Don't carry drunk

[beebobby]

Unfortunate.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44878611/

 

[Brass Magnet]

Maybe the gun was in his car the whole time and he wasn't "carrying" it? In any case, what he did was stupid but the gun wasn't part of the stupidity. The gun itself was a non-issue.

 

[hermannr]

If you are going to drink enough to get drunk outside of your own home, call a cab...doesn't matter waht the cab costs, it is cheaper than a DUI/

 

[Daylen]

So one looses the right of self defense when inebriated?

 

[Overtaker]

This is very unfortunate because he was a major force in restoring our self-defense rights in Tennessee, including a bill (now law) to allow permit holders to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol. The media and antis strongly opposed the law saying that permit holders would get drunk and kill people (of course that never happened).

Re his drunkenness, he was driving 60mph in a 40mph zone, he was swerving between lanes, and he had trouble standing when they performed the sobriety test.

 

[thebigsd]

What a shame! This will come back to bite the gun community in some way. Don't drink and drive, it's not that complicated.

 

[Verd]

So one looses the right of self defense when inebriated?

Not at all. At least, not if you are smart and are inebriated in your own home. Because, lets be honest here. Being inebriated in public makes you a target since your judgement is impaired. If you fear for your safety while inebriated, perhaps you should take care not to become inebriated outside of your home.

 

[SavageOne]

So one looses the right of self defense when inebriated?

Not in the state of Missouri. Look at #5

571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly:

(1) Carries concealed upon or about his or her person a knife, a firearm, a blackjack or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use; or

(2) Sets a spring gun; or

(3) Discharges or shoots a firearm into a dwelling house, a railroad train, boat, aircraft, or motor vehicle as defined in section 302.010, or any building or structure used for the assembling of people; or

(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner; or

(5) Has a firearm or projectile weapon readily capable of lethal use on his or her person, while he or she is intoxicated, and handles or otherwise uses such firearm or projectile weapon in either a negligent or unlawful manner or discharges such firearm or projectile weapon unless acting in self-defense;

In Missouri we make an action illegal not an item.

 

[Superlite27]

In Missouri we make an action illegal not an item.

Which is the way it should be.

(5) Has a firearm or projectile weapon readily capable of lethal use on his or her person, while he or she is intoxicated, and handles or otherwise uses such firearm or projectile weapon in either a negligent or unlawful manner or discharges such firearm or projectile weapon unless acting in self-defense;

Both qualifiers must be met in order to be illegal. Therefore, simply being intoxicated while armed doesn't meet both qualifiers. You must also "handle it or otherwise use it in a negligent or unlawful manner". There's even a disqualifier on that!: "Unless acting in self defense".

ergo: In Missouri, if someone tries to kill you while you're drunk, you are allowed to do something other than die.

However, if you ever do so while intoxicated, I'm sure there will be quite a bit of focus on if there was, indeed, reasonable expectation of great bodily harm or death. After all, judgement is seriously affected by alcohol. What judgement could be more serious than whether or not to use deadly force?


BTW: Another thing I love about Missouri is that our signage holds no legal weight. I recently took a trip to Iowa now that they have reciprocity, and I was a little "taken aback" by seeing "no guns" signs on doors that said "It is illegal to carry a firearm on these premises." WHAT? You mean the stupid sign holds the weight of law? Any schmuck can make something illegal by simply putting a sticker on the door?

It made me love Missouri all that much more where they can only ask you to leave if you pass the sign, and they can only arrest you for trespassing if you refuse. Makes sense. If you don't want me there, ask me to leave. In Iowa, if they don't want you there...YOU GO TO JAIL.

 

[Daylen]

Not in the state of Missouri. Look at #5




In Missouri we make an action illegal not an item.

Nice.

 

[since9]

"Officers concluded that Todd was "obviously very impaired and not in any condition to be carrying a loaded handgun."

And yet throughout the many decades he's carried and the years during which he's sponsored, supported, and helped enact this bill, he's had precisely how many incidents involving his firearm?

To let the antis use this as an excuse to do away with progress is asinine.

 

[Badger Johnson]

A bit of an example about how people can exhibit a 'central tendency' and over-react to something.

My friend and I rode our bikes in our gated community, everyone waved and enjoyed our riding. We rode at least 5 days a week for about 6 months. No problem.

One day some neighbor who was (allegedly) backing out of her driveway reported us as making her 'SLAM on her brakes'. Obviously, the root cause is:
a) backing out without backing skill;
b) backing out without looking;
c) backing out at extreme speed;
d) etc.

(However the HOA said we should ride elsewhere because we were obviously too good, fast, something, to ride in the development. They TOTALLY ignored that we rode over 100 iterations and never had a problem. Rode for SIX months with no complaint. But one time, someone raises an issue in which NOTHING HAPPENED, mind you, and we're asked to ride elsewhere. They cited excessive speed, however the person just said a biker rode by - speed was not an issue. But how does a bike equate to the damage a CAR weighing 2000lbs would have done to her backing out incautiously? There's no way we exceeded the speed limit of 15mph, either.)

Ridiculous. Central tendency and reactionary.

 

[okboomer]

Badger,

Watch that person carefully and if you ever see them have to slam the brakes on, file an HOA complaint about their "reckless and dangerous" driving :lol:

 

[MilProGuy]

"The sponsor of the law that made it legal to carry a gun into bars in Tennessee is facing charges of possession of a handgun while under the influence and drunken driving."

One step forward...and three steps back.

Driving under the influence is dangerous and stupid, and disregards the safety and welfare of one's fellow citizens.

(But, drunks don't stop to think about things like that!):cuss:

 

[Seigi]

Not at all. At least, not if you are smart and are inebriated in your own home. Because, lets be honest here. Being inebriated in public makes you a target since your judgement is impaired. If you fear for your safety while inebriated, perhaps you should take care not to become inebriated outside of your home.

Agreed. Abstain from alcohol, not armament.