self preservation
Regular Member
I have a friend that is planning a trip to VA. They are headed out in the morning (6/6/15) for a short visit. Can anyone give some 5 cent advice for their visit?
I have a friend that is planning a trip to VA. They are headed out in the morning (6/6/15) for a short visit. Can anyone give some 5 cent advice for their visit?
No, that's not even close. Because perception becomes reality, and the indisputable fact of the matter is that it serves no benefit to the RKBA community for others to observe a legal gun-carrier consuming alcohol. Those who are anti-gun will surely exploit such observations to promote their "no guns for anyone" agenda, and those who are agnostic and otherwise uninformed could be easily swayed toward the anti-gun perspective at the observation of what appears to be irresponsible behavior.Because they can't handle having a beer with lunch or dinner while carrying a firearm?
Because they can't handle having a beer with lunch or dinner while carrying a firearm?
§ 18.2-56.1. Reckless handling of firearms; reckless handling while hunting.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to handle recklessly any firearm so as to endanger the life, limb or property of any person. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
A1. Any person who handles any firearm in a manner so gross, wanton, and culpable as to show a reckless disregard for human life and causes the serious bodily injury of another person resulting in permanent and significant physical impairment is guilty of a Class 6 felony.
This notion that booze and firearms don't mix is just the absolutism thinking that the anti-liberty crowd wants we gun owners to burden ourselves with. skid is 100% correct, it is what you do with your gat that matters, not what you had to drink before you used your gat.No, that's not even close. ...
This subject really is a no-brainer. Just because it's legal doesn't make it smart.
TFred
No problem. And BTW, I do so enjoy reading thinly veiled, poorly constructed sarcasm, so thanks for that.Ok. I was just wondering. I had just gotten back from open carry luncheon in Whatcom County, WA:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...Every-Sunday&p=2144448&viewfull=1#post2144448
6 of us gathered, along with our families and had a wonderful lunch in the outdoor garden and 5 out of 6 of us enjoyed a hoppy beverage with lunch. I'll make sure and tell them how wrong we were and how bad of an example of everyday people doing everyday things while carrying a firearm we set. Thank you for telling us how wrong it is.
I do have a question though. What about the concealed carry only people who say it is an "indisputable fact" that open carry serves no benefit to the RKBA community for others to observe a legal gun-carrier openly "flaunting" his firearm "in the public's face" and how just because open carry is legal does not make it smart? Is their claim to an "indisputable fact" any less valid than your claim of an "indisputable fact?"
No, the notion that booze and firearms don't mix is common sense. And please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say it should be illegal. It's just something that a responsible gun-owner should be aware can badly damage the cause.This notion that booze and firearms don't mix is just the absolutism thinking that the anti-liberty crowd wants we gun owners to burden ourselves with. skid is 100% correct, it is what you do with your gat that matters, not what you had to drink before you used your gat.
Folks who carry this view of booze and guns need to work to get a law enacted that makes unlawful the consumption of adult beverages at home, where guns are possessed too. Of course, the state will need to know who has guns at home, and who drinks booze. Of course a LE exemption will need to be in the law. As well as a exemption for politicians and LE bureaucrats. Or, better yet, a special permit can be issued to those who wish to drink a brewski while packing heat. This would accomplish the who has guns and where the guns are part, part of the permit application process.
yepper, it could work. A permit...hmm.
No officer, I have a permit to have a cold frosty friendly, see, here it is. I am formerly/formally trained, and state certified to carry and imbibe.
Please provide an example or two for all of us to read here, detailing how an anti-gun person observing a legal gun carrier drinking an alcoholic beverage is in any way beneficial to our effort to promote gun carriers as responsible assets to society as a whole.
The same way that an anti-gun person observing a legal gun carrier carrying a gun ordering tacos at Taco Bell is an any way beneficial to our effort to promote gun carriers as responsible assets to society as a whole. People have observed me, carrying a gun, having lunch and/or dinner with my wife and daughter and enjoying a beer. They see me being polite to the staff, they see me enjoying the company of my lovely wife and beautiful daughter. They see walk to to the car and get in the passenger side while my wife drives away.
And then back to my previous question, why do the people see fit to make it illegal to consume any alcohol while driving?
Because they are OPERATING that piece of equipment. I'll ask you a question - why have they not made it illegal to consume alcohol with car keys in your pocket and the car they fit parked in the parking lot? I am not OPERATING or HANDLING my firearm. I am carrying it. Is it a bad example for the prevention of DUI's to consume alcohol while in possession of car keys?
Where is the cry for open containers?
How does the presence of an open container of alcohol provide for the safety of the driver or occupants against a criminal attack? (Although, I suppose they could hit the attacker with a bottle).
There are people who say the same thing about guns in a home with children. Guns and children don't mix. So does that mean that we all should get rid of our guns that have children in the house?
My gun has about 4 controls I need to use properly. My truck has about 30. If I can have a beer and drive my complicated, 5000 lb, steel missile then why can't I have something super simple and is a Right?No, that's not even close. Because perception becomes reality, and the indisputable fact of the matter is that it serves no benefit to the RKBA community for others to observe a legal gun-carrier consuming alcohol. Those who are anti-gun will surely exploit such observations to promote their "no guns for anyone" agenda, and those who are agnostic and otherwise uninformed could be easily swayed toward the anti-gun perspective at the observation of what appears to be irresponsible behavior.
