Alcohol and concealed carry - Page 3
Page 3 of 23 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 226

Thread: Alcohol and concealed carry

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    29
    I was at a local club last night, and was hanging out with some friends. The establishment doesn't ban guns on premise so I carry. I also don't drink alcohol so I was fine. My instructor did say he goes out with his wife, and enjoys a glass of wine every once in a while. Even the sheriff at the class said he does the same thing. I believe it's a personal choice, and if you have your CCW I would hope to God you have the brains to use common sense. If I plan on drinking I leave the gun at home, and have a DD. But this rarely happens because I'm always the DD/DC.

  2.   
  3. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by B2Tall View Post
    Those who support an alcohol/guns mix ought to take the blinders off and think about what the constitution means as a whole.

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

    It's no different from a law that forbids convicted felons from carrying. It's no different from a law that forbids a person from carrying on a plane or on private property when the owner says "no". Don't like being in those situations?? Then choose not to put yourself in one.
    Well call me a dumb ass cause there are people who can carry arms on an airplane and into bars while drinking. But you for some reason have no problem allowing them that right but want to forbid the citizens of doing as the government law officials do.

    You keep forgetting the police officers kill and injure more innocent bystanders then all the people with CCW license.

    Why you want to over look that fact, I don't know but it is pissing me off greatly that you want to restrict my rights while allowing the government officials unrestricted rights. When it is a matter of public record that the government officials have a bad track record that magically keeps getting portrayed as why legal citizens should not be allowed their rights.

    As I have said before and will say again if you make laws or rules you want to have us follow you yourself have to follow them. Since the government officials don't follow the laws they want us citizens to follow you should be able to see why I have a problem with it. "Do as I say not as I do" is not a good way to try and lead by. Cause there will be many who say if you can do it so can I.

  4. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by jg1967 View Post
    Good one, do not think cops should be able to drink and carry either. Then again off duty cops can pretty much carry anywhere but part of that is for their own safety and because they are expected to intervene if something happens. Which would not make much sense if they were not carrying.
    So why do they have the right to be able to defend themselves but I am not allowed the same right. Is their safety more important then my safety?

  5. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    To answer the actual question asked:

    Georgia Code:



    Washington, BTW, has no law against carrying a firearm while under the influence, but does have a law that says a firearm is forfeited which is confiscated under circumstances where the subject is intoxicated and carrying a firearm in a manner or place that requires a CPL.
    Well, the NavyLT said it all quite correctly. I do have a GFL and I know better than to carry and drink (even a little dab as it was alluded to). I may not agree, but I do see the ramifications of having both ideals. Don't do it!

  6. Quote Originally Posted by jg1967 View Post
    Good one, do not think cops should be able to drink and carry either. Then again off duty cops can pretty much carry anywhere but part of that is for their own safety and because they are expected to intervene if something happens. Which would not make much sense if they were not carrying.
    Ummm... just so you become aware.... the police are not expected to intervene if something happens....

    Police have no responsibility to protect individuals (reference)

    Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."

    "It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."

    Sources:

    7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
    On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.

    (1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.

    (2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).

    (3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).

    (4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).

    (5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).

    (6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
    "...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

    (7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
    Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).

    (8) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
    Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)

    New York Times, Washington DC
    Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone By LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005
    The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  7. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,625
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    To answer the actual question asked:

    Georgia Code:
    16-11-134. Discharging firearm while under the influence of alcohol or drugs


    (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to discharge a firearm while:

    (1) Under the influence of alcohol or any drug or any combination of alcohol and any drug to the extent that it is unsafe for the person to discharge such firearm except in the defense of life, health, and property;

    (2) The person's alcohol concentration is 0.08 grams or more at any time while discharging such firearm or within three hours after such discharge of such firearm from alcohol consumed before such discharge ended; or

    (3) Subject to the provisions of subsection (b) of this Code section, there is any amount of marijuana or a controlled substance, as defined in Code Section 16-13-21, present in the person's blood or urine, or both, including the metabolites and derivatives of each or both without regard to whether or not any alcohol is present in the person's breath or blood.

    (b) The fact that any person charged with violating this Code section is or has been legally entitled to use a drug shall not constitute a defense against any charge of violating this Code section; provided, however, that such person shall not be in violation of this Code section unless such person is rendered incapable of possessing or discharging a firearm safely as a result of using a drug other than alcohol which such person is legally entitled to use.

    (c) Any person convicted of violating subsection (a) of this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

    Washington, BTW, has no law against carrying a firearm while under the influence, but does have a law that says a firearm is forfeited which is confiscated under circumstances where the subject is intoxicated and carrying a firearm in a manner or place that requires a CPL.
    Good thing for (b) or (a)(3) could get me in troubles. Certain medications are traceable up to 10 days after taking. Long after the half-life of them is gone. And with some medical procedures( IV plus injections), it is unsafe to drive, drink, carry a gun, or even sign legal papers for 24 hours after having them.

  8. #27
    In NC a concealed carrier isn't supposed to (notice supposed to) even go into a restaurant that serves alcohol, even if the carrier isn't drinking. That is extremely aggravating as every restaurant short of fast food joints locally serve at least beer. (my city was voted Beer City USA) I personally don't want to drink while I carry since I think it clouds judgement not to mention aim so I wish this stupid law would change!!

  9. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    Ummm... just so you become aware.... the police are not expected to intervene if something happens....

    Police have no responsibility to protect individuals (reference)
    Quite so but they are supposed to prevent crime and uphold the law which is what I meant.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by B2Tall View Post
    Those who support an alcohol/guns mix ought to take the blinders off and think about what the constitution means as a whole.
    I've got the blinders on?

    A "No Drinking While Carrying" law does not hinder somebody's 2A right in the least. Not even the tiniest bit. It give somebody a choice. You can have one or the other, just not both at the same time. Such laws simply mean that if you choose to drink alcohol you are temporarily surrendering your right to carry. "Choose" being the key word there - it's up to you as an individual.
    I'll suggest that we deny a permit to anyone who has a history of drinking -ever. Your choice!

    Drinking alcohol is not a right, it's a highly regulated priviledge that has strings attached to it. This is one of those strings.
    Are you drunk?

    It's no different from a law that forbids convicted felons from carrying. It's no different from a law that forbids a person from carrying on a plane or on private property when the owner says "no". Don't like being in those situations?? Then choose not to put yourself in one.
    I'm actually for any adult person to be allowed to carry with the exception of violent criminals. Once you're out, you'd be able to carry and defend yourself and your state and country.

    A few years back anyone could walk into an aircraft with a gun without any check. Then idiots started to write 'common sense gun laws'.

    In my state I can legally carry to any place except .gov and schools.

    You, who would deny the right to carry for anyone proficient enough (for whatever standard), ought to think a bit prior to posting asinine arguments.

    The Second Amendment 'reasonable' restrictions are BS. Someone wrote: "Shall not be infringed" DO NOT somehow translate into "reasonable restrictions apply". I subscribe to that. Anything else is a slippery slope - has been and still is.

    In NJ, for example, some idiot wrote a law that makes both the husband and wife a felon if the hubby shows his new gun to his wife at home.

    People like you are a danger to this country with your 'sensible' restrictions.

  11. Quote Originally Posted by jg1967 View Post
    Quite so but they are supposed to prevent crime and uphold the law which is what I meant.
    You still believe in "To Protect and Serve?"

Page 3 of 23 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast