Guns in bars cause no problems [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Guns in bars cause no problems


W420Hunter
11-01-2011, 18:37
Headline: "Guns in bars cause no problems, local law officials say they have seen no real issues" (http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/8043)

mj9mm
11-01-2011, 18:52
some notable quotes in there, might be worth printing to use later as evidence.:cool:

wrenrj1
11-01-2011, 18:59
In my state, it's all about consumption. Don't consume while in a bar/restaurant while CCW. It's been the law since CCW was enacted. I agree with this.

A recent article of Nebraska's CCW law shows that CCW has not caused those problems the anti-gun crowed thought it would, also, they underestimated the number of CCW permits that would be issued.

BamaBud
11-02-2011, 15:58
In Alabama, most of our permits don't say anything about bars being off-limits (there are a few counties, read college towns, that the sheriff restricts bar carry).

Our state law only says you cannot be a "habitual drunkard."

So we have always had bar carry with few problems, and you can even consume without being illegal.

But we're probably just a bunch of redneck hillbillies down here.

W420Hunter
11-02-2011, 16:42
In Alabama, most of our permits don't say anything about bars being off-limits (there are a few counties, read college towns, that the sheriff restricts bar carry).

Our state law only says you cannot be a "habitual drunkard."

So we have always had bar carry with few problems, and you can even consume without being illegal.

But we're probably just a bunch of redneck hillbillies down here.

I know of a few states that have the same policy, and I have yet to hear of any issues.

Deus Neco
11-02-2011, 16:47
In Alabama, most of our permits don't say anything about bars being off-limits (there are a few counties, read college towns, that the sheriff restricts bar carry).

Our state law only says you cannot be a "habitual drunkard."

So we have always had bar carry with few problems, and you can even consume without being illegal.

But we're probably just a bunch of redneck hillbillies down here.

LMAO!! I just read a thread where they crucified the OP for using redneck and hillbilly in the same sentence to describe this Texas CHL trainer.:rofl:

michael e
11-02-2011, 16:50
My state doesn't allow carry in a bar or place that makes 51% or more off alchol sales. I only go to the bar about 1 x every 3 months, so not a real issue to me. As far as resturants and stores that sale we are fine to carry in so I am good.

vafish
11-02-2011, 17:00
Here in VA we just went a little over a year since our restaurant carry was allowed.

We have no bars in VA, only restaurants that serve alcohol.

Anyhow same story here, all the anti's claimed it would lead to blood in the streets. Actual incidents of firearms used in establishments that server alcohol has gone down.

wrenrj1
11-02-2011, 18:03
Our state law only says you cannot be a "habitual drunkard."

But we're probably just a bunch of redneck hillbillies down here.

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb87/wrenrj1/otiscampbell.jpg

Warp
11-02-2011, 18:47
In my state, it's all about consumption. Don't consume while in a bar/restaurant while CCW. It's been the law since CCW was enacted. I agree with this.


The states without the consumption limitation don't have problems either.

GiveMeLiberty
11-03-2011, 07:06
We are still fighting this in NC. The general assembly shot down the restaurant carry provision following fear-mongering tactics from hoplophobic leftists. You know, the people reciting the "guns & alcohol don't mix" mantra, while ignoring the fact that the law would still prohibit consumption of alcohol while carrying. As it is, to be legal we have to disarm before entering any restaurant that serves alcoholic beverages.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk

RMD
11-03-2011, 08:43
No law against carrying in bars here (CO) or even drinking while carrying (although you can't be "under the influence").

AFAIK, there's hasn't been any issues with CCers getting drunk and going crazy. We're generally a well behaved bunch :)

Spiffums
11-04-2011, 15:04
Headline: "Guns in bars cause no problems, local law officials say they have seen no real issues" (http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/8043)

They sure don't..... drunks in bars cause all the problems!

ChadN.
11-05-2011, 19:32
I know of a few states that have the same policy, and I have yet to hear of any issues.

Don't mention any of this to the Illinois policymakers, they'll think its all a lie.

Jim S.
11-06-2011, 11:41
Where I live there is a "biker bar" where most people open carry.
Everyone is very well behaved.
Who says bikers with guns are dangerous?

doktarZues
11-06-2011, 11:52
I always get the smack down here when I post on this topic but I'm so far unswayed; I've never liked guns in bars. I would like to think that I'm wise and mature enough now to handle it, but I can't say the same for when I was in the 21-23 range in the Army when I was power drinking several nights a week, or many other people I knew then and know now. The right mixture of booze and testosterone can escalate anything into about anything, even if you're not drinking. If you're not following me, think of an elbow to elbow "night club" opposed to the local saloon down the road--big difference.

Guns and alcohol don't mix..that is a truly "common sense" rule to live by that the vast majority of gun owners agree with..but since we're always going to have the village (or bar) idiot, it's on my short list of 2A related that I support legislating.

If you want to hang out with the drunks, "don't take your guns to town son, leave your guns at home Bill." Hell, even Johnny Cash knew better :)

Jim S.
11-06-2011, 11:59
So, because you think that some people can't handle it no one should be able to carry a gun in a bar?
I guess the people who think that no one should own a gun are right?

doktarZues
11-06-2011, 12:06
So, because you think that some people can't handle it no one should be able to carry a gun in a bar?
I guess the people who think that no one should own a gun are right?

I think it should be illegal for someone to bring a gun to a place whose primary source of revenue comes from getting people intoxicated. I do not think "the people who think that no one should own a gun" are right.

If you want to hang out with the drunks (very elective decision mind you), leave your gun at home.

ChadN.
11-06-2011, 12:22
No law against carrying in bars here (CO) or even drinking while carrying (although you can't be "under the influence").

AFAIK, there's hasn't been any issues with CCers getting drunk and going crazy. We're generally a well behaved bunch :)

Most, if not all, legal CCers I personally know are more patient and more respectful than most other people I know.

RussP
11-06-2011, 12:41
I always get the smack down here when I post on this topic but I'm so far unswayed; I've never liked guns in bars. I would like to think that I'm wise and mature enough now to handle it, but I can't say the same for when I was in the 21-23 range in the Army when I was power drinking several nights a week, or many other people I knew then and know now. The right mixture of booze and testosterone can escalate anything into about anything, even if you're not drinking. If you're not following me, think of an elbow to elbow "night club" opposed to the local saloon down the road--big difference.

Guns and alcohol don't mix..that is a truly "common sense" rule to live by that the vast majority of gun owners agree with..but since we're always going to have the village (or bar) idiot, it's on my short list of 2A related that I support legislating.

If you want to hang out with the drunks, "don't take your guns to town son, leave your guns at home Bill." Hell, even Johnny Cash knew better :)Do you go to bars now?

Brucev
11-06-2011, 12:48
I think it should be illegal for someone to bring a gun to a place whose primary source of revenue comes from getting people intoxicated. I do not think "the people who think that no one should own a gun" are right.

If you want to hang out with the drunks (very elective decision mind you), leave your gun at home.

To this I say... + 1

RussP
11-06-2011, 12:55
I think it should be illegal for someone to bring a gun to a place whose primary source of revenue comes from getting people intoxicated. I do not think "the people who think that no one should own a gun" are right.

If you want to hang out with the drunks (very elective decision mind you), leave your gun at home.

To this I say... + 1Do you go to bars yourself?

larry_minn
11-06-2011, 12:59
Last I heard MN allows you to drink and carry. IF your BAC is above .04 you are in trouble. (.08 is for driving UNLESS you are bus,taxi,transport.... for hire type driver.)

I recall yrs ago a friend of mine wound up with a loaded gun in a bar. (nobody had a permit) I realize thats impossible but criminals actually carry guns... The person carrying it got into a fight. He (kinda/sorta) had been friends with him yrs ago so he handed him his gun to hold while he fought.

I was told once fight was over he collected his shooting iron. I must admit it would have thrown me for a loop as well.

I don't mind the .04 limit. I do dislike the idea that in some states you are expected to KNOW how much money the place makes off of food/drink. (do you have to figure in the illegal drugs sold on property? How about how much the pimps take from call gals trolling for dates?

eb31
11-06-2011, 13:03
In my state, it's all about consumption. Don't consume while in a bar/restaurant while CCW. It's been the law since CCW was enacted. I agree with this.

A recent article of Nebraska's CCW law shows that CCW has not caused those problems the anti-gun crowed thought it would, also, they underestimated the number of CCW permits that would be issued.


Laws here in TN are same. Guns are allowed in bars and restaurants provided:

1. You do not consume ANY alcohol.
2. The establishment is not posted


And common sense says...if the owner asks you to leave, you should.

doktarZues
11-06-2011, 13:17
Do you go to bars yourself?

Occasionally I will do "wings and beer" with a few friends type of events, far from a bar hopper these days. Am I missing some type of empathy for people that drink all the time, or am I irresponsible for disarming myself to enjoy the occasional after work pitcher or two? Where are you going with this?

eb31
11-06-2011, 13:43
I don't think anyone with half a brain should bring a gun to a "bar". And I mean...pub, watering hole etc.

But...a restaurant that serves alcohol? I have no problem with.

RussP
11-06-2011, 14:10
Occasionally I will do "wings and beer" with a few friends type of events, far from a bar hopper these days. Am I missing some type of empathy for people that drink all the time, or am I irresponsible for disarming myself to enjoy the occasional after work pitcher or two? Where are you going with this?Where am I going? Just collecting information.

Warp
11-06-2011, 18:01
I always get the smack down here when I post on this topic but I'm so far unswayed; I've never liked guns in bars. I would like to think that I'm wise and mature enough now to handle it, but I can't say the same for when I was in the 21-23 range in the Army when I was power drinking several nights a week, or many other people I knew then and know now. The right mixture of booze and testosterone can escalate anything into about anything, even if you're not drinking. If you're not following me, think of an elbow to elbow "night club" opposed to the local saloon down the road--big difference.

Guns and alcohol don't mix..that is a truly "common sense" rule to live by that the vast majority of gun owners agree with..but since we're always going to have the village (or bar) idiot, it's on my short list of 2A related that I support legislating.

If you want to hang out with the drunks, "don't take your guns to town son, leave your guns at home Bill." Hell, even Johnny Cash knew better :)


And yet despite all of your worries it simply isn't a problem.

Your position is quite frankly exactly the same as the brady bunch saying that allowing people to carry guns will lead to shootouts on every streetcorner over parking spaces or road rage. It simply doesn't happen and you really ought to consider what actually happens...or doesn't...in the real world.


I don't think anyone with half a brain should bring a gun to a "bar". And I mean...pub, watering hole etc.

I don't think anyone with half a brain should tell me not to carry my gun when I go somewhere as the designated driver, or go to the local sports bar to watch a football game I cannot get on my TV, or...

SinCityGlocker
11-06-2011, 18:57
I don't think anyone with half a brain should bring a gun to a "bar". And I mean...pub, watering hole etc.

But...a restaurant that serves alcohol? I have no problem with.

I apparently have less than half a brain. I carry on a regular basis into bars and casinos. It is legal for me to drink while carrying and sometimes I do. Even encumbered by my 1/2 sized pea brain I have never gotten into a fight or just busted out with my iron and started spraying. It is odd because I constantly hear that this is the only possible conclusion to people possessing firearms within a nautical mile of an open alcohol container.

eb31
11-06-2011, 19:09
I apparently have less than half a brain. I carry on a regular basis into bars and casinos. It is legal for me to drink while carrying and sometimes I do.

Apparently so. You said it, not me.


Interesting that it would be legal ANYWHERE to carry while drinking.

I am 100% pro 2A..but carrying while drinking is plain retarded.

Warp
11-06-2011, 19:11
Apparently so. You said it, not me.


Interesting that it would be legal ANYWHERE to carry while drinking.

I am 100% pro 2A..but carrying while drinking is plain retarded.

And yet it is legal in many states and isn't a problem.

I've gone out to eat many times and had one drink, or part of a drink, with my dinner. Please tell me why I shouldn't be able to do that.

What is "plan retarded" about having one Mike's hard lemonade with my steak/potato or 1/2 of a small frozen margarita with my fajitas?

eb31
11-06-2011, 19:17
And yet it is legal in many states and isn't a problem.

I've gone out to eat many times and had one drink, or part of a drink, with my dinner. Please tell me why I shouldn't be able to do that.

Aww, look. How cute..a personal attack was edited. Don't be shy, stand by your first post.

By all means, do you. I'm not here to infringe on anyones rights. If it's legal where you are? Do it. And the one time you have alcohol in your system and are in a situation where you have to shoot someone....lol. Enjoy explaining to your kids (if you have any) why daddy won't be home for approx. the next 8 years.

All the best to ya hero.

Lmao.

Warp
11-06-2011, 19:26
Aww, look. How cute..a personal attack was edited. Don't be shy, stand by your first post.

By all means, do you. I'm not here to infringe on anyones rights. If it's legal where you are? Do it. And the one time you have alcohol in your system and are in a situation where you have to shoot someone....lol. Enjoy explaining to your kids (if you have any) why daddy won't be home for approx. the next 8 years.

All the best to ya hero.

Lmao.

Example of this happening, please.

I did not believe...still don't...that having a 0.01 BAC after leaving Don Pablos at 6:00 PM would have been a problem

eb31
11-06-2011, 19:50
Example of this happening, please.

I did not believe...still don't...that having a 0.01 BAC after leaving Don Pablos at 6:00 PM would have been a problem


Then more power too you. Not much else to say. Drink and carry! You're a big boy, do as you please. lol

HexHead
11-06-2011, 19:58
Laws here in TN are same. Guns are allowed in bars and restaurants provided:

1. You do not consume ANY alcohol.
2. The establishment is not posted


And common sense says...if the owner asks you to leave, you should.

And I've yet to hear of a single incident concerning a HCP holder since the law went into effect.

Warp
11-06-2011, 20:07
And I've yet to hear of a single incident concerning a HCP holder since the law went into effect.

Which is exactly what we expected, though it's always good to be proven correct, isn't it? :)

HarleyGuy
11-06-2011, 20:07
I don't think anyone with half a brain should bring a gun to a "bar". And I mean...pub, watering hole etc.

But...a restaurant that serves alcohol? I have no problem with.

While I agree with part of your opinion I must disagree with the other.

If person who is legally armed chooses to go into an establishment to socialize, eat or drink non-alcoholic beverages why should it make any difference how much of a percentage of the establishments sales comes from the sale of alcohol?

The vast majority of "bars" or "taverns" these days are similar to Fridays, Applebees or Bennigans.

I think it would be a much better idea if the establishments were allowed to make this decision by "posting" and their customers could then make their decisons as to where they wanted to eat and or drink.

Ohio just changed the law allowing those with concealed carry licenses to carry into bars (as other states already do) and there hasn't been any big news stories about shoot-outs in bars, at least that I'm aware of.

Sippo
11-08-2011, 11:51
I always get the smack down here when I post on this topic but I'm so far unswayed; I've never liked guns in bars. I would like to think that I'm wise and mature enough now to handle it, but I can't say the same for when I was in the 21-23 range in the Army when I was power drinking several nights a week, or many other people I knew then and know now. The right mixture of booze and testosterone can escalate anything into about anything, even if you're not drinking. If you're not following me, think of an elbow to elbow "night club" opposed to the local saloon down the road--big difference.

