks judgment? Says the threat was wrongly perceived by alcohol? In states where protections against civil litigation don't exist I would be more worried about a civil action. The standard of proof there is not based upon reasonable doubt, but rather a preponderance of the evidence, a much lower standard. often wondered if GZ had alcohol or even a little weed in his blood would the jury have hung?
.
Another hot spot is if the shooter misses the threat and hits an innocent. That person is gonna be pissed so I think a civil suit would result. If the innocent dies perhaps even criminal charges like manslaughter; the killing of a human being by the culpable negligence of another. Since the victim was not engaged in the altercation the shooting wouldn't qualify as Excusable Homicide.
.
Lots of people will have a drink while carrying their handgun. And when the law is silent on the subject it tells me they're apparently not causing a problem. They just need to be aware that prosecutors and personal injury attorneys might use that to their detriment. Otherwise, carry on.

and I've repeatedly stated that if I ever had a need to use deadly force I wouldn't really care what the law says, years in jail still beats years in a hospital bed or a dirt nap. YMMV

 

[BC1]

and I've repeatedly stated that if I ever had a need to use deadly force I wouldn't really care what the law says, years in jail still beats years in a hospital bed or a dirt nap. YMMV

I'm not worried about jail. I'm more worried about civil suits. Bastard lawyers.