Acasper708
New member
That's interesting cause. I just looked at your past few posts and pretty much all of them are arguments.
Like you must prove that you are all knowing.
Like you must prove that you are all knowing.
Restaurant Carry
- Thread starter njsportsman
- Start date
Acasper708
New member
I get it if u like to debate, but u really come off as a arrogant prick.
He does this on other forums too. Very Condescending, comes off as knowing of all things.
Would be nice if South Carolina would make this kind of change and separate the patronage of a restaurant, with incidental alcohol consumption, from the more ominous nature of a "bar" and its related type establishments.
BC1
,
A ridiculous argument. Most people can handle a drink or two while carrying a firearm. No different than driving as long as not abused. Doesn't really matter if a drink will result in criminal charges. It's the civil action which will have teeth. Remember, alcohol may affect judgment way before intoxication occurs.
.
That being said, why is it that "horrible" NYS has no laws against bars OR restaurant carry (or churches, or parades, or state/county fairs, or police stations, or government buildings, or hospitals, or banks, or mental health facilities)? Why are pro-gun states trampling rights like this?
.
That being said, why is it that "horrible" NYS has no laws against bars OR restaurant carry (or churches, or parades, or state/county fairs, or police stations, or government buildings, or hospitals, or banks, or mental health facilities)? Why are pro-gun states trampling rights like this?
I agree with what you say, but I find BOTH criminal and civil charges to be relevant. I believe, however, whether it is just "perception" or real, that if you visit a bar, you are there to drink; if you visit a restaurant, drinking is secondary. That still should not be within the venue of more nanny state and the government and a bunch of legislators who now have the final say. Just like driving, CC is a privilege given to you by the state with the assumption and the directive that you follow the laws that go along with that privilege. In driving it is 08 level in blood. For CC--same number?, lower number?, higher number? As far as I am concerned if you are 08 and cannot control a "weapon" that can kill, then it is good enough for being CC. You drunk, you drive, you should be punished--kill someone it is homicide--no difference for reckless firearm handling and decision while drunk. Civil actions will "finish off" your drunken travesty. Again, you say "bar" I say drink, you say "restaurant" I say eat. It is all about perception but it still should be your decision--we are not kids and this is not suppose to be nanny state.
vernsimpson
New member
You have just told me all I want to know about you!
apvbguy
New member
likewise, I have no need to be involved with closed minded twerps
BC1
,
Examples of what? That alcohol affects judgment?
.
MICHIGAN
.
DEARBORN: Police arrested drunken man for having loaded handgun
Published: Tuesday, December 17, 2013
.
By Joe Slezak
.
DEARBORN — A man, 30, who had a loaded 9 mm handgun and a valid concealed pistol license was arrested just after midnight Saturday on a charge of possessing a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. He was a back-seat passenger in a 2004 Chevrolet Impala that was pulled over on southbound Greenfield Road near Blesser for having a cracked windshield and because the front-seat passenger wasn’t wearing a seat belt. The man who was arrested told police about the gun and license, which police confiscated. Because he was unsteady on his feet, his speech was slurred and he smelled of alcohol, he was given a breath test. His blood-alcohol level was 0.19 percent, above the state’s 0.17 percent “super drunk” standard. His blood-alcohol level at the police station was 0.20 percent. Officers smelled marijuana in the car, but the driver, 30, said his brother used the car earlier and had been smoking the drug. Police didn’t find any marijuana. The driver was ticketed for having defective equipment and not having a valid license. The front-seat passenger, who had a valid license, was allowed to drive the car.
.
MI Law - Chapter 571, Weapons Offenses, Section 571.10 (7) Nothing in this subdivision authorizes any individual who has been issued a concealed carry permit or endorsement to possess any firearm while intoxicated;
.
TEXAS - The Wilder Law Firm
.
Drunk Driving Law on Concealed Handguns... If you are pulled over or arrested for driving while intoxicated, completing a sobriety test or facing a small fine may not always be the worst of your worries. Here in Texas, many people are able to carry concealed weapons as long as they carry a proper concealed weapons permit. However, if you are found carrying your handgun while also facing a DWI charge at the same time, you could be in some serious trouble if you do not take the proper steps. If you are someone who frequently travels with a concealed weapon, you must be aware that if you drive while you are intoxicated and you have your gun with you, there is a possibility that you could be charged with two very serious fines. First, of course, is driving while intoxicated (DWI). Second, you could be charged with Unlawful Carrying of Handgun by License Holder. The law in Texas states that “a license holder commits an offense if, while intoxicated, the license holder carries a handgun under the authority of Sub-chapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed.”