Guns and alcohol don't mix..that is a truly "common sense" rule to live by that the vast majority of gun owners agree with..but since we're always going to have the village (or bar) idiot, it's on my short list of 2A related that I support legislating.

If you want to hang out with the drunks, "don't take your guns to town son, leave your guns at home Bill." Hell, even Johnny Cash knew better :)

I agree with Johnny Cash, good advise I generally live by. Food for thought though.... It's already illegal to disturb the peace, assault your neighbor, and to commit homocide. Yet it didn't stop anyone in those bars you've talked about from doing what they do. The "village idiot" will still go into the bar packing heat. (whether legal or not) That just leaves the rest of us unarmed, law-abiding "idiots" a little behind the power curve if it hits the fan....

PAGunner
11-08-2011, 12:07
Aww, look. How cute..a personal attack was edited. Don't be shy, stand by your first post.

By all means, do you. I'm not here to infringe on anyones rights. If it's legal where you are? Do it. And the one time you have alcohol in your system and are in a situation where you have to shoot someone....lol. Enjoy explaining to your kids (if you have any) why daddy won't be home for approx. the next 8 years.

All the best to ya hero.

Lmao.

Legal to drink and carry in PA and NY, I know cops who carry and drink all the time, never heard of 1 issue because of it, good shoot is a good shoot. There was 1 story of an off-duty NYPD detective who had to shoot someone and was definitely intoxicated, but it was a good shoot, story made the paper but nothing ever came of it, because it was a good shoot.

I'm not much of a drinker, but I have carried while drinking, one of the few times I felt close to needing my weapon was during one of these times, damn glad I had it on me.

In FL, the state I live in now, .0001-.05 is a non issue, although it's not legal to carry in bars. .05-.10 may or may not be used against you depending on other factors if you need your weapon, over .1o you're presumed to be intoxicated and this evidence will be used against you if you have to shoot.

You shouldn't judge other people without walking in their shoes, you don't know warp, you don't know me. You don't know someone's level of maturity, how they handle alcohol or how much they value their life.

I don't drink much anymore, as I'm no longer in my early 20s and I'm way over that stage of my life, but if someone is mature enough to handle carrying and drinking a little bit and it's legal, there is no harm, nor will you see me judge them because of the way I 'feel'.

hockeyrcks9901
11-08-2011, 12:36
Legal to drink and carry in PA and NY, I know cops who carry and drink all the time, never heard of 1 issue because of it, good shoot is a good shoot. There was 1 story of an off-duty NYPD detective who had to shoot someone and was definitely intoxicated, but it was a good shoot, story made the paper but nothing ever came of it, because it was a good shoot.

I'm not much of a drinker, but I have carried while drinking, one of the few times I felt close to needing my weapon was during one of these times, damn glad I had it on me.

In FL, the state I live in now, .0001-.05 is a non issue, although it's not legal to carry in bars. .05-.10 may or may not be used against you depending on other factors if you need your weapon, over .1o you're presumed to be intoxicated and this evidence will be used against you if you have to shoot.

You shouldn't judge other people without walking in their shoes, you don't know warp, you don't know me. You don't know someone's level of maturity, how they handle alcohol or how much they value their life.

I don't drink much anymore, as I'm no longer in my early 20s and I'm way over that stage of my life, but if someone is mature enough to handle carrying and drinking a little bit and it's legal, there is no harm, nor will you see me judge them because of the way I 'feel'.

I think I've corrected you on this issue before. Florida makes no hard and fast rule on BAC while carrying. Might it be brought up in court? Certainly. But there is nothing in the statutes that defines a limit. In fact, I know there is a line that specifically states that a good shoot, is a good shoot no matter what your BAC is. You are looking at a part of the law that does not pertain to self defense. The part you are looking at (790.157) defines what intoxicated is with regards to firearms. 790.151 makes it illegal to use a firearm, for non-self-defense purposes while intoxicated, and then 790.157 defines what intoxicated is for that particular section. Read this paragraph below:

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.




As you can see by the bolded portions, in order to be violating the law, the weapon must be discharged, or in your hand, and you must not be exercising lawful self defense. Please stop spreading misinformation.

jpa
11-08-2011, 13:52
I don't think anyone with half a brain should bring a gun to a "bar". And I mean...pub, watering hole etc.

But...a restaurant that serves alcohol? I have no problem with.

So...Applebees or Fridays would be fine, but a local bar that also serves food wouldn't be? What is the distinguishing factor between the two? In your mind, in order to be "legal and proper" I would have to choose to eat Applebees' mediocre food over a local bar that has food that is exponentially better than theirs.

I apparently have less than half a brain. I carry on a regular basis into bars and casinos. It is legal for me to drink while carrying and sometimes I do. Even encumbered by my 1/2 sized pea brain I have never gotten into a fight or just busted out with my iron and started spraying. It is odd because I constantly hear that this is the only possible conclusion to people possessing firearms within a nautical mile of an open alcohol container.

So do I. Let's hang out and share a whole brain together! I carry pretty much everywhere I go in town, including all the major casinos on the Strip and downtown. I sit at the bar playing video blackjack and drinking free drinks while armed. Sometimes when I do this I swear if I listen carefully over the sound of the ice clinking in my drink glass I can hear people like eb31 wailing and screaming in agony because I'm carrying a gun in a "bar."

One of the issues that I don't think people who live outside of Las Vegas realize is that EVERY restaurant here is in a casino or is a bar and at the very least has some kind of gaming whether it's slots, video poker, or blackjack/keno. People like to drink and smoke while they gamble so for most of these places, the food and drink business is incidental while gaming is their biggest moneymaker. I frequent places like Steiners, Sierra Gold, PT's, The Lodge, Timbers, etc that by most standards would be considered a bar, but they also have pretty good food. I'm not going to subject myself to my own crappy cooking just to satisfy the few who think I'm going to turn into a homicidal maniac if I have a beer with my dinner while I'm out.

PAGunner
11-08-2011, 14:10
Hey Hockeyrcks, i'm a little confused how my interpretation of the law is different than your's? I agree with what you wrote, you seem to know the law well. My knowledge comes from carefully reading the packet sent with the CWFL when I first got it, I know that it relates to carrying a firearm, but if you're carrying and have to use it, all this would be fairgame from prosecution to bring up, to show you're irresponsible or whatever. I'm not spreading false info, but kudos to you for looking the statues up, shows you're well informed.

And my disclosure, I'm not a lawyer, I'm a doctor going through residency training, so perhaps you know more about the law than me, I don't claim to be an expert, just someone who read the statues in the packet provided to everyone with a CWFL in Florida.

RussP
11-08-2011, 14:55
Legal to drink and carry in PA and NY, I know cops who carry and drink all the time, never heard of 1 issue because of it, good shoot is a good shoot. There was 1 story of an off-duty NYPD detective who had to shoot someone and was definitely intoxicated, but it was a good shoot, story made the paper but nothing ever came of it, because it was a good shoot.

I'm not much of a drinker, but I have carried while drinking, one of the few times I felt close to needing my weapon was during one of these times, damn glad I had it on me.

In FL, the state I live in now, .0001-.05 is a non issue, although it's not legal to carry in bars. .05-.10 may or may not be used against you depending on other factors if you need your weapon, over .1o you're presumed to be intoxicated and this evidence will be used against you if you have to shoot.

You shouldn't judge other people without walking in their shoes, you don't know warp, you don't know me. You don't know someone's level of maturity, how they handle alcohol or how much they value their life.

I don't drink much anymore, as I'm no longer in my early 20s and I'm way over that stage of my life, but if someone is mature enough to handle carrying and drinking a little bit and it's legal, there is no harm, nor will you see me judge them because of the way I 'feel'.I think I've corrected you on this issue before. Florida makes no hard and fast rule on BAC while carrying. Might it be brought up in court? Certainly. But there is nothing in the statutes that defines a limit. In fact, I know there is a line that specifically states that a good shoot, is a good shoot no matter what your BAC is. You are looking at a part of the law that does not pertain to self defense. The part you are looking at (790.157) defines what intoxicated is with regards to firearms. 790.151 makes it illegal to use a firearm, for non-self-defense purposes while intoxicated, and then 790.157 defines what intoxicated is for that particular section. Read this paragraph below:

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.

As you can see by the bolded portions, in order to be violating the law, the weapon must be discharged, or in your hand, and you must not be exercising lawful self defense. Please stop spreading misinformation.Hey Hockeyrcks, i'm a little confused how my interpretation of the law is different than your's? I agree with what you wrote, you seem to know the law well. My knowledge comes from carefully reading the packet sent with the CWFL when I first got it, I know that it relates to carrying a firearm, but if you're carrying and have to use it, all this would be fairgame from prosecution to bring up, to show you're irresponsible or whatever. I'm not spreading false info, but kudos to you for looking the statues up, shows you're well informed.

And my disclosure, I'm not a lawyer, I'm a doctor going through residency training, so perhaps you know more about the law than me, I don't claim to be an expert, just someone who read the statues in the packet provided to everyone with a CWFL in Florida.hockeyrcks9901, I believe you are passing over the phrase lawful self-defense too quickly, and PAGunner is assigning more weight to the decision as to the legality of the situation.

First, all of the circumstances surrounding the shoot must be discovered and investigated. Did the shooter's level of intoxication influence his decision to shoot? That is a primary question investigators will ask. Did the level of intoxication cause the shooter to act as he/she did. Did the level of intoxication cause a misunderstanding of the intent of the one shot? There are lots and lots of similar questions that can be asked to determine if indeed it was legal self-defense shooting.Now, we aren't talking about a drug crazed, ax wielding, charging maniac. That would be an obvious good shoot. That is unless the intoxicated shooter provoked the ax wielding guy to turn into the charging maniac.

The law appears to be simple. but, that one phrase, "lawful self-defense", the determination of that one word, "lawful, that's what is going to be the big hurdle whose height intoxication may influence.

Jitterbug
11-08-2011, 15:10
Regardless of the locale, there just seems to be something about guns = polite, civil society.

Whereas the exact opposite also holds true.

Go figure....

Brucev
11-08-2011, 15:33
Do you go to bars yourself?

Routinely? No. But, from time to time I've been known to go into a bar, or more properly a restaurant that also has a bar or sells alcohol. I do not and never have drank alcohol. It is not part of my lifestyle. When I enter such an establishment, it is usually to share a meal with friends and family. I will mention that when eating at such a establishment I without fail leave a tip that is substantially beyond what might be the routine as I consider that the waiter/waitress will otherwise lose money since my part of the bill will be only for food.

It was Jesus who called his followers to be "fishers of men." And if one would reach lost men and women for Christ, one must go where lost men and women are found. I've also been known to go into liquor stores and ask permission to put up posters about upcoming revivals, etc., at our church. I have never been refused permission to put up such posters.

hockeyrcks9901
11-08-2011, 17:38
hockeyrcks9901, I believe you are passing over the phrase lawful self-defense too quickly, and PAGunner is assigning more weight to the decision as to the legality of the situation.

First, all of the circumstances surrounding the shoot must be discovered and investigated. Did the shooter's level of intoxication influence his decision to shoot? That is a primary question investigators will ask. Did the level of intoxication cause the shooter to act as he/she did. Did the level of intoxication cause a misunderstanding of the intent of the one shot? There are lots and lots of similar questions that can be asked to determine if indeed it was legal self-defense shooting.Now, we aren't talking about a drug crazed, ax wielding, charging maniac. That would be an obvious good shoot. That is unless the intoxicated shooter provoked the ax wielding guy to turn into the charging maniac.

The law appears to be simple. but, that one phrase, "lawful self-defense", the determination of that one word, "lawful, that's what is going to be the big hurdle whose height intoxication may influence.

Fair enough. I was kind of reading what he posted as being set defined limits for when you can and cannot carry or defend one's self.

The decision on whether or not a shooting was in self defense is irrelevant to the discussion about BAC and it's relation to carrying. BAC might (most likely would) effect the decision about whether or not a shooting was in self-defense but it does not relate to the act of carrying itself.

I totally agree that if one is going to drink while carrying, that it should be done with great care just because of the effects it would have on a court case.

RussP
11-08-2011, 18:54
The decision on whether or not a shooting was in self defense is irrelevant to the discussion about BAC and it's relation to carrying. BAC might (most likely would) effect the decision about whether or not a shooting was in self-defense but it does not relate to the act of carrying itself.Then why did you post the code relative to lawful self-defense?

hockeyrcks9901
11-10-2011, 10:28
Then why did you post the code relative to lawful self-defense?

I posted the entire 790.151 and highlighted the parts that defined what using a firearm while under influence was defined as. Highlighting the sections that shows that carrying a firearm was not illegal no matter what the BAC carriers is. The law defined "using" has having it in your hand and I clarified that there was an exception for lawful self defense.

So, while it is illegal to "use" a firearm while under the influence, carrying is not using and neither is lawful self defense.

Warp
11-10-2011, 13:46
I posted the entire 790.151 and highlighted the parts that defined what using a firearm while under influence was defined as. Highlighting the sections that shows that carrying a firearm was not illegal no matter what the BAC carriers is. The law defined "using" has having it in your hand and I clarified that there was an exception for lawful self defense.

So, while it is illegal to "use" a firearm while under the influence, carrying is not using and neither is lawful self defense.

That's what I recall reading. :thumbsup:

hockeyrcks9901
11-11-2011, 12:04
That's what I recall reading. :thumbsup:

I'm confused. :dunno:

Was that meant as a dig? Yes, I did go back and verify that I posted what I thought I posted. If I didn't post what I thought I posted, I would have admitted it. I have done that many times before...meant to post one thing and posted something totally different. (Now I'm really confused...was that paragraph a tongue twister or what?)

It's all good.

In simple terms, I was merely trying to correct PAGunner when he stated that FL defines a limit on BAC while carrying. Nothing more, nothing less.

Warp
11-11-2011, 12:09
I'm confused. :dunno:

Was that meant as a dig?


No .

jpa
11-14-2011, 10:00
I don't think anyone with half a brain should bring a gun to a "bar". And I mean...pub, watering hole etc.

But...a restaurant that serves alcohol? I have no problem with.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/One-dead-after-shooting--133802848.html

Good thing everyone follows the rules. After all, nobody needs a gun in a bar, right? Because shootings never happen in bars. Somehow I'm not thinking this incident was a CCW permit holder who got angry his vodka tonic sat empty too long....

TangoFoxtrot
11-16-2011, 08:41
Headline: "Guns in bars cause no problems, local law officials say they have seen no real issues" (http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/8043)

I totally disagree. Some folks when they drink shouldn't be allowed a water gun let alone a real gun. ..Booze + idiots+ guns = trouble

hamster
11-16-2011, 08:52
I think it should be illegal for someone to bring a gun to a place whose primary source of revenue comes from getting people intoxicated. I do not think "the people who think that no one should own a gun" are right.

If you want to hang out with the drunks (very elective decision mind you), leave your gun at home.


I don't know where you live and/or grew up, but there mere presence or consumption of alcohol does not automatically mean everyone is going to get drunk out of their minds and erupt into a bar fight.

The article is from my home state of Ohio, where the law states that the person carrying into the bar may not drink a single drop. Guns and alcohol are NOT mixing.