Consider the consumption of alcohol in relation to driving. How much is too much? There are clearly defined, scientifically observable limits. Yet why is it against the law to consume ANY alcohol while driving? Are there any credible complaints about not being allowed to consume "reasonable" amounts of alcohol while driving? Carrying a gun is not the same as carrying a hammer. You not only have to be in total control of your motor skills to operate it properly, you must be in total control of your mental abilities to govern if/when to use it as well.
This subject really is a no-brainer. Just because it's legal doesn't make it smart.
TFred
How can it be recklessly "handling" of a firearm when the firearm is not being "handled?" Handle (verb): feel or manipulate with the hands. I don't recall a single person touching their firearm during lunch. And I don't see alcohol mentioned anywhere in the Virginia statute.
Because the term "under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs" has never been provided an objective measurement. DUI does not happen until you reach 0.08% BAC. Reckless handling of a firearm*, due to the lack of an objective measurement, could be charged at 0.01% BAC.
It's that whole discretion vs valor thing. You may not want to spit into the wind or tug on Superman's cape even though there are no laws against doing so. If you do, just don't come back crying about what happened.
Section A does not require that the life, limb or property of any person suffer an injury or harm - merely that it was endangered. Endangered is subjective.
You are missing my point entirely. The statute regards handling a firearm. So, in order for a person to be convicted of reckless endangerment it would seem to me that they would have to be actually handling the firearm. Or are you saying you risk conviction because you have a firearm in a holster and at some time in the future you could endanger someone by handling it? If that is true, then the cops should be arresting people drinking in bars with car keys in their pockets because they have the potential to drive when they leave.
§ 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured.
§ 46.2-852. Reckless driving; general rule.
Irrespective of the maximum speeds permitted by law, any person who drives a vehicle on any highway recklessly or at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person shall be guilty of reckless driving.
Strawman.
You guys sure do take mixing booze and guns seriously.
Is it that hard to see that the perception of mixing booze and guns MAY damage our cause or MAY cause trouble with those statist/jackbooted/criminal/out-to-kill-anyone-they-can cops? Just ask our resident cop haters. Those cops are just salivating for a chance to shoot someone.
Being cautious is not a bad thing. No one here is dictating anyone's behaviors.
Sorry but it was not a straw man it was an analogy directly related to your statement to show how "normalizing" having a drink is.
I then find the irony of the fallacy dealing with cops after trying to paint someones argument as a fallacy, amusing.
It's not hard to see that perception at all, but as Navy was pointing out in his analogy that perception for an anti is there no matter what you do.
But hey maybe here in the Northwest we aren't so prudish about having a beer and don't seem hung up on others puritanical ideals.
No, that's not even close. Because perception becomes reality, and the indisputable fact of the matter is that it serves no benefit to the RKBA community for others to observe a legal gun-carrier consuming alcohol. Those who are anti-gun will surely exploit such observations to promote their "no guns for anyone" agenda, and those who are agnostic and otherwise uninformed could be easily swayed toward the anti-gun perspective at the observation of what appears to be irresponsible behavior.
Consider the consumption of alcohol in relation to driving. How much is too much? There are clearly defined, scientifically observable limits. Yet why is it against the law to consume ANY alcohol while driving? Are there any credible complaints about not being allowed to consume "reasonable" amounts of alcohol while driving? Carrying a gun is not the same as carrying a hammer. You not only have to be in total control of your motor skills to operate it properly, you must be in total control of your mental abilities to govern if/when to use it as well.
This subject really is a no-brainer. Just because it's legal doesn't make it smart.
TFred
Sorry but it was not a straw man it was an analogy directly related to your statement to show how "normalizing" having a drink is.
I then find the irony of the fallacy dealing with cops after trying to paint someones argument as a fallacy, amusing.
It's not hard to see that perception at all, but as Navy was pointing out in his analogy that perception for an anti is there no matter what you do.
But hey maybe here in the Northwest we aren't so prudish about having a beer and don't seem hung up on others puritanical ideals.
In reply to Skidmark's post #19, which I am not going to quote for brevity - the Virginia Citizens' Self Defense League largely disagrees with what was posted.
http://www.ammoland.com/2013/12/firearms-brandishing/
I must say, I am very thankful to live in Washington where we don't have such problems. Our state Supreme Court has ruled that a handgun simply carried in a holster cannot raise to the level of "manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons" which is basically the same thing that the Virginia Self Defense League says about a holstered handgun in Virginia.
In addition, the VCDL explanation of "brandishing" is much more in line with the actual definition of "brandishing" than Skidmark's post is:
Brandish (verb): wave or flourish (something, especially a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement.
This article, and the criminal defense attorney referenced, also disagrees with Skidmark:
http://www.styleweekly.com/richmond/when-is-a-gun-brandished/Content?oid=1487584
I hardly see how any majority of people could reasonably conclude that a person who is having a peaceful lunch or dinner with a holstered firearm could appear to have the intent to induce fear.
Anyway...both sides have been presented so people can make their own informed decisions.
I hardly see how any majority of people could reasonably conclude that a person who is having a peaceful lunch or dinner with a holstered firearm could appear to have the intent to induce fear.
How can you tell when you have reached the legal limit of being intoxicated? Are you drunk now?