.
VIRGINIA
.
Section 18.2-308.012 - Any person permitted to carry a concealed handgun who is under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs while carrying such handgun in a public place is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
.
.
.
A civil action will have teeth in that should someone cause an injury with a gun while under the influence of alcohol they will likely face a criminal charge. Even if the use was thought to be lawful in defense of someone, the drunk is still charged under the alcohol statute. A lawsuit by an injured or aggrieved party will have teeth in that the tort need not be proven, only the damages. If the drunk is convicted of carrying while intoxicated a plaintiff in a civil action may file a motion for summary judgment. That means the tort (wrong) has already been proven in another court. In the event the actions of the drunk are egregious, willful, wonton and reckless, the element of intent is established. this allows a jury to treat the drunk as if the harm he caused was intentional... thus punitive damages. Has it happened? I don't know. Probably, considering the millions of cases that have passed through the courts. While I don't see a problem with a drink while carrying a gun I don't do it and would certainly financially take apart anyone who hurt me while under the influence. The legal cost of a defense in itself will break most people.
apvbguy
New member
what a shame, here in FLA none of those incidents would get a CWFL holder in trouble with the law because there is no provision in the law about drunken carrying, however if you draw or fire your weapon while intoxicated that would open up the carrier to many issues.
4 that chapter 571 in MI would never hold up to a challenge. the prohibition cannot be implied it has to be a written law.
BC1
,
I agree. Some states will call it reckless endangerment or some non-gun crime. NY doesn't have it under gun crimes. It's a reckless charge.
2
2Awarrior
Guest
My personal take? If you feel you must drive with under .08, at least the law is on your side.
But carrying? Absolute zero blood alcohol. None.
But carrying? Absolute zero blood alcohol. None.
It's difficult separating the law from advice. I understand that many people believe that one shouldn't carry if they've been drinking. I get that. I don't personally subscribe to that theory. I don't turn into a moron when I drink. I do however want to stay LEGAL. I live in SC, but spend a lot of time in GA. My personal reading of the law is ( I am not a lawyer):
In SC, no prohibition to carry if you've been drinking, however, can't drink IN A RESTAURANT while carrying. (Stupid law IMO, but at least it's better than it was.) you open yourself up to repercussions if you discharge a weapon WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE. The criteria seems to mirror driving under the influence.
In GA, drinking in a restaurant ok. Drinking in a bar requires owner's consent. Carrying with a BAC ok. Discharging your weapon opens yourself up to repercussions if not justified.
In FL, they have the stupid rule of the "bar area" of a restaurant, but otherwise, same as GA.
In NC, can't have ANY alcohol in your system. Also can't carry in any place that charges admission (another stupid rule.)
I would sincerely appreciate any corrections to this, because I certainly don't want my misinterpretation to cost me my CWPs. But I would also appreciate any rebuttal to be based on the actual words of the law, and not a person's belief of what the law should be or what they personally choose. I get that many people believe that one shouldn't carry if they've had a drink. And i respect that. But that's not what the law says in all cases.
And I really wish states could write laws that are easy to understand for the laymen who want to follow the law.
In SC, no prohibition to carry if you've been drinking, however, can't drink IN A RESTAURANT while carrying. (Stupid law IMO, but at least it's better than it was.) you open yourself up to repercussions if you discharge a weapon WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE. The criteria seems to mirror driving under the influence.
In GA, drinking in a restaurant ok. Drinking in a bar requires owner's consent. Carrying with a BAC ok. Discharging your weapon opens yourself up to repercussions if not justified.
In FL, they have the stupid rule of the "bar area" of a restaurant, but otherwise, same as GA.
In NC, can't have ANY alcohol in your system. Also can't carry in any place that charges admission (another stupid rule.)
I would sincerely appreciate any corrections to this, because I certainly don't want my misinterpretation to cost me my CWPs. But I would also appreciate any rebuttal to be based on the actual words of the law, and not a person's belief of what the law should be or what they personally choose. I get that many people believe that one shouldn't carry if they've had a drink. And i respect that. But that's not what the law says in all cases.
And I really wish states could write laws that are easy to understand for the laymen who want to follow the law.
apvbguy
New member
and put lawyers out of work?
New Threads
-
Recent TX Appeals Court declaration that ATF arm brace rule is unconstitutional
- Started by lw07
- Replies: 1
-
Hunter Constantine or Phlster Enigma, for running?
- Started by sigsag1
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
Members online
No members online now.