I like to go to with my family to a local sports bar/grille that serves both alcohol and food. I don't know what their revenue figures look like, I'm not their accountant, but based on the pricing and the volume the percentage of alcohol revenue over food revenue could be 51% to 49%.

Does that mean that the sole purpose people go to this place is to get "intoxicated?" Is it not possible for a responsible unarmed citizen to go into a bar and drink a single beer after work while eating chicken wings and watching a game?

Furthermore, if I am in that establishment eating wings and sipping my diet coke, am I suddenly a danger to society because some guy across the building happens to be drinking an apple-tini?


The implication that nobody can be responsible with or around alcohol smacks of prohibitionist nonsense. I agree nobody should drink and carry, but to just smack a ban on any restaurant that makes more than 50% of it's revenue on drinks is crazy IMO.

RussP
11-16-2011, 09:31
http://www.lvrj.com/news/One-dead-after-shooting--133802848.html

Good thing everyone follows the rules. After all, nobody needs a gun in a bar, right? Because shootings never happen in bars. Somehow I'm not thinking this incident was a CCW permit holder who got angry his vodka tonic sat empty too long....Turns out this was a domestic violence shooting, not some guy getting drunk at the bar, pulling his pistol and blasting the bartender.

Read the linked story again. There are more details.

sns3guppy
11-16-2011, 11:08
So, because you think that some people can't handle it no one should be able to carry a gun in a bar?
I guess the people who think that no one should own a gun are right?

Leading, non sequitur, and irrelevant. How did you go from being opposed to drinking and carrying a firearm, to denial of a right to carry firearms? At least shoot for apples to apples.

If one undertakes to impair one's judgment (alcohol always does this; it does not enhance reaction or judgment, and the impaired always thinks his or her behavior and judgement is better than it really is), one shouldn't be so stupid as to carry a firearm.

To say "look, nothing happened," is not logic. It's false logic. By the same level of logic, one could fire a rifle down mainstreet and when nobody gets hurt, admonish that it's okay to fire rifles down mainstreet. After all, nobody get hurt. One wouldn't place a revolver to someone's forehead, press the trigger, and when a discharge doens't happen, assert "it's okay, nothing happened," and use that as evidence that one can continue with such stupidity in the future. One wouldn't do it ten time and make that assertion. One wouldn't drive drunk and then establish that driving drunk is okay, on the basis that nobody got hurt yet.

Drunk drivers kill more people annually on the highway than ten years of fighting took US lives, in Vietnam. That's horrible. We know that drinking impairs judgment. People tend to be very forgiving when it comes to the actions of a drunk. "He doesn't know what he's doing." "Give him a break, he's been drinking." This is largely because alcohol is a social drug; it's the most abused drug in the United States, and as so many people use and abuse this drug, most are quick to identify with the drinker. In fact, many are quick to raise suspicions about anyone that doesn't drink.

How many shooters feel that if they're going to go to the bar, they should have one or two rounds removed from their cylinder or magazine for each drink they consume? Doesn't make sense, you say? What about a certain degree of judgement being impaired for each drink consumed? You seem perfectly willing to let that get taken away. "Here, take my judgement," you say, "but leave me my firearm an ammunition. I may need that later."

If you're going to drink, fine. That's your choice. Start drinking, then you have other responsible choices to make. Among them, giving up you car keys. You elected to surrender your wits and your senses and your judgment, to say nothing of your reaction time and ability. That comes at a cost. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. Carrying firearms, while legal in some locations, really dovetails with that economy very well. Give up judgement on a voluntary basis by electing to drink, then you should give up your firearm, as well.

I've known a number of individuals who did stupid things while drinking. If you don't, you've probably lived your life in a fallout shelter. I've known individuals who had some drinks then shot up their car. Alcohol is involved in a LOT of domestic violence, including shootings. There is a significant connection, in fact, between alcohol and injuries, deaths, crime, and other negatives. On that note, you can't prove a negative, so statements such as "nothing happened" do NOTHING to prove that drinking and carrying is a wise idea. Nothing. It's mindless logic. Drunk logic, really.

I've bee on the receiving end of the muzzle of a drunk with a weapon. I wasn't impressed, nor delighted with their impaired decision making. They came perilously close to losing their life, as did I. Drinking and firearms do NOT mix.

Drinking and carrying, much less drinking and shooting, is idiotic and foolish. For those who will quickly respond that they're carrying, not shooting, then tell me why you're carrying in the first place if you're not prepared to shoot? The fact is that if you sacrifice your speed, your judgement, your skill, your ability, your reaction time, or any part thereof, you have no place carrying a firearm. It's one thing to be tired at the end of a patrol and want to go home, when the last car of the night decides to start something. It's entirely different to choose to sacrifice one's faculties by taking drugs (alcohol, the most used and abused drug, remember).

If you want to go to a bar, or you want to go drink at dinner, leave the firearm aside. Let someone else be the designated shooter, if you like. Show some maturity and responsibility, and stop making excuses. No matter what excuse is fielded, drinking and operating machinery, or putting one's self in a position to do so (including the use of a firearm) is a stupid act. Don't be stupid. If you drink, leave the guns home.

hamster
11-16-2011, 11:37
Excellent points! However, please don't conflate carrying in a bar and drinking. In the case of the opening post, in Ohio the person carrying is not allowed to drink.

I think the argument here is guns in bars, not carry while intoxicated. They are very different discussions.


Leading, non sequitur, and irrelevant. How did you go from being opposed to drinking and carrying a firearm, to denial of a right to carry firearms? At least shoot for apples to apples.

If one undertakes to impair one's judgment (alcohol always does this; it does not enhance reaction or judgment, and the impaired always thinks his or her behavior and judgement is better than it really is), one shouldn't be so stupid as to carry a firearm.

To say "look, nothing happened," is not logic. It's false logic. By the same level of logic, one could fire a rifle down mainstreet and when nobody gets hurt, admonish that it's okay to fire rifles down mainstreet. After all, nobody get hurt. One wouldn't place a revolver to someone's forehead, press the trigger, and when a discharge doens't happen, assert "it's okay, nothing happened," and use that as evidence that one can continue with such stupidity in the future. One wouldn't do it ten time and make that assertion. One wouldn't drive drunk and then establish that driving drunk is okay, on the basis that nobody got hurt yet.

Drunk drivers kill more people annually on the highway than ten years of fighting took US lives, in Vietnam. That's horrible. We know that drinking impairs judgment. People tend to be very forgiving when it comes to the actions of a drunk. "He doesn't know what he's doing." "Give him a break, he's been drinking." This is largely because alcohol is a social drug; it's the most abused drug in the United States, and as so many people use and abuse this drug, most are quick to identify with the drinker. In fact, many are quick to raise suspicions about anyone that doesn't drink.

How many shooters feel that if they're going to go to the bar, they should have one or two rounds removed from their cylinder or magazine for each drink they consume? Doesn't make sense, you say? What about a certain degree of judgement being impaired for each drink consumed? You seem perfectly willing to let that get taken away. "Here, take my judgement," you say, "but leave me my firearm an ammunition. I may need that later."

If you're going to drink, fine. That's your choice. Start drinking, then you have other responsible choices to make. Among them, giving up you car keys. You elected to surrender your wits and your senses and your judgment, to say nothing of your reaction time and ability. That comes at a cost. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. Carrying firearms, while legal in some locations, really dovetails with that economy very well. Give up judgement on a voluntary basis by electing to drink, then you should give up your firearm, as well.

I've known a number of individuals who did stupid things while drinking. If you don't, you've probably lived your life in a fallout shelter. I've known individuals who had some drinks then shot up their car. Alcohol is involved in a LOT of domestic violence, including shootings. There is a significant connection, in fact, between alcohol and injuries, deaths, crime, and other negatives. On that note, you can't prove a negative, so statements such as "nothing happened" do NOTHING to prove that drinking and carrying is a wise idea. Nothing. It's mindless logic. Drunk logic, really.

I've bee on the receiving end of the muzzle of a drunk with a weapon. I wasn't impressed, nor delighted with their impaired decision making. They came perilously close to losing their life, as did I. Drinking and firearms do NOT mix.

Drinking and carrying, much less drinking and shooting, is idiotic and foolish. For those who will quickly respond that they're carrying, not shooting, then tell me why you're carrying in the first place if you're not prepared to shoot? The fact is that if you sacrifice your speed, your judgement, your skill, your ability, your reaction time, or any part thereof, you have no place carrying a firearm. It's one thing to be tired at the end of a patrol and want to go home, when the last car of the night decides to start something. It's entirely different to choose to sacrifice one's faculties by taking drugs (alcohol, the most used and abused drug, remember).

If you want to go to a bar, or you want to go drink at dinner, leave the firearm aside. Let someone else be the designated shooter, if you like. Show some maturity and responsibility, and stop making excuses. No matter what excuse is fielded, drinking and operating machinery, or putting one's self in a position to do so (including the use of a firearm) is a stupid act. Don't be stupid. If you drink, leave the guns home.

sns3guppy
11-16-2011, 11:49
I think the argument here is guns in bars, not carry while intoxicated. They are very different discussions.

True.

Warp
11-16-2011, 11:55
idiots = trouble

I edited your post down to the important aspect


If you want to go to a bar, or you want to go drink at dinner, leave the firearm aside. Let someone else be the designated shooter, if you like.

Or...go to a bar and be the designated driver/shooter.

Jollymann
11-16-2011, 11:55
In my state, it's all about consumption. Don't consume while in a bar/restaurant while CCW. It's been the law since CCW was enacted. I agree with this.

A recent article of Nebraska's CCW law shows that CCW has not caused those problems the anti-gun crowed thought it would, also, they underestimated the number of CCW permits that would be issued.

We have the same deal here in Arizona. However I disagree. Who the hell is anyone in the state to say that I can't have a couple of beers just because I'm packing? What, we have no right to armed self-defense just because of a freaking beer? That's total bull ****! This would of been unheard off in old west times. Also, there is a distincton made between a permit holder, and a simple Constitutional Carry routine here. The permit holder is legal, and those who detest permits have to play it super secret in violation. Even just to go in, not even drinking at all. If the business doesbn't want armed types in their place, fine. They lose all the armed business and they get to have it posted about. They lose, we lose. But for the state to infringe on the right over idiotic theories for public safety, which is none of the kind, then that's infringment, pure and simple!

Other states like New Hampshire seemed to have this worked out better. No infringment for bars, even open carry there.

DMJ Tucson, AZ

sns3guppy
11-16-2011, 12:12
Or...go to a bar and be the designated driver/shooter.

Fine, so long as you're not the one drinking.

However I disagree.

Nice, but irrelevant. You may not like the law, but you can always petition to have it changed, or run for office and work actively from within to change the law. Until then, your approval of the law does nothing to change it.

Who the hell is anyone in the state to say that I can't have a couple of beers just because I'm packing?

There you go. "Take away my judgement, but leave my my firearm and ammunition."

Surely you're not about to suggest that alcohol doesn't diminish judgement, reason, reaction time, and ability?

I've heard a lot of drunks tell me "it's just been a couple of beers."

If you elect to take drugs (alcohol is a drug) that diminish your faculties, then be an adult and give up your car keys and your firearms. Stop making excuses.

What, we have no right to armed self defense just because of a freaking beer?

Pick up one end of the stick, you pick up the other. Who put the gun to your head and made you have that beer?

What's next? Airline pilots arguing that "we have no right to fly passengers because of a freaking beer?" Surgeons arguing that "we have no right to operate because of a freaking beer?" These things require judgement and the ability to use one's full capacity, just as does the responsibility of owning and carrying deadly weapons. Again, stop making excuses.

Who decided to have that beer? You're whining that others are telling you what you can and can't do. You made that call when you put the mug to your lips or cracked the seal on the can, and began to drink. Don't blame the state. Don't blame the law. Blame yourself. The fact that you argue the point shows you don't have the good judgement to make the call in the first place; hence, the law in place to do it for you.

That's total bull ****! This would of been unheard off in old west times.

You'd rather we returned to living in the old west? We should have a gunfight on mainstreet, hangings on Saturday, one cop in town, and settle arguments with a gun? You want your teeth drilled by a 1850's dentist, no antibiotics, and a horse instead of a car? Shall we go back to refusing women the right to vote, lynching blacks, and civil war? How about we start fighting with native Americans again? What kind of convoluted logic are you possibly trying to proffer when you attempt to justify drinking and carrying firearms (or in your case, drinking and shooting firearms, as you're asserting the right to self defense), by suggesting that's the way it was done in the "old west?"

A lot of things were unheard of in old west times, incidentally. Helicopters, decent medical care, frozen foods, ambulance service, computers, indoor plumbing and toilets, and a host of other things that have been rectified, improved, or fixed today. With any luck, we won't be returning to the old west any time soon.

W420Hunter
11-16-2011, 12:16
I totally disagree. Some folks when they drink shouldn't be allowed a water gun let alone a real gun. ..Booze + idiots+ guns = trouble

See the problem is your using your feelings to disagree not FACTS. Show me one news story about a man with a CCW and you will have a point. Till then your argument has no more ground then the left screaming that every bar is going to be a blood bath. And for that matter the kind of people you are talking about tend to pick fights even if they do not have guns, so the chances are they would never get a CCW to start with.

Warp
11-16-2011, 12:19
Show me one news story about a man with a CCW and you will have a point.

And even if (when) that happens it will be a very small point considering the numbers. One out of how many millions of times isn't much to worry about.

RussP
11-16-2011, 12:21
...And for that matter the kind of people you are talking about tend to pick fights even if they do not have guns, so the chances are they would never get a CCW to start with.Why exactly would they not get a license/permit to carry?

sns3guppy
11-16-2011, 12:23
See the problem is your using your feelings to disagree not FACTS. Show me one news story about a man with a CCW and you will have a point.

That's nearly as nonsensical as wanting to return to the old west.

You can't prove a negative.

"Here's the intersection of fourth and main, where a car accident did not take place at four o' clock this afternoon."

"I'm coming to you live from the doorway of Elk's Electronics, where a shooting didn't happen ten minutes ago."

"Breaking news, we've conclusively determined that the earth will never be hit by a meteor capable of causing catastrophic results because we haven't seenit happen yet."

"Carrying and drinking are just fine, because nobody got hurt yet."

All ridiculous, pointless logic that is the absence of proof. None represent proof. In fact, by asserting that you must be right because a disaster hasn't happened yet isn't a fact; it's the absence of fact by which you attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

What IS a fact is that alcohol impairs judgement. This is not in dispute and is well established. Give up your judgement, then you need to set aside your weapons until you are no longer impaired. Anything less is very, very irresponsible (and in some locations, criminal).

When you do get into a shooting and you have alcohol in your system, in what world do you think that's going to help your case in the criminal investigation or civil suit that follows?

TangoFoxtrot
11-16-2011, 12:32
See the problem is your using your feelings to disagree not FACTS. Show me one news story about a man with a CCW and you will have a point. Till then your argument has no more ground then the left screaming that every bar is going to be a blood bath. And for that matter the kind of people you are talking about tend to pick fights even if they do not have guns, so the chances are they would never get a CCW to start with.

It has nothing to do with personal feelings ..read it again Booze + idiots + Guns = Trouble.

