• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

BAC when OCing vs. CCing

T Vance

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
2,482
Location
Not on this website, USA
imported post

I was arrested for DUI many years ago. They didn't wait 15 minutes to give me a breath alizer, or even ask me if I had recently drank, or ate anything.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

HankT wrote:
Rogue9er wrote:
I like PA's lack of any law whatsoever on alcohol and carrying. You could get a drunk in public and not have any weapons related charges. I really think it should up to the individual whether they could drink and carry. If someone drinks and he ends up doing something foolish while carrying, he should be held responsible for the foolish act, not because of the factors that led to it.
Someone drunk, in public, with a gun is a menace. If I saw someone in that state I would dial 911 immediately and report the person and be a good witness. If the person was really wasted and seemed to be a danger to me or others, I would consider taking possession of the person's gun, if possible,  until the po-po arrived.

Waiting until something gets broke or injured is not a feasible option. At least it's not a good one. Better to prevent it from happening.  If I saw someone, drunk and armed and he/she injures or kills someone and I could have done something about it, I wouldn't like that very much.
First of all, define "drunk".

Secondly, is there currently (right now, today) a known problem with numbers of people drinking to complete loss of control while open carrying firearms, where such a prohibition would prevent harm? I mean, after all, since it's legal, people are bound to do it, right?
 

Rogue9er

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
145
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
imported post

HankT wrote:
Rogue9er wrote:
I like PA's lack of any law whatsoever on alcohol and carrying. You could get a drunk in public and not have any weapons related charges. I really think it should up to the individual whether they could drink and carry. If someone drinks and he ends up doing something foolish while carrying, he should be held responsible for the foolish act, not because of the factors that led to it.
Someone drunk, in public, with a gun is a menace. If I saw someone in that state I would dial 911 immediately and report the person and be a good witness. If the person was really wasted and seemed to be a danger to me or others, I would consider taking possession of the person's gun, ifpossible, until the po-po arrived.

Waiting until something gets broke or injured is not a feasible option. At least it's not a good one. Better to prevent it from happening. If I saw someone, drunk and armed and he/she injures or kills someone and I could have done something about it, I wouldn't like that very much.
So you'll convict someone of precrime. Great.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

Rogue9er wrote:
HankT wrote:
Rogue9er wrote:
I like PA's lack of any law whatsoever on alcohol and carrying. You could get a drunk in public and not have any weapons related charges. I really think it should up to the individual whether they could drink and carry. If someone drinks and he ends up doing something foolish while carrying, he should be held responsible for the foolish act, not because of the factors that led to it.
Someone drunk, in public, with a gun is a menace. If I saw someone in that state I would dial 911 immediately and report the person and be a good witness. If the person was really wasted and seemed to be a danger to me or others, I would consider taking possession of the person's gun, ifpossible, until the po-po arrived.

Waiting until something gets broke or injured is not a feasible option. At least it's not a good one. Better to prevent it from happening. If I saw someone, drunk and armed and he/she injures or kills someone and I could have done something about it, I wouldn't like that very much.
So you'll convict someone of precrime. Great.
Perhaps you did not read my post. I would call the police.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
imported post

Since it is illegal in MI to carry while intoxicated, I would not term it "pre-crime". It really is immaterial whether PA outlaws carrying while under the influence or not, it is illegal here.

Also, yes, it is a problem here in Michigan. Perhaps PA is different, but in MI during the Novemeber firearm deer season, incidents of carrying a firearm under the influence are not rare; rarer than it used to be perhaps, but definately not rare.

If a person is intoxicated to the degree that it is obvious to the casual observer, the carrying of a firearm is dangerous. I think an argument can be made that at .08 BAC, most people are not intoxicated to such a degree that driving a car or carrying a firearm is dangerous. That is an arguable point. However, I think that if someone is stumbling over their own feet, falling down on the ground, and unable to focus, carrying a firearm is extremely dangerous.

