States that allow drinking while armed

[Doug Huffman]

Beware of the evil paradigm of consideration, expectation, then requirement.

Beware of the evil paradigm of consideration, expectation, then requirement.

If you are considerate of the antis prejudices, then they will expect that consideration even to making it a legal requirement.

 

[Claytron]

circumstances

I would not want to be around someone with a gun who has had three beers. If I knew he was armed, I would walk away.

I would have no problem being around someone who is smoking cigarettes and is armed.

I would not want to be around someone with a gun who thinks that three beers does not impair him as much as a single cigarette.

And this, in my opinion, is where things get iffy. You are claiming that your impairment is more manageable than mine. When i smoke a few puffs of a cigarette, my head swirls. I start to get foggy in the brain and the nicotine makes me jittery and anxious. On the other hand, unless i havent had anything to drink in awhile, 3 "beers" (im talking 5% alchohol drinks) wont make me feel like i am unable to control myself.

So for me its more dangerous to mess with nicotine than it is alcohol. I dont need statistics and percentages to know how things affect my mind and body.

In the end i think its common sense and responsibility that is required,not just for guns or alcohol, but for all things. And speaking of common sense, who are you to determine how and how much a substance affects someone else? Keep in mind this isnt about 3 beers vs 1 cigarette, its about a persons ability to dictate whether or not they are in control of their own mind and body.

You are trying to dictate what is safe for others, the same way that people try and dictate whether or not you carrying a gun is safe. You know deep down that youve trained your mind and body to handle the gun AND the situations you may need to use it in, but that doesnt mean anything to them, they still just see the gun and the fact that it kills people, the way you look at alcohol and assume its the key factor here and it isnt.

If you dont think a person can make the decision to ingest alcohol while carrying and be responsible aboutit,how can you assume they are responsible otherwise?

It all comes down to common sense and logic in my opinion, and if you dont have either of those while carrying a gun, I would turn around and walk away from you.

 

[Doug Huffman]

I would turn around and walk away from you.

That's the problem with anonymous posturing on the internet, you'll never know when you're near I-95.

 

[Claytron]

5 glasses of coffee brandy

That's the problem with anonymous posturing on the internet, you'll never know when you're near I-95.

I have no idea what that means.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Beware of the evil paradigm of consideration, expectation, then requirement.

If you are considerate of the antis prejudices, then they will expect that consideration even to making it a legal requirement.

+1

 

[1245A Defender]

its not the beers! its the a55hole!!

I would not want to be around someone with a gun who has had three beers. If I knew he was armed, I would walk away.

I would have no problem being around someone who is smoking cigarettes and is armed.

I would not want to be around someone with a gun who thinks that three beers does not impair him as much as a single cigarette.

i can trust most folks to drive a car safely and responsibly at the legal limit of .08 BAC.
i can trust the same folks with that same BAC when armed.

the folks you cant trust to be armed at .02, or .08 BAC are not, "not" trustworthy
because they have been drinking!
it is because they are a55holes!!!
folks that are not safe and responsible even when they are stone cold sober!
folks like that will always be irresponsible and a safety hazard!
but the fact that they were drinking will give them an easy out,
to act out and let their idiocy and rage and stupidity boil out into actions.

 

[SlackwareRobert]

I don't think it is a good idea, but I refuse to support the state with the taxes, so have no choice and won't.

But I had no problem having a glass of beer while on jury duty with lunch. The other jurors were hanging their mouths open in shock I would do such a thing. If I can sit in judgment over someones life after a glass, I see no reason I can't do the same for myself.
Besides an armed drunk is a much easier BG to take out than a sober gang of thugs bent on doing you harm.

As for habitual drunkard in AL, Zeb Little is my gold standard, a lifetime of dui's and still going strong.