Warp
11-16-2011, 12:32
"Breaking news, we've conclusively determined that the earth will never be hit by a meteor capable of causing catastrophic results because we haven't seenit happen yet."

Um...yes, it has...

You may want to check your facts next time


BTW: Intelligent, reasoning, logical people realize that the fact nothing has happened, that we know of, despite literally millions (likely) of opportunities is a relevant fact.

Also, most people won't make something illegal because there is a 1 in 5 million chance one person will make a bad decision as a result. No, I don't know if 1 in 5 million is the number. But if you feel like you have a better number, go for it.

sns3guppy
11-16-2011, 12:55
Um...yes, it has...

You may want to check your facts next time

Yes, I realize the earth has been hit with meteorites, and I realize that cataclysmic changes are believed to have taken place, but that's really the point, isn't it? There are ample cases of people using alcohol who have caused death and destruction with firearms. One attempts to limit the field by saying "well, show me a CCW holder who's done it," and then tries to draw a conclusion by suggesting that "it hasn't happened, so it won't." This is nonsensical, and ridiculous. It's poor justification, at best.

The sun hasn't gone supernova, so it won't. Bad logic.

The dog hasn't wet on the carpet, so that won't happen. False logic.

We know alcohol impairs judgement, but it's okay because it hasn't resulted in death by a CCW holder on a Thurday between the hours of six and eight in the evening in Delaware, yet. Fools logic.

Yet, yet, yet.

Why wear a reserve parachute if one's main parachute hasn't malfunctioned yet? Because it might.

Why have a designated driver if a drinker hasn't crashed his car yet? Because he might.

Why really doesn't need to be asked, nor justification made, however, because the FACT (not silly false logic) is that alcohol impairs, period. Give up your judgement, then give up your firearm until that judgement returns. You really shouldn't need a law to tell you that, should you? Unfortunately, many do.

Simply because something hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it's okay. Having made it home from the bar in your car the last 20 times doesn't mean it's okay to go for number 21. It was stupid and wrong the first 20 times. 21 doesn't make it right.

Carry and drink ten thousand times, and it doesn't change the fact that it's still wrong, simply because nobody got hurt or killed. Attempting to justify it with twisted logic that runs the gamut from personal outrage to comparisons with the old west doesn't change a thing. It's wrong, and remains wrong.

Again, see how it helps you when you appear in court, to explain your alcohol consumption before the shooting. It will do wonders for you on the stand, and everyone will be very impressed. Look, there's the man who elected to give up his judgement and killed someone, but hey, he was just asserting his right to defend himself...drunk. Good show.

BTW: Intelligent, reasoning, logical people realize that the fact nothing has happened, that we know of, despite literally millions (likely) of opportunities is a relevant fact.

No, it's not a fact, and though millions might try to justify their bad actions by attempting to prove a negative, it's not sound logic; is, however, delusional.

Warp
11-16-2011, 13:05
"well, show me a CCW holder who's done it,"

Still waiting on that.

I've been waiting for years

Maybe you'll be the one guy who finally finds an example?

The brady bunch say that allowing guns to be carried, or guns in cars, will lead to road rage shootouts on street corners. And you know what? It has actually happened. Should we outlaw the carrying of guns because that can happen? No need to answer, this is just stating the obvious...which is that your argument is no different.


BTW: Nobody said it won't happen. But if one person one time in one place does that is not justification for making it illegal for everybody else everywhere else at all times. That just isn't how it works.

W420Hunter
11-16-2011, 13:15
Why exactly would they not get a license/permit to carry?

People like that start fights at the drop of the hat. People who start fights all the time have a criminal record. People with a criminal record do not get a CCW. Clear enough for you?

W420Hunter
11-16-2011, 13:17
It has nothing to do with personal feelings ..read it again Booze + idiots + Guns = Trouble.

Until you offer facts to back it up then there is no proof so its just your opinion and hence your feelings.

sns3guppy
11-16-2011, 13:22
I've been waiting for years

That's very special of you, but also very irrelevant.

Let's imagine that you and I sit opposite one another at a table, and I place a revolver to your forehead. You don't know if it's loaded, or if it's not. You can't look at the cylinder. I press the trigger, you hear a click. I do it again. I do it again, and again. Is it okay to keep doing that, simply because nothing has happened? Am I justified because failure of the weapon to discharge must prove to be a conclusive "fact" that it's okay, nobody got hurt?

Of course not.

I'm not justified in doing something like that. It's irresponsible, and it's wrong. If I press that trigger hundreds of times and nothing happens, it will still be wrong. It will be bad practice, improper, and dangerous. People are hurt or killed by "unloaded" weapons with some regularity. It's for this reason that we tend to observe strict practices with respect to handling.

It's an interesting thing to be living in a combat zone and not be allowed to have a chambered round in one's weapon while on base. One must clear the weapon upon returning to the base perimeter, and one may not charge the weapon until leaving. Even on bases where explosives are found and kidnappings are taking place, where every single person who has a weapon is proficient at carriage, and use of that weapon, and most are recognized as "expert" marksmen or shooters. This isn't a silly little rule; it's US military practice and policy. These are shooters, soldiers who aren't drinking.

Now segue into the bar where people are sacrificing their speed, their judgement, their skill, their ability, and are consuming drugs; alcohol. You want these people to carry their weapons, and seem to believe it's perfectly fine to give up the faculties, but not the firearms or ammunition.

I asked before: are you willing to part with several rounds of your ammunition with each drink? No? You're willing to part with judgement, just not your weapons and ammunition. "Take my judgement; I give it up voluntarily. Just don't leave me my deadly force, my weapon, and my ammo. I'm good."

Brilliant. So much for the intelligent, reasoning, logical people. Such logic falls flat in the light of day.

People with a criminal record do not get a CCW. Clear enough for you?

More false logic. Someone who has no criminal record isn't capable of a criminal act? How about a stupid one?

Just a few years ago the holder of a FFDO authorization, an airline pilot, managed to shoot a hole through the side of the airplane, in flight, in the cockpit. This is an individual entrusted with operating thirty million dollar machine, who isn't intoxicated, who has a high degree of technical training, to say nothing of education. Additionally, despite a background check with the government and his employer, specific training about that specific weapon and carriage, he still had a negligent discharge. Years ago another crew member went ballistic and attacked the flying crew with a speargun and a ball-peen hammer. Having an authorization or a lack of a criminal history doesn't prove anything; it simply means one either hasn't been caught, or hasn't committed the crime yet. It doesn't mean one won't.

Until you offer facts to back it up then there is no proof so its just your opinion and hence your feelings.

Back it up? No need to back up the fact that alcohol impairs and alters judgement, skill, reasoning, and ability. That is fact.

The idea that because it hasn't happened yet, it won't isn't fact. It's a false logic attempt to prove a negative, which cannot be done.

People who start fights all the time have a criminal record.

Some people who start fights have a criminal record. Everyone who has a criminal record had a first time, however. In the case of a gunfight, all it takes is once.

Holding a CCW is no guarantee. They're easy to get, require no significant background check (a NCIC and criminal history check or wants check isn't a background check; it's a wave at doing a check that's bordering on insignificant). You seem to be asserting that one who holds a CCW cant' or wont' commit a crime, or do something stupid. You can't prove what hasn't happened, nor should you try. Attempting do so is screwing your logic into a hole in the ground; it's going nowhere. You can't prove a negative.

Whether it's happened or not isn't relevant. Intentionally diminishing one's capacities isn't the time to be holding, handling, or carrying a firearm.

Warp
11-16-2011, 13:23
People like that start fights at the drop of the hat. People who start fights all the time have a criminal record. People with a criminal record do not get a CCW. Clear enough for you?


Maybe I wasn't following along very well, but can you explain the whole thing around this?

W420Hunter
11-16-2011, 13:26
That's nearly as nonsensical as wanting to return to the old west.

You can't prove a negative.

"Here's the intersection of fourth and main, where a car accident did not take place at four o' clock this afternoon."

"I'm coming to you live from the doorway of Elk's Electronics, where a shooting didn't happen ten minutes ago."

"Breaking news, we've conclusively determined that the earth will never be hit by a meteor capable of causing catastrophic results because we haven't seenit happen yet."

"Carrying and drinking are just fine, because nobody got hurt yet."

All ridiculous, pointless logic that is the absence of proof. None represent proof. In fact, by asserting that you must be right because a disaster hasn't happened yet isn't a fact; it's the absence of fact by which you attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

What IS a fact is that alcohol impairs judgement. This is not in dispute and is well established. Give up your judgement, then you need to set aside your weapons until you are no longer impaired. Anything less is very, very irresponsible (and in some locations, criminal).

When you do get into a shooting and you have alcohol in your system, in what world do you think that's going to help your case in the criminal investigation or civil suit that follows?

IDK where to start in this nonsensical quagmire. Under you logic just b/c you have not killed any one does not mean you never will. Your right there is always the chance for trouble. But that is just part of life. Whats next we ban pool sticks from bars b/c come ******* might use it as a weapon? Banning the mass's b/c of what the few might due had been the cornerstone of the gun grab move for years.
And you have a point about the shooting. But in the end I still say its better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6.

W420Hunter
11-16-2011, 13:30
Maybe I wasn't following along very well, but can you explain the whole thing around this?

The argument is as I understand it, is that it should not be allowed b/c there are idiots out there that over react and start trouble. But its those types of people who start fights and in general tend to have a criminal record b/c they are idiots who start fights.

RussP
11-16-2011, 13:54
The argument is as I understand it, is that it should not be allowed b/c there are idiots out there that over react and start trouble. But its those types of people who start fights and in general tend to have a criminal record b/c they are idiots who start fights.People like that start fights at the drop of the hat. People who start fights all the time have a criminal record. People with a criminal record do not get a CCW. Clear enough for you?And you know this to be true 100% of the time?

W420Hunter
11-16-2011, 14:10
And you know this to be true 100% of the time?

But once again your using the very logic of the left. B/c we cant be sure of what will happen then no one should be able to.

sns3guppy
11-16-2011, 14:13
Under you logic just b/c you have not killed any one does not mean you never will.

Yes, in fact, that's a true statement. It's not my "logic." It's the truth. Simply because something has not happened, does not mean it won't.

Do you not understand this?

The argument is as I understand it, is that it should not be allowed b/c there are idiots out there that over react and start trouble. But its those types of people who start fights and in general tend to have a criminal record b/c they are idiots who start fights.

Therefore, so long as nobody in the room has a criminal record, all is good; is that it?

I don't think you understand the argument very well at all.

Whether someone starts a fight or not isn't necessarily germane either.

When you appear in court after the shooting, whether you think it was a righteous shoot or justified or not, how well will you look to a judge and jury when it's shown that you were drinking at the time of the incident?

Get into a gunfight, you're in for the worst time of your life, even on a good day. There's a high probability you're going to be sued, and you may face criminal sanctions. What's your defense to having consumed alcohol prior to the shoot?

You may not have a criminal record, but you've certainly shown pathetically poor judgement at that point, and you can bet that will be used against you. You'll have very little defense, too.

And you have a point about the shooting. But in the end I still say its better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6.

Ah, the old redneck mantra that excuses carrying when one ought not. I thought you might bring that up.

It's better to be judged sober by 12, than judged by 12 after you've been consuming alcohol.

Then again, if you weren't drinking, you might not be in that situation to begin with. If the trouble starts at the bar, you won't be in that trouble if you're not in the bar drinking, will you?

If you're on the way home when it happens, hopefully you've been intelligent enough to let someone else do the driving. If that's the case, why were you not intelligent enough to let someone else do the carrying? Is it not okay to drive drunk, but it is okay to carry drunk? You don't see the foul logic in this?

Whats next we ban pool sticks from bars b/c come ******* might use it as a weapon? Banning the mass's b/c of what the few might due had been the cornerstone of the gun grab move for years.

More redneck logic. Nobody is trying to "gun grab" or eliminate your constitutional right. You don't have a constitutional right to drink and carry. You don't have a constitutional right to drink for that matter either, or to have or not have a pool cue. You do have a constitutional right to bear arms, although this also comes with limitations and responsibilities. It's anticipated that you'll exercise good judgement and won't do stupid things with firearms. Carrying firearms while consuming drugs and alcohol isn't good judgement, and is stupid. You don't have a constitutional right to be stupid, nor to drink and carry firearms.

Since when did you use your firearm to hit billiard balls in a barroom?

RussP
11-16-2011, 14:22
But once again your using the very logic of the left. B/c we cant be sure of what will happen then no one should be able to.No, you made a statement that those who cause trouble in bars would not be able to possess a license/permit to carry. I question whether that would be/is true 100% of the time.

I do not support legislation that prohibits carry where alcohol is sold and consumed.

sns3guppy
11-16-2011, 14:27
I do not support legislation that prohibits carry where alcohol is sold and consumed.

I believe you were also clear in making a very valid distinction between carry in a location where alcohol is present, and carrying while consuming alcohol.

Both topics are alive and well in this thread.

I have no issue with a sober person who doesn't consume alcohol carrying a firearm, whether alcohol is being served, sold, or consumed.

I take great exception to the concept of consuming alcohol and carrying, however, and it seems to be this practice that most apologists of the practice have addressed.

RussP
11-16-2011, 15:21
I believe you were also clear in making a very valid distinction between carry in a location where alcohol is present, and carrying while consuming alcohol.

Both topics are alive and well in this thread.True. We should be free to carry where alcohol is present, however, we should be cognizant of the consequences of using a firearm while consuming alcohol. Laws exist to punish those whose conduct is unlawful. I have no issue with a sober person who doesn't consume alcohol carrying a firearm, whether alcohol is being served, sold, or consumed.

I take great exception to the concept of consuming alcohol and carrying, however, and it seems to be this practice that most apologists of the practice have addressed.It is what people should think long and hard about.

hamster
11-16-2011, 15:23
But once again your using the very logic of the left. B/c we cant be sure of what will happen then no one should be able to.

Can we stop with this already? Nobody on this forum is a lefty anti-gunner. There is no need to level this accusation in every single thread.

Warp
11-16-2011, 17:58
The argument is as I understand it, is that it should not be allowed b/c there are idiots out there that over react and start trouble. But its those types of people who start fights and in general tend to have a criminal record b/c they are idiots who start fights.

I don't know what makes you think *I* am against legal carry in bars or while drinking. I am not

Warp
11-16-2011, 18:02
What's your defense to having consumed alcohol prior to the shoot?

No defense is needed for performing a lawful activity.


Is it not okay to drive drunk, but it is okay to carry drunk?

Whoa whoa whoa, who said anything about being drunk?

Warp
11-16-2011, 18:06
It seems pretty simple to me. Those not prohibited from possessing/carrying a firearm may carry where alcohol is served. Unless the private business owner says otherwise. If they do something wrong hold them accountable. I suppose that if you wanted to go a little bit nanny state you could impose a BAC limit and make it equal to that for operating a motor vehicle.

SCmasterblaster
11-16-2011, 19:51
I carry in VT bars, no problem. I drink Diet Cokes.

sns3guppy
11-16-2011, 20:39
Whoa whoa whoa, who said anything about being drunk?

I did. You quoted me.