There are a large number of laws that are so constructed. Speeding, running a red light, and pulling fire alarms in a building are all illegal acts in and of themselves, independent of anyone actually suffering injury.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

DrTodd wrote:
Since it is illegal in MI to carry while intoxicated, I would not term it "pre-crime".  It really is immaterial whether PA outlaws carrying while under the influence or not, it is illegal here.

Also, yes, it is a problem here in Michigan.  Perhaps PA is different, but in MI during the Novemeber firearm deer season, incidents of carrying a firearm under the influence are not rare; rarer than it used to be perhaps, but definately not rare.

If a person is intoxicated to the degree that it is obvious to the casual observer, the carrying of a firearm is dangerous.  I think an argument can be made that at .08 BAC, most people are not intoxicated to such a degree that driving a car or carrying a firearm is dangerous.  That is an arguable point.  However, I think that if someone is stumbling over their own feet, falling down on the ground, and unable to focus, carrying a firearm is extremely dangerous
OK, I actually agree with this completely. But isn't this just one example of why we have drunk in public laws? Which are, similarly, only ever enforced/enforceable when the person is obviously falling over drunk.

Once you've got the guy in the drunk tank, is it really necessary to have a weapons charge to threaten him with or even to take the plunge and ruin his life with by throwing it on top?
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

marshaul wrote:
OK, I actually agree with this completely. But isn't this just one example of why we have drunk in public laws? Which are, similarly, only ever enforced/enforceable when the person is obviously falling over drunk.

Once you've got the guy in the drunk tank, is it really necessary to have a weapons charge to threaten him with or even to take the plunge and ruin his life with by throwing it on top?

Sure. He's obviously not capable of making good judgments. If he's really wasted and is carrying a gun, he is committed to irresponsible behavior. Suspend/revoke his gun carry privileges immediately.

I would propose something like this:

Situation: Gun carrier, OC or CC is in public and intoxicated.Say, BAC of .14 and over.

Law: Would provide for immediate suspension of gun carrier's right/permit to carry a gun. Investigation wouldensue ofdrunken gun carrier's history, looking for signs of drug/alchohol abuse/dependence. If confirmed, cancel gun carry rights. If not, suspend carry rights for a reasonable time period.

Seems to me that drunken gun carriers are repeaters. Including the guys that wave the piece around. Like Phil Spector. He liked to drink and wave it around. He should have had his gun taken from him years ago. Before he put the barrel of the gun in the woman's mouth and pulled the trigger. Too late now. I guess that was a post-crime.

Great.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Waving a gun around is brandishing, which should be considered a serious offense (why not add an enhancement for brandishing while intoxicated?).

However, your authoritarian approach is unnecessary and, fortunately, we don't have it.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

marshaul wrote:
Waving a gun around is brandishing, which should be considered a serious offense (why not add an enhancement for brandishing while intoxicated?).

However, your authoritarian approach is unnecessary and, fortunately, we don't have it.

We will have drinking and carryinglaws.. It's just a matter of time.

If they're reasonably written and 2A compliant, I'll be glad to support such laws.

Better for my rights.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

I doubt it. There isn't enough of a problem to instigate it.

Edit: Unlike drinking and driving, the people who are actually a problem are not going to be going around skating on thin ice endangering people's lives for months before the law finally catches up with them or they actually hurt someone. Due to the very nature of the problem of armed drunkards, the very first time they become a problem they will end up in jail, and current laws ensure that will happen (as I've been trying to show). The people who aren't a problem, well, will continue to not be a problem. ;)

Further edit: You know, it might have been the same with drinking and driving if it weren't for MADD. Do you think we'll have a Mad Mothers Against Armed Drunkards (MMAAD) any time soon? I just don't see the real-world incidents to engender it. Drunk drivers actually cause large numbers of deaths. I know loads of drunk drivers. On the other hand, I don't know any armed drunkards.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
imported post

I understand what I believe that you are trying to say; we have become a society quick to heap a load of charges upon people when it is likely that most people informed that they have "misbehaved" would heed a request to put the firearm away or keep their speed under control or....