For the having a drink in your home, let them prove you drank before the shooting, and not Exxon Valdez style, you got drunk after the shooting to calm your nerves. Unfortunately you do need to practice so you can point to your tight shot group that you were sober. And don't forget to clean up the mess you make when you heave after the shooting just in case you get a real hard nose CSI wannabe. Maybe type out a note saying you want to remain silent so you don't need to incriminate yourself. Don't talk so no slurred words, don't stand so no swaying, just sit in your lazy boy sipping your drink with mirrored shades on when they show up so no pupil giveaways.
On the street you use an untraceable gun. It went off in the struggle and there is no proof it is yours so they can't charge you with carrying it while drunk. Of course your holster was empty, you were drinking and can't carry.

What I would like to see is they make a feel good lesser charge of weapon homicide like they let the drunk drivers off with. So at worst you face community service after a dozen or so shootings.

Legal thought: If the dead guy is out on parole, can you keep the police out as you have 4th and 5th rights, and he was an agent of the state when he dropped dead on your property. So being forced to allow access when it was their guy who broke in would be a clear violation of your rights.

 

[heresyourdipstickjimmy]

I know that Utah allows for consuming alcohol while armed, and uses the DUI (0.08% BAC) limit for 'impairment' purposes. What other states allow for drinking in public establishments while armed? What criteria do they use for 'obviously intoxicated' or 'impaired' , if any? Do they have CC only, OC only, or any other caveats?

I would appriciate any relevant statutes, if you know them.

This is an issue that should ONLY come up within the confines of your home. If you're carrying outside your home, you should NEVER consume alcohol. If you're drinking, even inside your home, you shouldn't be carrying....access is one thing, but carrying is unaceptable once you start consuming alcohol.

Sorry if readers happen to be one of "those folks", but it's irresponsible and dangerous to everyone including yourself. It also proves just how idiotic some people can be when they think it's even remotely reasonable to carry and drink.

 

[Doug Huffman]

The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

All humans have measurable ethanol in our blood always, the tests are too expensive to use without special circumstances. Even at elevated levels 0.01 - 0.03 BAC the effects require special tests to detect. Zero tolerance (thoughtlessness) characterizes totalitarian countries like Russia, UAE Bangladesh.

When you read secondary sources, consider their commitment to honesty. The primary sources are technical pharmacology.

 

[eye95]

Researchers may use tests to identify and quantify the effects of even 0.02 BAC, however that research does, in fact, establish that there are effects at that BAC level, and that those effects are such that they impair the very abilities needed to safely use a firearm.

I don't need any tests to verify that after just two drinks, I can physically feel the effects. I could probably still act safely. I just choose not to take that chance. Nor will I, at this point in the history of our movement, provide one ounce of fuel to those who oppose OC.

Also, as I have said before, I will not judge another's level of impairment. However, I will not hang with someone who is carrying and has had three drinks. Furthermore, I will judge someone's ideas harshly when they insist that three drinks will not impair them.

Basically, if you choose to drink and carry, do so. I choose not to do it. I also choose not to hang with you if you do.

 

[detroit_fan]

Pretty sure MI is .02, but not positive. I'll try and look for a cite.

 

[Doug Huffman]

Pretty sure MI is .02, but not positive. I'll try and look for a cite.

http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1586_1710-76391--,00.html

 

[LMTD]

I love booze and firearm activities, well I should say one firearm activity. After a day at the range, siting on the porch, ice cold beer, sorting the brass, man that is a good day!

Procedure: Guns in safe, have cocktail, guns out of safe, water or soda only. Not real hard, but defiantly a hard line for me. I will not even clean gun while drinking.

I like a beer every now and then. I think I drank 30 last year.
I like guns.

I consider them very separate activities and since I only do the beer on the porch thing and do not frequent bars, I do not have to worry about it. If I have any intention of drinking I will not drive, and I do not carry at all.

Perhaps if I was a more seasoned drinker I would not feel so strongly about it, but I fail to see the point, one hobby at a time in my book.

 

[Claytron]

I don't need any tests to verify that after just two drinks, I can physically feel the effects.