I didn't define "drunk," but have no need. If you're consuming alcohol, any alcohol, you're impaired. How much varies, but is irrelevant. If you decide to intake drugs into your system which impair your faculties, then you've no business carrying a firearm.

No defense is needed for performing a lawful activity.

Actually there is a very high liklihood of requiring a defense, whether you think you're justified or not. You carry the weapon on the premise that you might need it to defend yourself, and then end up defending yourself; you've now got to defend that action to a jury when a wrongful death suit is brought, or you're accused of violating civil rights, or a whole host of other potential pitfalls from aggravated assault to manslaughter to homicide charges. When the victim's family comes after you, you can absolutely bet you'll have to defend yourself when the other side brings up your alcohol consumption prior to the shoot. Very, very stupid.

To put yourself in that position is absolutely idiotic, as it carrying while drinking in the first place.

Warp
11-16-2011, 20:42
I did. You quoted me.

I didn't define "drunk," but have no need. If you're consuming alcohol, any alcohol, you're impaired. How much varies, but is irrelevant. If you decide to intake drugs into your system which impair your faculties, then you've no business carrying a firearm.


Actually there is a very high liklihood of requiring a defense, whether you think you're justified or not. You carry the weapon on the premise that you might need it to defend yourself, and then end up defending yourself; you've now got to defend that action to a jury when a wrongful death suit is brought, or you're accused of violating civil rights, or a whole host of other potential pitfalls from aggravated assault to manslaughter to homicide charges. When the victim's family comes after you, you can absolutely bet you'll have to defend yourself when the other side brings up your alcohol consumption prior to the shoot. Very, very stupid.

To put yourself in that position is absolutely idiotic, as it carrying while drinking in the first place.

Those lawsuits don't happen as often as a lot of people seem to think.

Since you are going hypothetical...My defense would be that the guy who pulled a knife and threatened to kill me with it while running towards me needed shot. Very simple. I won't even have to see a jury.

flyboyvet
11-16-2011, 20:59
They sure don't..... drunks in bars cause all the problems!

Of all the bar violence I see in my area, the majority are because of drunks with bottles and knives then guns. However, I don't go to bars because I carry all the time and because of the above mentioned drunks. t's a bad thing waiting to happen.

Warp
11-16-2011, 21:16
Of all the bar violence I see in my area, the majority are because of drunks with bottles and knives then guns. However, I don't go to bars because I carry all the time and because of the above mentioned drunks. t's a bad thing waiting to happen.

Not going to bars is a very reasonable course of action for most people, IMO.

However, if the bar violence you see in your area involves illegal and violent actions by licensed carriers with their firearms we would love to hear about it

sns3guppy
11-16-2011, 22:53
Since you are going hypothetical...My defense would be that the guy who pulled a knife and threatened to kill me with it while running towards me needed shot. Very simple. I won't even have to see a jury.

If the subject wasn't so serious, that might be funny. It's not.

You don't have a choice but to see the jury. Its' not your law suit.

When you do see the jury, good luck explaining your impaired judgement.

Then again, perhaps the guy you thought was running toward you with a weapon was simply returning your wallet. Your goose is cooked.

Warp
11-16-2011, 22:56
If the subject wasn't so serious, that might be funny. It's not.

You don't have a choice but to see the jury. Its' not your law suit.

When you do see the jury, good luck explaining your impaired judgement.

Then again, perhaps the guy you thought was running toward you with a weapon was simply returning your wallet. Your goose is coked

If your posts weren't so silly I might be able to take them seriously.

If somebody were to shoot a guy for trying to return their wallet to them do you really think a beer or two is going to be what they have to defend?. :rofl:

hockeyrcks9901
11-16-2011, 23:47
I did. You quoted me.

I didn't define "drunk," but have no need. If you're consuming alcohol, any alcohol, you're impaired. How much varies, but is irrelevant. If you decide to intake drugs into your system which impair your faculties, then you've no business carrying a firearm.


Actually there is a very high liklihood of requiring a defense, whether you think you're justified or not. You carry the weapon on the premise that you might need it to defend yourself, and then end up defending yourself; you've now got to defend that action to a jury when a wrongful death suit is brought, or you're accused of violating civil rights, or a whole host of other potential pitfalls from aggravated assault to manslaughter to homicide charges. When the victim's family comes after you, you can absolutely bet you'll have to defend yourself when the other side brings up your alcohol consumption prior to the shoot. Very, very stupid.

To put yourself in that position is absolutely idiotic, as it carrying while drinking in the first place.

If the subject wasn't so serious, that might be funny. It's not.

You don't have a choice but to see the jury. Its' not your law suit.

When you do see the jury, good luck explaining your impaired judgement.

Then again, perhaps the guy you thought was running toward you with a weapon was simply returning your wallet. Your goose is cooked.

I can't answer for some states but in Florida I don't have to defend myself from any lawsuit. If I defended myself in lawful manner, even while ****faced drunk, I cannot be sued in civil court.

Please, show ONE instance of a CCP Holder causing an issue while drinking and carrying. The truth of the matter is that it is NOT an issue, has NOT been an issue.

We are discussing drinking and carrying, or carrying in a bar. I believe most of us believe we should able to carry where alcohol is consumed. I want to carry while consuming a beer or two at the local Wing House watching Monday night football. In fact, nothing in Florida law prevents me from doing so.

Please do not bring in questions about shootings down mainstreet, revolver to my head, etc. They are irrelevant to the discussion about drinking and carrying...they are Red Herrings.

sns3guppy
11-17-2011, 00:25
I want to carry while consuming a beer or two at the local Wing House watching Monday night football. In fact, nothing in Florida law prevents me from doing so.

Quite correct. You wish to act stupidly and nothing in the law prevents you from doing so. It's your right to act foolishly and in the wrong, isn't it?

You've not business doing so, but nobody can prevent you. So long as you insist on your right to be stupid, then the show is all yours. Have a ball.

The truth of the matter is that it is NOT an issue, has NOT been an issue.

Whether or not is has been in issue does noting to impact the fact that it is an issue. Diminishing your capacity while carrying is stupid, idiotic, and foolish.

You're attempting, like so many others, to prove a negative. By definition, this cannot be done. You cannot show that simply because something has not happened, that it will not. Whether it will or not, of course, is also irrelevant, because "might" is good enough.

Please do not bring in questions about shootings down mainstreet, revolver to my head, etc. They are irrelevant to the discussion about drinking and carrying...they are Red Herrings.

Those examples are not red herrings, in point of fact, but even if they were, they're still far more valid than the hollow attempt to justify drunk carry with the futile attempt at proving a negative.

SgtScott31
11-17-2011, 01:21
And I've yet to hear of a single incident concerning a HCP holder since the law went into effect.

Not to stir the pot much...



A Tennessee lawmaker who sponsored a controversial bill to allow handguns to be carried in bars was arrested Tuesday for driving under the influence and possessing a handgun while under the influence.
Police said that Tennessee state Rep. Curry Todd (R) was pulled over at around 11:15 p.m. in Nashville, according to WSMV-TV (http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/dpp/news/local/rep.-curry-todd-arrested-for-dui-mfo-20111012). Officers found a loaded Smith & Wesson .38 Special hidden between the driver’s seat and center console. An affidavit charged that the lawmaker was “almost falling down at times” and “obviously very impaired and not in any condition to be carrying a loaded handgun.”



He is being held (http://www.wreg.com/news/wreg-breaking-state-rep-curry-todd-arrested-20111012,0,2693995.story) on $3,000 bond at the Nashville Metro Jail.
Todd’s 2009 bill that allowed residents to carry guns in bars if they weren’t drinking survived a veto by Gov. Phil Bredesen (D) but was eventually ruled unconstitutional by a judge. An updated version of the law was passed last year.


I can't answer for some states but in Florida I don't have to defend myself from any lawsuit. If I defended myself in lawful manner, even while ****faced drunk, I cannot be sued in civil court.


You can and will be sued in civil court. People can sue for anything. As far as being found at fault, every case is very fact based. Although you may have "defended" yourself according to law, all it takes is a stray bullet to strike someone else. In most cases a sober person is going to hold more weight, but in most civil courts across the country, the standard is only 51%. If you were 51% or more at fault, you're going to be paying out. If the evidence shows you were intoxicated at the time the injury occurred to a third (innocent) party, I don't think it would be too hard to win if I was not the one causing harm against you.

We can "what if" all day long, but many people don't understand the time, money, and stress associated with being sued. I have no problem with someone carrying a weapon. I encourage it, but when it comes to putting alcohol in the mix I tend to relate to the wise saying of Peter Parker's uncle - "with great power comes great responsibility." If you choose to drink and carry, be ready to lay in the bed you make.

eb31
11-17-2011, 01:44
Not to stir the pot much...






You can and will be sued in civil court. People can sue for anything. As far as being found at fault, every case is very fact based. Although you may have "defended" yourself according to law, all it takes is a stray bullet to strike someone else. In most cases a sober person is going to hold more weight, but in most civil courts across the country, the standard is only 51%. If you were 51% or more at fault, you're going to be paying out. If the evidence shows you were intoxicated at the time the injury occurred to a third (innocent) party, I don't think it would be too hard to win if I was not the one causing harm against you.

We can "what if" all day long, but many people don't understand the time, money, and stress associated with being sued. I have no problem with someone carrying a weapon. I encourage it, but when it comes to putting alcohol in the mix I tend to relate to the wise saying of Peter Parker's uncle - "with great power comes great responsibility." If you choose to drink and carry, be ready to lay in the bed you make.


Amen! And thank you for the rational, intelligent post!

Btw, I live in Tn. and didn't hear about the Republican rep. Thanks for the read.

eb31
11-17-2011, 01:48
I believe you were also clear in making a very valid distinction between carry in a location where alcohol is present, and carrying while consuming alcohol.

Both topics are alive and well in this thread.

I have no issue with a sober person who doesn't consume alcohol carrying a firearm, whether alcohol is being served, sold, or consumed.

I take great exception to the concept of consuming alcohol and carrying, however, and it seems to be this practice that most apologists of the practice have addressed.

Absolutely perfectly said. I agree 100%.

hamster
11-17-2011, 08:35
I did. You quoted me.
I didn't define "drunk," but have no need. If you're consuming alcohol, any alcohol, you're impaired. How much varies, but is irrelevant. If you decide to intake drugs into your system which impair your faculties, then you've no business carrying a firearm.

We live in a society that is terrified of firearms. The process to get CCW passed has involved tons of compromise. If a complete prohibition on alcohol is what it takes to get CCW in restaurants passed then I have no problem with that. I don't mind drinking a diet coke so long as I can go to my favorite wing joint.

So from the point of view of legalities, I can deal with your statement. However as far as reality goes, you are off base.

Alcohol exists in some quantities in nearly everything we consume. If you've ever eaten a ripe banana you are consuming a quantity of alcohol. That does not make you impaired. Likewise if you drink 1 Oz of a non-alcoholic beer containing .05% alcohol, you are not impaired.

Again, I'm all for the prohibition on carry and consumption, but lets not loose sight of reality here.

hockeyrcks9901
11-17-2011, 09:49
You're attempting, like so many others, to prove a negative. By definition, this cannot be done. You cannot show that simply because something has not happened, that it will not. Whether it will or not, of course, is also irrelevant, because "might" is good enough.

Those examples are not red herrings, in point of fact, but even if they were, they're still far more valid than the hollow attempt to justify drunk carry with the futile attempt at proving a negative.

I'm asking you to prove a positive. I want you to find an example of something happening. I'm not saying it never has. My point is that it is NOT a problem. How you can argue otherwise with somewhere around 750,000 permit holders in Florida alone, and NO issues? I'm not saying it won't happen, being concerned about it is a good thing. But there is no issue with it. Just like the Brady Brunch and screaming about blood in the streets, it just doesn't occur.

If I carry while driving and someone hits my car, I get angry. I think we can all agree that being angry will sometimes cloud one's judgement. Therefore, because I "might" (your word, not mine) overreact and shoot the other driver, we should ban carrying while driving.

I come home from work and find my wife cheating on me. Think I might get my judgement clouded a little bit? I kill her and her lover. Therefore, we should ban weapons in the home because I "might" do something irrational there.

See how silly this is? Just because someone could do something irrational, is not reason for making it illegal. It is already illegal to kill someone, so why make it illegal to do so while drinking? It is already illegal to assault someone, want to make a law that makes it illegal to assault someone while drinking?


Not to stir the pot much...






You can and will be sued in civil court. People can sue for anything. As far as being found at fault, every case is very fact based. Although you may have "defended" yourself according to law, all it takes is a stray bullet to strike someone else. In most cases a sober person is going to hold more weight, but in most civil courts across the country, the standard is only 51%. If you were 51% or more at fault, you're going to be paying out. If the evidence shows you were intoxicated at the time the injury occurred to a third (innocent) party, I don't think it would be too hard to win if I was not the one causing harm against you.

We can "what if" all day long, but many people don't understand the time, money, and stress associated with being sued. I have no problem with someone carrying a weapon. I encourage it, but when it comes to putting alcohol in the mix I tend to relate to the wise saying of Peter Parker's uncle - "with great power comes great responsibility." If you choose to drink and carry, be ready to lay in the bed you make.

In Florida, here is the text of the law:
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

So yes, someone could attempt a lawsuit, but it would be a bad idea if law enforcement has made the determination that it was lawful self defense. The wording of the law is pretty cut and dry in that case.

sns3guppy
11-17-2011, 10:45
How you can argue otherwise with somewhere around 750,000 permit holders in Florida alone, and NO issues?

I don't have to argue the point. Make it ten billion holders in Florida, and it still doesn't change a thing. Make it a hundred billion. Simply because it hasn't happened, doesn't mean it won't. Again you can't prove a negative.

Drinking and carrying a firearm is idiotic.

How many of those 750,000 holders drink and carry? Find that number, and your argument shrinks. It's a hollow one all the same, but it gets far more hollow in the light of day. Add to that the fact that many Florida CCW holders aren't in Florida; Florida farms out CCW certificates on a whim all over the country. It's a popular shadow certificate that people use to boost their ability to carry in multiple states. Of those 750,000 holders, only a portion are in Florida, and only a portion of those can be expected to drink and carry. That small portion are idiots.

I come home from work and find my wife cheating on me. Think I might get my judgement clouded a little bit? I kill her and her lover. Therefore, we should ban weapons in the home because I "might" do something irrational there.

Why, are you drinking at the time?

Stick to one type of fruit. Apples to apples will be just fine. When you drink, you vountarily sacrifice your faculties, your awareness, your speed, your mental acuity, your judgement, and your ability. You abdicate these things because your desire to get drugged is greater than your sensibility. Again, alcohol is the most abused drug in the country, and it's a socially acceptable one. None the less, whether you crack open a beer or stick a needle in your arm, that's your choice. You pick up the stick. If you have any brains about you, you'll be smart enough to put down the weapon when you intentionally incapacitate yourself.

This is not at all the same as entering a stressful, emotional situation when sober. If you pick up a firearm when you're angry and use it, however, you're also an idiot.

Stupidity knows no bounds. Angry drivers. Drunk firearm carry. Upset husbands. Each time one reaches for a weapon inappropriately, it's stupid. When one reaches for a weapon while drinking, one is stupid, and acting stupidly. One need not concern one's self with any other provocation. The act of carrying the weapon while drinking is enough. Drink and carry, you're an idiot. It's that simple.

Just because someone could do something irrational, is not reason for making it illegal. It is already illegal to kill someone, so why make it illegal to do so while drinking? It is already illegal to assault someone, want to make a law that makes it illegal to assault someone while drinking?

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Theoreticals.

Drinking isn't a theoretical. It's the intentional diminishing of mental and physical capacity. Alcohol does not enhance the mind, and it does not enhance the body.

You attempt to compare drinking and carrying a deadly weapon with making killing someone while drinking illegal. This is non sequitur and nonsensical. Killing someone is illegal. Killing while drinking is illegal, because killing is illegal. Drinking, however, is not illegal. Carrying a firearm is not illegal. Neither, on their own, is problematic. Drinking while carrying a firearm, however, is stupid every bit as much as drinking and driving. We don't allow drunk drivers because we know, without any semblance of doubt, that judgement, reaction, and ability is diminished with alcohol. The law recognizes it, we all know it. Idiots drink and drive.

Idiots drink and carry a firearm.

If you want to drink, have at it. Leave the weapons home. If you want to drink and drive, give your keys to someone else to do the driving. If you want to drink and carry, let someone else do the carrying, who isn't drinking. It's that simple. Don't be an idiot.

Likewise if you drink 1 Oz of a non-alcoholic beer containing .05% alcohol, you are not impaired.

Some states actually put a BAC value on impairment as it relates to carriage of a weapon, and one could split hairs and attempt to suggest that they'll drink just enough to stay under the legal limit. None the less, drink and carry, you're an idiot.

hamster
11-17-2011, 10:53
None the less, drink and carry, you're an idiot.
Re-state that to "Carry while under the influence" and I'd 100% agree

Personally I don't drink at all while carrying because 1:
I'm not such a huge fan of beer I need to be drinking 24/7 and
2: If I ever had to use my weapon in self-defense I'd hate for any amount of alcohol to be in my blood for the opposition attorney to accuse me with.

It is just so simple to not drink while carrying, it isn't worth breaking many brain cells over.

hockeyrcks9901
11-17-2011, 12:26
I don't have to argue the point. Make it ten billion holders in Florida, and it still doesn't change a thing. Make it a hundred billion. Simply because it hasn't happened, doesn't mean it won't. Again you can't prove a negative.

Drinking and carrying a firearm is idiotic.

How many of those 750,000 holders drink and carry? Find that number, and your argument shrinks. It's a hollow one all the same, but it gets far more hollow in the light of day. Add to that the fact that many Florida CCW holders aren't in Florida; Florida farms out CCW certificates on a whim all over the country. It's a popular shadow certificate that people use to boost their ability to carry in multiple states. Of those 750,000 holders, only a portion are in Florida, and only a portion of those can be expected to drink and carry. That small portion are idiots.

The number of out of state permits is a small fraction of the total permits issued. The most recent number I saw states there is 870,658 permits issued in Florida and of those 98,101 are non-resident permits. So, out of 772,557 licensed residents that could legally consume alcohol while carrying, NONE of them have created an issue. It doesn't matter that a great many choose not to drink and carry, it matters that it is not illegal to do so. We are not discussing the merits of drinking and carrying, we are discussing legal boundaries against it. Again, I'm not trying to prove a negative. I'm stating a solid fact that it is not an issue. If you can prove that it is or has been an issue, I would agree with you. You can disprove my so-called negative by proving the positive can you not? If you find an incident where alcohol was an issue, then you have disproved the negative. I'm not trying to prove a negative but you could certainly disprove it. But by not finding a single incident, let alone a percentage that statistically warrants concern, I stand by my statement that it is not an issue.




Why, are you drinking at the time?

Stick to one type of fruit. Apples to apples will be just fine. When you drink, you vountarily sacrifice your faculties, your awareness, your speed, your mental acuity, your judgement, and your ability. You abdicate these things because your desire to get drugged is greater than your sensibility. Again, alcohol is the most abused drug in the country, and it's a socially acceptable one. None the less, whether you crack open a beer or stick a needle in your arm, that's your choice. You pick up the stick. If you have any brains about you, you'll be smart enough to put down the weapon when you intentionally incapacitate yourself.

This is not at all the same as entering a stressful, emotional situation when sober. If you pick up a firearm when you're angry and use it, however, you're also an idiot.

You stated that carrying a firearm while drinking clouds one judgement and they "might" do something else. I was simply giving other instances where one's judgement could become cloudy and one "might" do something else. If you want to make it illegal to carry because something else illegal "might" happen, then we just need to ban firearms entirely because someone "might" do something wrong. Whether sober or not, we should not legislate away situations where someone could make a wrong choice. You cannot legislate away every situation where something "might" go wrong.

Stupidity knows no bounds. Angry drivers. Drunk firearm carry. Upset husbands. Each time one reaches for a weapon inappropriately, it's stupid. When one reaches for a weapon while drinking, one is stupid, and acting stupidly. One need not concern one's self with any other provocation. The act of carrying the weapon while drinking is enough. Drink and carry, you're an idiot. It's that simple.



Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Theoreticals.

Drinking isn't a theoretical. It's the intentional diminishing of mental and physical capacity. Alcohol does not enhance the mind, and it does not enhance the body.

You attempt to compare drinking and carrying a deadly weapon with making killing someone while drinking illegal. This is non sequitur and nonsensical. Killing someone is illegal. Killing while drinking is illegal, because killing is illegal. Drinking, however, is not illegal. Carrying a firearm is not illegal. Neither, on their own, is problematic. Drinking while carrying a firearm, however, is stupid every bit as much as drinking and driving. We don't allow drunk drivers because we know, without any semblance of doubt, that judgement, reaction, and ability is diminished with alcohol. The law recognizes it, we all know it. Idiots drink and drive.

I don't agree with many of the laws we have on the books because they are redundant. Adding a law that makes it illegal to drink and carry is redundant as well because any crime that is committed would be a crime without the alcohol involved as well. You can talk about it being stupid all you want, but it should not be illegal. People do stupid things every day, we cannot legislate away stupidity.

Idiots drink and carry a firearm.

If you want to drink, have at it. Leave the weapons home. If you want to drink and drive, give your keys to someone else to do the driving. If you want to drink and carry, let someone else do the carrying, who isn't drinking. It's that simple. Don't be an idiot.



Some states actually put a BAC value on impairment as it relates to carriage of a weapon, and one could split hairs and attempt to suggest that they'll drink just enough to stay under the legal limit. None the less, drink and carry, you're an idiot.

Answers in bold.

My entire argument is not based on the act of drinking and carrying. I do not care about the merits for or against it. I care about legislation to make it illegal.

Warp
11-17-2011, 13:50
We live in a society that is terrified of firearms.

I don't.

Maybe you need to move?


I don't have to argue the point. Make it ten billion holders in Florida, and it still doesn't change a thing. Make it a hundred billion. Simply because it hasn't happened, doesn't mean it won't.

This beautifully illustrates why your position is fundamentally flawed.

Please don't be so short sighted and foolish as to think that one single negative incident that might have been prevented by illegalizing an activity outweighs the larger number of positive incidents allowed by keeping said activity legal. What you are arguing here is no different than the anti gunners pointing to the CHL holder in Texas who shot/killed the other guy in a road rage incident and saying "See! If he hadn't been able to carry a gun he wouldn't have killed that guy! Make concealed carry illegal!". No different. You have to take into account all reasonable consequences of the action/law

hamster
11-17-2011, 14:34
I don't.

Maybe you need to move?

You don't think there is a strong fear of guns / anti-gun bias at work in this country? Where have you been living for the past 60 years?

broncobuddha1
11-17-2011, 17:09
Whether or not is has been in issue does noting to impact the fact that it is an issue. Diminishing your capacity while carrying is stupid, idiotic, and foolish.

To which I gather you mean consuming any alcohol period? By this logic do you also disagree with the fact that all states allow an acceptable amount of consumption of alcohol and driving a 3000-5000lb weapon?

The states set BACs for driving. I see no problem with setting them for carrying. Some states do and in most of those cases the limit is lower than it is for driving.

The reason is so as to accommodate those who might have a drink or two with dinner, etc...

Someone having a beer, glass of wine or mixed drink with dinner and driving or carrying, I have no problem with.

Someone going out to a bar with the sole purpose of "drinking" as the main event of the day/evening, shouldn't be driving or carrying.

Warp
11-17-2011, 21:46
You don't think there is a strong fear of guns / anti-gun bias at work in this country? Where have you been living for the past 60 years?

I do not live in a society that is terrified of firearms.

Jollymann
11-18-2011, 10:55
I don't know about the rest of you, but I find the pompous, statist, allegedly pro-gun types, who would happily deny rights on the flimsiest of reasons, to be very annoying, and damaging in a general way. It's pure collaboration with the prohibitionists who would infringe and restrict on any pretext what-so-ever. The guns in restaurants where they sell beer aspect is where it counts in here, but it's certainly elsewhere too. How dare that anyone denies rights in ordinary pubic circumstances? Really! That's exactly what is advocated here. And it's very high, mighty, and paternal in the delivery. What elitist muck! Where does it say in the Constitution I surrender my gun rights over having lunch out or having a beer? In my learned opinion, that right trumps any statute or any state law which is contrary to it, under most any circumstance. That ought to be clear to any self-convinced gun guy.

As for my old west reference, I think that's extremely valid in terms of the fact that what we had then in terms of uninfringed rights with guns is something to mourn. It's also something to gain back since it oughtn't never have been reduced to what it is now in various forms in various states. It's this intellectual weakness and willingness to surrender to the "progress" of the "progressives", which has let that happen. Shame on those who collaborate with them!

Derek J.

Warp
11-18-2011, 11:04
I don't know about the rest of you, but I find the pompous, statist, allegedly pro-gun types, who would happily deny rights on the flimsiest of reasons, to be very annoying, and damaging in a general way. It's pure collaboration with the prohibitionists who would infringe and restrict on any pretext what-do-ever. The guns in restaurants where they sell beer aspect is where it counts in here, but it's certainly elsewhere too. How dare that anyone denies rights in ordinary pubic circumstances? Really! That's exactly what is advocated here. And it's very high, mighty, and paternal in the delivery. What elitist muck! Where does it say in the Constitution I surrender my gun rights over having lunch out or having a beer? In my learned opinion, that right trumps any statute or any state law which is contrary to it, under most any circumstance. That ought to be clear to any self-convinced gun guy.

As for my old west reference, I think that's extremely valid in terms of the fact that what we had then in terms of uninfringed rights with guns is something to mourn. It's also something to gain back since it oughtn't never have been reduced to what it is now in various forms in various states. It's this intellectual weakness and willingness to surrender to the "progress" of the "progressives", which has let that happen. Shame on those who collaborate with them!

Derek J.

The old west wasn't actually the way a lot of people seem to think it was. Besides, we can do a lot better job determining societies laws than by comparing to "the old west"

SgtScott31
11-19-2011, 03:14
So yes, someone could attempt a lawsuit, but it would be a bad idea if law enforcement has made the determination that it was lawful self defense. The wording of the law is pretty cut and dry in that case.


Actually that statute is not going to be applicable to a third party. The law you provided (thanks btw) only applies to being sued or charged criminally from using lethal force against the person trying to cause you harm.


Alcohol exists in some quantities in nearly everything we consume. If you've ever eaten a ripe banana you are consuming a quantity of alcohol. That does not make you impaired. Likewise if you drink 1 Oz of a non-alcoholic beer containing .05% alcohol, you are not impaired.


One CAN be impaired at .05%. My wife is 125lbs, drinks about three times a year, and eats like a bird. I teach DUI enforcement/SFSTs on occasion at the state LE academy and we have "wetlabs" for those in training. Basically we bring volunteer drinkers in to consume measured amounts of alcohol to get their BAC levels up. This gives the police recruits great experience in administration of the Field Sobriety Tests. My wife participated in the wetlab and at .05/.06% she was showing plenty of signs of impairment. It's really going to depend on the person. Many people believe that if you're under the state "per se" limit of .08% you're not impaired. The per se limit of .08% is the limit created by legislation to presume intoxication/impairment. If a DUI case goes to trial, the state normally has to prove three things (1) physical control of the vehicle, (2) impairment, and (3) vehicle in area accessible/frequented by public. If the defendant (driver) was over .08%, then the state does not have to prove #2 (impairment) because of the "per se" laws.

My point is, I spent many a nights in bars and dance clubs during my 20s and I don't recall hardly anyone not drinking as much as I was. I can understand being able to carry in your neighborhood Chili's/Logans, but in my opinion my state (TN) erred when it passed the legislation (the way it was written) to allow carry into anywhere that serves alcohol. Luckily many of the owners of the bars/clubs opted out and have the appropriate signage up to ban weapons (and have security to conduct searches). The law does not allow carry when one is consuming, but I have no doubt fair amount of HCP holders are violating it. What does it suggest when the main representative behind the formation of this very law was arrested for violating it?

xmanhockey7
11-19-2011, 03:48
Actually that statute is not going to be applicable to a third party. The law you provided (thanks btw) only applies to being sued or charged criminally from using lethal force against the person trying to cause you harm.



One CAN be impaired at .05%. My wife is 125lbs, drinks about three times a year, and eats like a bird. I teach DUI enforcement/SFSTs on occasion at the state LE academy and we have "wetlabs" for those in training. Basically we bring volunteer drinkers in to consume measured amounts of alcohol to get their BAC levels up. This gives the police recruits great experience in administration of the Field Sobriety Tests. My wife participated in the wetlab and at .05/.06% she was showing plenty of signs of impairment. It's really going to depend on the person. Many people believe that if you're under the state "per se" limit of .08% you're not impaired. The per se limit of .08% is the limit created by legislation to presume intoxication/impairment. If a DUI case goes to trial, the state normally has to prove three things (1) physical control of the vehicle, (2) impairment, and (3) vehicle in area accessible/frequented by public. If the defendant (driver) was over .08%, then the state does not have to prove #2 (impairment) because of the "per se" laws.

My point is, I spent many a nights in bars and dance clubs during my 20s and I don't recall hardly anyone not drinking as much as I was. I can understand being able to carry in your neighborhood Chili's/Logans, but in my opinion my state (TN) erred when it passed the legislation (the way it was written) to allow carry into anywhere that serves alcohol. Luckily many of the owners of the bars/clubs opted out and have the appropriate signage up to ban weapons (and have security to conduct searches). The law does not allow carry when one is consuming, but I have no doubt fair amount of HCP holders are violating it. What does it suggest when the main representative behind the formation of this very law was arrested for violating it?

It seems to me the kind of person that violates the law of drinking while carrying would also violate the law of being in the bar with a gun period. Why don't we just make concealed carry illegal? It would no longer be an issue since it's completely illegal for them to carry. How many times have there been issues of someone licensed to carry, going to a bar and drinking then being negligent with the gun?

SgtScott31
11-19-2011, 06:03
It seems to me the kind of person that violates the law of drinking while carrying would also violate the law of being in the bar with a gun period. Why don't we just make concealed carry illegal? It would no longer be an issue since it's completely illegal for them to carry. How many times have there been issues of someone licensed to carry, going to a bar and drinking then being negligent with the gun?