Theres NOTHING wrong at all with being a lightweight. That being said, we arent all 5 feet tall and 150 lbs. to think that you know what other people can and cant handle.... you say you dont try to judge others level of impairment,yet you announce that you feel impaired after two drinks and use it as a way of judging how others would feel after the same amount, and you are just wrong.

i think not protecting yourself because you planned on having one or two weak drinks is completely silly, and so isnt this idea of not wanting to provide an image of irresponsibility, as if hiding peoples actions is ever a good thing. Trying to make things appear the way they arent is the same lame, underhanded BS tactic that run this country.

 

[eye95]

Theres NOTHING wrong at all with being a lightweight. That being said, we arent all 5 feet tall and 150 lbs.

That's as far as I read. I don't read the drivel from folks who feel the need to insult. Welcome to Ignoreland, rookie.

5' 10", 240.

Ya might try rereading what I write. I made no judgment as to the level of impairment in anyone else. RIF.

Buh-bye.

 

[Grapeshot]

Theres NOTHING wrong at all with being a lightweight. That being said, we arent all 5 feet tall and 150 lbs. to think that you know what other people can and cant handle.... you say you dont try to judge others level of impairment,yet you announce that you feel impaired after two drinks and use it as a way of judging how others would feel after the same amount, and you are just wrong.

i think not protecting yourself because you planned on having one or two weak drinks is completely silly, and so isnt this idea of not wanting to provide an image of irresponsibility, as if hiding peoples actions is ever a good thing. Trying to make things appear the way they arent is the same lame, underhanded BS tactic that run this country.

Never accuse posters of saying something they have not, quote out of context or otherwise change the meaning of their statements - quick way of losing credibility here.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Had lunch with wife and freinds, who OC too, I had a pint (Mac and Jacks) and nothing happened. No strange looks noone freaking out, TyGuy808's baby wasn't hurt I am confident that if a bad guy did something I could have still pegged him.

 

[SlackwareRobert]

When teased about being a light weight, I proudly point out I can get drunk for a month on 1 fifth. You diehards
have to buy a bottle every night. I am cheap and proud of it! I prefer more bullets over feeding the states greed for more money and power.
I tried to get the MADD gang to let me use my car on the course and have real drinks to prove their drunk driver car getup was rigged, they wouldn't go for it.

But the danger of being drunk isn't your shot group it is your situational awareness allowing danger getting to close to react effectively. If it effected your aim then PETA would be all for hunting drunk to protect the animals.
Someone breaking into your home doesn't take much awareness. Just as it is sad when a drunk breaks into a home and gets shot, the same goes when a sober person breaks into a drunks home and get shot. It is the action of breaking in that cause the tragedy not the booze.

 

[Grapeshot]

When teased about being a light weight, I proudly point out I can get drunk for a month on 1 fifth. You diehards
have to buy a bottle every night. I am cheap and proud of it! I prefer more bullets over feeding the states greed for more money and power.
I tried to get the MADD gang to let me use my car on the course and have real drinks to prove their drunk driver car getup was rigged, they wouldn't go for it.

But the danger of being drunk isn't your shot group it is your situational awareness allowing danger getting to close to react effectively. If it effected your aim then PETA would be all for hunting drunk to protect the animals.
Someone breaking into your home doesn't take much awareness. Just as it is sad when a drunk breaks into a home and gets shot, the same goes when a sober person breaks into a drunks home and get shot. It is the action of breaking in that cause the tragedy not the booze.

Of course that presumes that the cognitive ability of the shooter was not flawed and he/she made the right decision.

 

[eye95]

Of course that presumes that the cognitive ability of the shooter was not flawed and he/she made the right decision.

Everyone ever busted for drunk driving in the entire history of alcohol and motorized vehicles has claimed that he "can handle his liquor" and "can drive better after eight drinks than most can sober." Unfortunately, that judgment is typically made while under the influence and is more than suspect.

I grew up with someone who made such claims. He was at fault in dozens of automobile accidents. (Of course, the other guy was always the "moron.") I, on the other hand, have been responsible for zero.

I think that I have the wiser outlook on alcohol than the person who made the above claims.