I see a lot of posts that go from one extreme to the other. I think it's fair to say there needs to be a weight and balance to the issue. On one side, let's try to limit infringement of the right to carry, but on the other let's make sure it's done responsibly where there isn't unnecessary risk to everyone else that doesn't go armed or care to be around firearms. I know there are folks here that will disagree with my opinion. That's fine. As it stands I strongly promote personal carry for one's protection, but I think there needs to be limitations. Now I know the main argument from most is that the criminals don't abide by the laws and gun laws only "hurt" the law-abiding carriers. I don't agree with that line of thinking. I think allowing folks to drink and carry goes too far, because from my personal experience in nightclubs/bars, the people that frequent these establishments don't do it for two beers. When it's "penny beer" night or "two for one" specials, I don't see these patrons rushing in to have one drink. I have either personally arrested or been involved in arrests of quite a few people for DUI who had weapons in their vehicles. Most of who were permit holders. I have arrested people at the airport security checkpoint who put a bag on the xray belt with a handgun in it. Almost all were permit holders who forgot their handgun was in their bag. Just over 300 permit holders had their license revoked in TN for felony convictions in 2008. These tidbits of information along with my personal experiences are why I have the opinions I do about firearm carry. I think a majority do what is right and responsible, but there are quite a few out there that ruin it for everyone else. I can say the same about my job. Less than 1% of all police officers are corrupt, but it's enough to put a stain on us anytime one is plastered all over the tv. I could probably comfortably say that 1% of gun-carriers don't have any business carrying a weapon. It's people like Rep. Curry and the other one percenters who put a stain on the rest of the carry population when it comes to the views of the much higher populated non-carrying public.

Just my .02.

hockeyrcks9901
11-19-2011, 13:22
I see a lot of posts that go from one extreme to the other. I think it's fair to say there needs to be a weight and balance to the issue. On one side, let's try to limit infringement of the right to carry, but on the other let's make sure it's done responsibly where there isn't unnecessary risk to everyone else that doesn't go armed or care to be around firearms. I know there are folks here that will disagree with my opinion. That's fine. As it stands I strongly promote personal carry for one's protection, but I think there needs to be limitations. Now I know the main argument from most is that the criminals don't abide by the laws and gun laws only "hurt" the law-abiding carriers. I don't agree with that line of thinking. I think allowing folks to drink and carry goes too far, because from my personal experience in nightclubs/bars, the people that frequent these establishments don't do it for two beers. When it's "penny beer" night or "two for one" specials, I don't see these patrons rushing in to have one drink. I have either personally arrested or been involved in arrests of quite a few people for DUI who had weapons in their vehicles. Most of who were permit holders. I have arrested people at the airport security checkpoint who put a bag on the xray belt with a handgun in it. Almost all were permit holders who forgot their handgun was in their bag. Just over 300 permit holders had their license revoked in TN for felony convictions in 2008. These tidbits of information along with my personal experiences are why I have the opinions I do about firearm carry. I think a majority do what is right and responsible, but there are quite a few out there that ruin it for everyone else. I can say the same about my job. Less than 1% of all police officers are corrupt, but it's enough to put a stain on us anytime one is plastered all over the tv. I could probably comfortably say that 1% of gun-carriers don't have any business carrying a weapon. It's people like Rep. Curry and the other one percenters who put a stain on the rest of the carry population when it comes to the views of the much higher populated non-carrying public.

Just my .02.

So you want to punish the 99% that act responsibly because of the less than 1% that don't? Doesn't seem right to me...

SgtScott31
11-19-2011, 21:37
So you want to punish the 99% that act responsibly because of the less than 1% that don't? Doesn't seem right to me...

I'm not suggesting to punish the 99% at all, but I'm not pushing for unlimited right to carry either. The primary word here is "responsibility." I don't think it's responsible to allow carry into establishments where the primary revenue is alcohol. I've seen what that has done. Although there's not blood pouring into the streets, there's plenty being arrested for DUI and/or poss of a weapon under the influence that the public never know about. The only reason Rep. Curry's arrest was publicized was because of who he was and the firearm legislation he pushed. People don't realize that we arrest dozens in his shoes every year. There are plenty of permit holders that get arrested for alcohol-related offenses when they have a weapon within reach. In my opinion, passing laws that allow carry into bars will only increase the arrests of those with permits. Although the crime may not be violent and the permit holder has a relatively clean background, there's more of a likelihood to drink too much, which will only increase the risk to himself and/or others.

Warp
11-19-2011, 21:53
I have either personally arrested or been involved in arrests of quite a few people for DUI who had weapons in their vehicles. Most of who were permit holders.

And yet not a one of them did anything out of line (or probably anything at all) with that gun. Am I right?

RussP
11-19-2011, 22:50
I'm not suggesting to punish the 99% at all, but I'm not pushing for unlimited right to carry either. The primary word here is "responsibility." I don't think it's responsible to allow carry into establishments where the primary revenue is alcohol. I've seen what that has done. Although there's not blood pouring into the streets, there's plenty being arrested for DUI and/or poss of a weapon under the influence that the public never know about. The only reason Rep. Curry's arrest was publicized was because of who he was and the firearm legislation he pushed. People don't realize that we arrest dozens in his shoes every year. There are plenty of permit holders that get arrested for alcohol-related offenses when they have a weapon within reach. In my opinion, passing laws that allow carry into bars will only increase the arrests of those with permits. Although the crime may not be violent and the permit holder has a relatively clean background, there's more of a likelihood to drink too much, which will only increase the risk to himself and/or others.Have any of the arrests resulted in the loss of the person's permit to carry?

SgtScott31
11-19-2011, 23:22
And yet not a one of them did anything out of line (or probably anything at all) with that gun. Am I right?

Depends on what you mean by "out of line." Did they try to shoot me? No. Did they violate a firearm-related law? Yes - possession while under the influence. Just because gunfire wasn't in the picture doesn't mean they were responsible with it.

Have any of the arrests resulted in the loss of the person's permit to carry?

Possibly. One would have to check with the TN Dept of Safety on that one (who issues the handgun carry permits). It's an administrative (civil) hearing so there's a lower burden to prove to take their permit. Keep in mind that if you're charged with a gun-related offense, the weapon is seized.

Warp
11-19-2011, 23:24
Just because gunfire wasn't in the picture doesn't mean they were responsible with it.


^^Straw man

Warp
11-19-2011, 23:40
Depends on what you mean by "out of line." Did they try to shoot me? No. Did they violate a firearm-related law? Yes - possession while under the influence.

Any others? Or just the fact that the gun was in their car and nothing else?

xmanhockey7
11-20-2011, 02:10
So because SOME are drinking and carrying (illegal) THEN get in their cars drunk and drive (also illegal) if we make another law to ban the carry in these establishments it will help? I seriously doubt it. And like you said it's a very small percentage of people that are doing this and I would bet those are the same people who would carry in places where it's already legal to carry.

happyguy
11-20-2011, 06:16
I always get the smack down here when I post on this topic but I'm so far unswayed; I've never liked guns in bars. I would like to think that I'm wise and mature enough now to handle it, but I can't say the same for when I was in the 21-23 range in the Army when I was power drinking several nights a week, or many other people I knew then and know now. The right mixture of booze and testosterone can escalate anything into about anything, even if you're not drinking. If you're not following me, think of an elbow to elbow "night club" opposed to the local saloon down the road--big difference.

Guns and alcohol don't mix..that is a truly "common sense" rule to live by that the vast majority of gun owners agree with..but since we're always going to have the village (or bar) idiot, it's on my short list of 2A related that I support legislating.

If you want to hang out with the drunks, "don't take your guns to town son, leave your guns at home Bill." Hell, even Johnny Cash knew better :)

I am closing in hard on 60 y.o.a.

I have had to change jobs from LEO due to injury and I am not going to be much use to anyone in a toe to toe confrontation unless I'm really sneaky and lucky.

I am not likely to out run someone bent on doing me harm. I am also not going to leave my wife on her own to take care of the defensive part of our partnership.

If I go to a bar (not often but my daughter works in a sportsbar that serves great food too) or restaurant that serves alcohol I may need my gun to protect myself from the person you described in your first paragraph. The person you describe in that paragraph may very well get themselves shot if they decide to prove their manhood by starting a confrontation with the old gray haired guy at the corner table. I'm not going to "wrestle" with them nor am I going to take a beating from them.

I don't go there often because there are a lot of stupid people that do stupid things when they drink, but I would definitely NOT go there unarmed. Sometimes I have a Corona with my food and I haven't shot anyone yet.

My main concern is people who carry in bars without a permit because they can't get one as a result of their background. The permitted folks are rarely a problem.

Just because you were stupid when you were young doesn't mean you get to trample on other peoples rights now that you have "matured".

Regards,
Happyguy :)

happyguy
11-20-2011, 06:30
Occasionally I will do "wings and beer" with a few friends type of events, far from a bar hopper these days. Am I missing some type of empathy for people that drink all the time, or am I irresponsible for disarming myself to enjoy the occasional after work pitcher or two? Where are you going with this?

Off duty cops come to the daughters place of employment en-mass sometimes to watch a game and have a few beers and wings. So far, there have been no shootouts or accidental discharges.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

happyguy
11-20-2011, 06:48
...the impaired always thinks his or her behavior and judgement is better than it really is)

This part of your statement is not always true.

Some people know very well how impaired they are. It comes with practice.:cheers:

Regards,
Happyguy :)

happyguy
11-20-2011, 06:51
I personally feel there should be a legal limit for alcohol consumption while carrying just like driving but I would be OK with an outright ban on drinking while carrying as well. Leave it up to the state.

I am totally against banning guns in bars though.

My drinking now is pretty much confined to a little bourbon in my home. If someone breaks in my home after I've had a few, well, they'll get shot by someone who's had a few. I'll deal with it when the time comes.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

happyguy
11-20-2011, 07:18
I'm not suggesting to punish the 99% at all, but I'm not pushing for unlimited right to carry either. The primary word here is "responsibility." I don't think it's responsible to allow carry into establishments where the primary revenue is alcohol. I've seen what that has done. Although there's not blood pouring into the streets, there's plenty being arrested for DUI and/or poss of a weapon under the influence that the public never know about. The only reason Rep. Curry's arrest was publicized was because of who he was and the firearm legislation he pushed. People don't realize that we arrest dozens in his shoes every year. There are plenty of permit holders that get arrested for alcohol-related offenses when they have a weapon within reach. In my opinion, passing laws that allow carry into bars will only increase the arrests of those with permits. Although the crime may not be violent and the permit holder has a relatively clean background, there's more of a likelihood to drink too much, which will only increase the risk to himself and/or others.

And yet, blood is not flowing in the streets, these permit holders aren't going for their guns when arrested, and the crimes they are being arrested for seem to be unrelated to carrying a weapon.

You seem to want legislation to go one way but your argument supports the other. :dunno:

I will concede that alcohol impairs judgment, but the focus needs to be on the actions of the person in question, not on your "feelings".

Edit: There are a lot of people out there that carry and whose judgement is not as good as mine. They are dangerous and should not be allowed to carry.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

happyguy
11-20-2011, 07:22
Wow, did I really write six posts in a row?

Sorry!

Regards,
Happyguy :)

RussP
11-20-2011, 07:32
Wow, did I really write six posts in a row?

Sorry!

Regards,
Happyguy :)I was wondering...:animlol:

eb31
11-20-2011, 12:50
Depends on what you mean by "out of line." Did they try to shoot me? No. Did they violate a firearm-related law? Yes - possession while under the influence. Just because gunfire wasn't in the picture doesn't mean they were responsible with it.



Possibly. One would have to check with the TN Dept of Safety on that one (who issues the handgun carry permits). It's an administrative (civil) hearing so there's a lower burden to prove to take their permit. Keep in mind that if you're charged with a gun-related offense, the weapon is seized.

Just one of the many reasons I love living in Tn. Laws here are pretty decent, pretty clear and not difficult to comprehend or follow.

You want to carry in a bar (where the PRIVATE owner allows)? Go right ahead, just don't consume any alcohol.

You want to carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol? Go right ahead, just don't consume any alcohol.

Period.

hockeyrcks9901
11-20-2011, 14:42
Depends on what you mean by "out of line." Did they try to shoot me? No. Did they violate a firearm-related law? Yes - possession while under the influence. Just because gunfire wasn't in the picture doesn't mean they were responsible with it.



Possibly. One would have to check with the TN Dept of Safety on that one (who issues the handgun carry permits). It's an administrative (civil) hearing so there's a lower burden to prove to take their permit. Keep in mind that if you're charged with a gun-related offense, the weapon is seized.

So what you're saying is...the only firearm related law they violated is the one some of us want removed from the books. Meaning that if the law didn't exist in the first place, they wouldn't have violated it? You're showing approval for the law using circular logic.

Warp
11-20-2011, 17:44
Just one of the many reasons I love living in Tn. Laws here are pretty decent, pretty clear and not difficult to comprehend or follow.

You want to carry in a bar (where the PRIVATE owner allows)? Go right ahead, just don't consume any alcohol.

You want to carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol? Go right ahead, just don't consume any alcohol.

Period.

That is one of the things I love about being in Indiana (from there, there at the moment). You want to carry to a bar, or carry to a restaurant, and have a beer with dinner? Not a problem.

happyguy
11-20-2011, 17:48
That is one of the things I love about being in Indiana (from there, there at the moment). You want to carry to a bar, or carry to a restaurant, and have a beer with dinner? Not a problem.

Yes it is legal to do so here.

There haven't been any CCW shootings in bars that I'm aware of since the Pacers made some personnel changes.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

SgtScott31
11-20-2011, 22:10
Any others? Or just the fact that the gun was in their car and nothing else?

So I guess they didn't violate the law bad enough to be considered a risk.

The whole point to the argument is the fact there's a lack of responsibility for both driving under the influence and having a gun in your possession when you're under the influence.

So what you're saying is...the only firearm related law they violated is the one some of us want removed from the books. Meaning that if the law didn't exist in the first place, they wouldn't have violated it? You're showing approval for the law using circular logic.

They're violating the law of being in possession of a weapon under the influence. Although the permit holder can't consume while being armed, I don't see many officers in my area taking someone to jail for consuming one beer in violation of their permit requirement. Being intoxicated is a different story. There's no circular logic to it at all. Removing the law defeats the purpose. The law acts as a deterrent to keep people from being irresponsible while carrying. That's how I see it, that's how the legislators of my state see it. I have no problem with it. Again, if you read my other posts you would see that I encourage firearm carry as long as it's done responsibly. I don't see anyone going to a pool hall or night club with the intention of drinking one beer. That's from being in clubs a lot and my experience dealing with folks I have pulled over in my area.


And yet, blood is not flowing in the streets, these permit holders aren't going for their guns when arrested, and the crimes they are being arrested for seem to be unrelated to carrying a weapon.

You seem to want legislation to go one way but your argument supports the other. :dunno:

I will concede that alcohol impairs judgment, but the focus needs to be on the actions of the person in question, not on your "feelings".


This is not an issue of a reactive response. I'm not going to wait until someone acts irresponsible with a firearm before I decide to do something about it. They're being arrested for a weapons-related offense whether you think it is or not. This is not a "feeling" issue. You can't carry while intoxicated. If you think it's ok to do so you need your head examined. The risk of injury to the holder and others is increased significantly if the holder's judgment is impaired and they're carrying. Just because they don't "go" for their gun when stopped/arrested doesn't mean that they haven't put themselves (and/or others) at risk. It's not hard to understand. If you're going to be responsible enough to go armed, you should know the law and abide by it. We're not dealing with a spectrum of severity. Because you're intoxicated and because you decided to go armed intoxicated, most officers are not going to have a problem taking that person to jail. I guess I should just wait until they shoot themselves or someone else before deciding they violated the law bad enough to act on it. That's not how it works.

hockeyrcks9901
11-20-2011, 22:48
They're violating the law of being in possession of a weapon under the influence. Although the permit holder can't consume while being armed, I don't see many officers in my area taking someone to jail for consuming one beer in violation of their permit requirement. Being intoxicated is a different story. There's no circular logic to it at all. Removing the law defeats the purpose. The law acts as a deterrent to keep people from being irresponsible while carrying. That's how I see it, that's how the legislators of my state see it. I have no problem with it. Again, if you read my other posts you would see that I encourage firearm carry as long as it's done responsibly. I don't see anyone going to a pool hall or night club with the intention of drinking one beer. That's from being in clubs a lot and my experience dealing with folks I have pulled over in my area.

I'm discussing the merits of the law...the one that doesn't exist in my state but does in yours. You said that they violated a firearms related law by being intoxicated. You're reasoning for disallowing drinking and carrying was that you have arrested a lot of people for drinking and carrying and therefore we shouldn't allow it. That's circular logic. You can't say look at all the people violating the law and use that for justification of the law. You even said that all these people were not doing anything else wrong, except maybe driving. So by you're own words, if the law didn't exist, these people would not have been arrested...

And I routinely go play pool and drink two beers. Or go to Chili's and drink two drinks with dinner. Again, don't punish the 99% because of 1%.

xmanhockey7
11-20-2011, 22:57
I don't see anyone going to a pool hall or night club with the intention of drinking one beer.
What if they're not drinking at all? Perhaps just going to share the company of friends or being the DD for the evening. I would be more likely to DD if I knew I could carry to protect myself and others.

Warp
11-20-2011, 23:47
i'm discussing the merits of the law...the one that doesn't exist in my state but does in yours. You said that they violated a firearms related law by being intoxicated. You're reasoning for disallowing drinking and carrying was that you have arrested a lot of people for drinking and carrying and therefore we shouldn't allow it. That's circular logic. You can't say look at all the people violating the law and use that for justification of the law. You even said that all these people were not doing anything else wrong, except maybe driving. So by you're own words, if the law didn't exist, these people would not have been arrested...

And i routinely go play pool and drink two beers. Or go to chili's and drink two drinks with dinner. Again, don't punish the 99% because of 1%.

+ 1

SgtScott31
11-21-2011, 02:46
I'm discussing the merits of the law...the one that doesn't exist in my state but does in yours. You said that they violated a firearms related law by being intoxicated. You're reasoning for disallowing drinking and carrying was that you have arrested a lot of people for drinking and carrying and therefore we shouldn't allow it. That's circular logic. You can't say look at all the people violating the law and use that for justification of the law. You even said that all these people were not doing anything else wrong, except maybe driving. So by you're own words, if the law didn't exist, these people would not have been arrested...

And I routinely go play pool and drink two beers. Or go to Chili's and drink two drinks with dinner. Again, don't punish the 99% because of 1%.

What's circular is this argument. There are plenty of people that are irresponsible by being impaired and carrying a weapon. In my opinion, allowing people to drink and go armed is likely to lead to more people carrying while intoxicated. We're not talking about your neighborhood Chili's. Please research my posts. I'm referring specifically to establishments whose primary source of revenue is alcohol. While there may be a handful of people that actually drink two beers or less in these places, that's the small majority from my personal experience. This is also reinforced considering the fair amount of folks being arrested in my area at 2am in the morning who have weapons in the vehicle. If you look at the amount of alcohol-related crimes in this country (whether DUI, disorderly conduct, public intox), it is still very common among our population to drink too much when away from home. Add a weapon to the mix and you increase a risk to safety, whether it be to the permit holder or to others. From a negligent discharge, to road rage, to bumping into someone, when alcohol and impairment is involved bad stuff happens. That's the bottom line. If you want to get hammered at home, then it's only your safety at risk. Take the same actions in public, now the state has to step in and weigh your rights (to carry) against the rights of others to be safe. Normally the courts have ruled that public's safety is more important. We can agree to disagree, but in my personal opinion (that isn't going to change) drinking and carrying is not a responsible act.

hockeyrcks9901
11-21-2011, 08:09
What's circular is this argument. There are plenty of people that are irresponsible by being impaired and carrying a weapon. In my opinion, allowing people to drink and go armed is likely to lead to more people carrying while intoxicated. We're not talking about your neighborhood Chili's. Please research my posts. I'm referring specifically to establishments whose primary source of revenue is alcohol. While there may be a handful of people that actually drink two beers or less in these places, that's the small majority from my personal experience. This is also reinforced considering the fair amount of folks being arrested in my area at 2am in the morning who have weapons in the vehicle. If you look at the amount of alcohol-related crimes in this country (whether DUI, disorderly conduct, public intox), it is still very common among our population to drink too much when away from home. Add a weapon to the mix and you increase a risk to safety, whether it be to the permit holder or to others. From a negligent discharge, to road rage, to bumping into someone, when alcohol and impairment is involved bad stuff happens. That's the bottom line. If you want to get hammered at home, then it's only your safety at risk. Take the same actions in public, now the state has to step in and weigh your rights (to carry) against the rights of others to be safe. Normally the courts have ruled that public's safety is more important. We can agree to disagree, but in my personal opinion (that isn't going to change) drinking and carrying is not a responsible act.

And yet, by your own admission, it is not and has not been an issue. You even admit that you have not seen any instances of the weapon being used irresponsibly yet you insist that it will be. How can you honestly say in one sentence that it is not an issue than in the next say that it is?

Bren
11-21-2011, 08:58
They're violating the law of being in possession of a weapon under the influence. Although the permit holder can't consume while being armed, I don't see many officers in my area taking someone to jail for consuming one beer in violation of their permit requirement. Being intoxicated is a different story. There's no circular logic to it at all. Removing the law defeats the purpose. The law acts as a deterrent to keep people from being irresponsible while carrying. That's how I see it, that's how the legislators of my state see it. I have no problem with it. Again, if you read my other posts you would see that I encourage firearm carry as long as it's done responsibly. I don't see anyone going to a pool hall or night club with the intention of drinking one beer. That's from being in clubs a lot and my experience dealing with folks I have pulled over in my area.


If you are worried about the people getting drunk while carrying, it looks like the law against carrying under the influence is enough to handle the problem. The fact that you don't "see" the one-beer guys doesn't mean they don't exist. In fact, you can drink a lot more than one beer in a night without ever being under the influence - 1 every hour or so would be no big deal and never get you to a .05 BAC.

However, one problem for the police is that you forget that you are seeing a huge overrepresentation of the bad side of people - while you will see very little of the ones not causing trouble. When it comes to crime, both the criminals and victims are usually of the scumbag variety and that colors your outlook. If you work day involves dealing with 95% scumbags and then you are tuned to picking those out when you're off duty, it starts to look like there's nothing else.

In all seriousness, this forum reminds me of that effect, when I start to think the whole shooting world has been invaded by people like I see posting here (not this thread, but much of GNG), then I go to a real shooting event, gun shop or show and see it isn't so.

Warp
11-21-2011, 10:06
Add a weapon to the mix and you increase a risk to safety, whether it be to the permit holder or to others. From a negligent discharge, to road rage, to bumping into someone, when alcohol and impairment is involved bad stuff happens.

No, actually, it doesn't.

If you can provide an example to prove what you are spewing, please, by all means, let's see it.

xmanhockey7
11-21-2011, 11:23
The way I see it in TN there is a law against drinking and carrying already. Making bars a gun free zone won't help. Besides these people aren't even doing anything related to their weapons. The reason they're getting in trouble (from the sound of it) is that they're driving (also illegal). Apparently making another law will prevent these people from doing so.

Now lets look at a state that doesn't have a law against drinking and carrying. Indiana from what I and others can tell (if you can find a law against it let me know) has no law against drinking and carry. They're also not experiencing problems with people carrying in bars. So they have no law against drinking and carrying or carrying in a bar and yet they're not experiencing any issues.

Warp
11-21-2011, 11:26
The way I see it in TN there is a law against drinking and carrying already. Making bars a gun free zone won't help. Besides these people aren't even doing anything related to their weapons. The reason they're getting in trouble (from the sound of it) is that they're driving (also illegal). Apparently making another law will prevent these people from doing so.

Now lets look at a state that doesn't have a law against drinking and carrying. Indiana from what I and others can tell (if you can find a law against it let me know) has no law against drinking and carry. They're also not experiencing problems with people carrying in bars. So they have no law against drinking and carrying or carrying in a bar and yet they're not experiencing any issues.

You are correct.

And the lack of incidents is not a result of little opportunity. It has been that way for a good long time (dunno how long exactly) and Indiana ranks very high (top 3 last numbers somebody ran) in terms of the % of the population that is licensed to carry. Over 5% of the total population (not just adults, total pop) has a license to carry a handgun. That is very, very high.

xmanhockey7
11-21-2011, 11:39
You are correct.

And the lack of incidents is not a result of little opportunity. It has been that way for a good long time (dunno how long exactly) and Indiana ranks very high (top 3 last numbers somebody ran) in terms of the % of the population that is licensed to carry. Over 5% of the total population (not just adults, total pop) has a license to carry a handgun. That is very, very high.

And they allow those irresponsible 18-20 yr olds to carry and yet they don't cause any problems in that state. Odd. (I'm 19)

Warp
11-21-2011, 12:10
And they allow those irresponsible 18-20 yr olds to carry and yet they don't cause any problems in that state. Odd. (I'm 19)

Correct. Minimum age 18, shall issue, no training requirement, inexpensive, lifetime license available, college campuses legal, bars legal, drinking while carrying legal...not a problem.

I propose that either us Indiana residents are a cut above the rest or those of your going on and on about what you think will happen are just plain wrong.

RMD
11-21-2011, 12:24
...Indiana...has no law against drinking and carry. They're also not experiencing problems with people carrying in bars. So they have no law against drinking and carrying or carrying in a bar and yet they're not experiencing any issues.

Same here in Colorado. Been that way for a long time.

hockeyrcks9901
11-21-2011, 12:32
Same here in Colorado. Been that way for a long time.

Same here in Florida...I wonder if we're all dead and just don't know it. I mean, it's such a disaster to allow carry and alcohol together, we'd surely have killed everyone by now...

We can't carry in a bar but can carry where alcohol is served in Florida...

xmanhockey7
11-22-2011, 04:08
Correct. Minimum age 18, shall issue, no training requirement, inexpensive, lifetime license available, college campuses legal, bars legal, drinking while carrying legal...not a problem.

I propose that either us Indiana residents are a cut above the rest or those of your going on and on about what you think will happen are just plain wrong.

Thank you!!!! For my North Dakota non-resident all I need was to take a written open book test, be 18, and have a clean record. No training required. Their state sucks as far as where you can and can't carry though. I wish the rest of the country would be more like Indiana or better yet Vermont!

SgtScott31
11-22-2011, 14:52
And yet, by your own admission, it is not and has not been an issue. You even admit that you have not seen any instances of the weapon being used irresponsibly yet you insist that it will be. How can you honestly say in one sentence that it is not an issue than in the next say that it is?

I'm not sure how else I can say it.

People with guns who are drinking versus people with guns who are not drinking. Where is there a higher likelihood of an incident? It's not rocket science.

No, actually, it doesn't.

If you can provide an example to prove what you are spewing, please, by all means, let's see it.

Read my first answer. If you want to drink and add the extra weight to possibly criminal and/or civil sanctions be my guest. If the weapon is used after you've been drinking, whether it was justifiable or not, tell me that you're not going to get extra special attention by police and/or a civil attorney if there's alcohol in the mix. If you want that heat, by all means take it. I find it amusing that you attempt to use a lack of incidents you read in the media to justify your argument. Do you honestly have any idea how many firearm-related incidents occur that never get reported outside of the arrest itself?

Carry and drink. I could care less. It's your arse (and your family's) on the line. Not mine.

If you are worried about the people getting drunk while carrying, it looks like the law against carrying under the influence is enough to handle the problem. The fact that you don't "see" the one-beer guys doesn't mean they don't exist. In fact, you can drink a lot more than one beer in a night without ever being under the influence - 1 every hour or so would be no big deal and never get you to a .05 BAC.

Ok. Next time you're out in a night club/bar, let me know how many drink one beer or one beer an hour versus those who don't. Many are kidding yourselves if you're going to sit here and tell me a large majority of the folks in these type establishments are limiting their alcohol intake. Is there a few that are drinking responsibly? sure. Do they outnumber those that are not? NOPE.

Warp
11-22-2011, 15:16
And yet...just as the title states...guns in bars cause no problems.

sns3guppy
11-22-2011, 21:10
And yet, by your own admission, it is not and has not been an issue. You even admit that you have not seen any instances of the weapon being used irresponsibly yet you insist that it will be.

Irrelevant.

You seem to feel that if no one violates a law then there's no value in the law.

If no one exceeds a speed limit, then there is no justification for the speed limit. Is that it? the only way to justify a law is for people to break the law?

A law has validity whether or not people violate it. Prohibiting a felon from having a handgun is not frivolous, even if a felon never uses a handgun to kill someone.

A law preventing drinking and carrying a firearm is not improper, even if no one ever dies as a result of alcohol and firearms. Of course, people do die as a result of alcohol and firearms, but were you to ignore that fact and use your twisted, circular logic, you still can't reconcile the fact that the law isn't a function of who breaks the law.

Warp
11-22-2011, 21:35
Irrelevant.

You seem to feel that if no one violates a law then there's no value in the law.

If no one exceeds a speed limit, then there is no justification for the speed limit. Is that it? the only way to justify a law is for people to break the law?

A law has validity whether or not people violate it. Prohibiting a felon from having a handgun is not frivolous, even if a felon never uses a handgun to kill someone.

A law preventing drinking and carrying a firearm is not improper, even if no one ever dies as a result of alcohol and firearms. Of course, people do die as a result of alcohol and firearms, but were you to ignore that fact and use your twisted, circular logic, you still can't reconcile the fact that the law isn't a function of who breaks the law.

What are you talking about? To what law (not being violated, but should still exist) are you referring?

RussP
11-22-2011, 21:41
A law preventing drinking and carrying a firearm is not improper, even if no one ever dies as a result of alcohol and firearms. Of course, people do die as a result of alcohol and firearms...And these are the injuries and deaths that cops see when a firearm is used while a person is under the influence. The setting may not be in a bar or restaurant. It may be an argument in a car, in a house, on the street. It may not be a person licensed to carry concealed who is the shooter. However, law enforcement does see a lot of shootings by people under the influence. As more and more people begin carrying, eventually...