Yes, it is regrettable. But it goes both ways. We all know of people that if they aren't fined, arrested, or otherwise restrained with legal ramifications will continue to do what they are intent upon doing. Remember how well the enforcement of the double-nickel on the highways worked? It didn't. A Michigan "Energy Speed Violation" with no points on the license did not have any teeth and people ignored the law. I know it was a bigger issue than what I have said here, but I assure you that if it had been uniformly enforced and resulted in a $1,000.00 fine, either people would have followed the law OR people would have revolted and it would have been changed sooner.

Most here would probably not carry under the influence whether it were legal or not, just as the laws against murder are not what stops most people from killing a neighbor. But the days of people feeling constrained by social approval or ethical considerations are increasingly coming to an end, especially as people tend to now live in more urban areas and have fewer connections with the community in which they live. Regrettable but increasingly more probable.
 

Veritas

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
662
Location
Oakland County, Michigan, USA
imported post

I think it goes back to that whole "life. liberty, and pursuit of happiness" thing. If you do not endanger any of the above, then I see it as nobody's business what you do. Of course, this does not encompass contract law... I'm speaking more in the direction of criminal.

Driving while drunk... it can be argued that you are endangering others... a criminal offense. The fact is that you are OPERATING something while under the influence. Carrying while drunk... not so much. What are you operating? What harm have you caused? What danger have you created? Who can step forth and claim themselves a victim?

What if you're Chuck Norris... what if your fists and feet can be deemed dangerous weapons in 49 States? Should you not be allowed to drink because you MIGHT punch or kick someone? Or should people mind their own business and then throw the book at you if you DO bring harm to someone while under the influence?

I'll not argue against the idea that a drunk person carrying a gun is a bad idea, don't get me wrong. Judgment may be impaired leading to a bad decision to draw... and with motor skills impaired it's inherently possible that the shooter misses and hits an unintended target. But until they actually DO something illegal with the weapon (notwithstanding that Michigan law says that it's illegal in and of itself to be impaired and carrying), I don't see how it's fair to convict them of anything. But guess what? A person doesn't have to be drunk to have a lapse in judgment or to miss a target. Should we accept a law that says you can't carry a weapon while you're in a bad mood... because you just MIGHT be predisposed to having an itchier than normal trigger finger? Should we force people to wear mood rings if they're carrying a pistol and subject them to random inspections by officers? "Sir... your mood ring is purple... put your hands above you're head... you're under arrest for carrying while under the influence of anger."

And if you are under the influence of alcohol, are you suddenly less deserving of the right to defend yourself against an armed assailant? "Yep... that guy deserved to be mugged and shot because he was drunk."

Switching gears for a moment, drinking and smoking are generally accepted as being bad for your health. So is eating fast food. And yet people do it legally every day. I can, if I so choose, smoke 2 packs of cigarettes, eat 10 Big Macs, and wash it all down with a fifth of whiskey every day of my life and the law can't say anything to me about it. However, if I want to drive around the block without my seatbelt on, I've violated some law and can be taxed... er, excuse me, fined. Which is more dangerous?

The point being that I perceive the issue to be more about economics and less about public interest.

I know, I know... by accepting a license to drive, you waive rights. Yes, yes, I'm aware. Now we get into contract law. But let's be honest... who can really live in America without accepting unilateral contracts, privileges, and licenses for many things? You want to own a dog... you need a license. You want to get married... you need a license. You want to catch a fish... you need a license. If you want to BUY a fish, you have to pay taxes. You want to dig a pond and grow your own fish... you need a permit. How can a man do something so fundamental as EAT in this country without being held liable to some unilateral agreement in which he waives rights? How hard is it to pay bills without a bank account? How are you going to be a good taxpayer and get to work with no license? Take the bus? You're still engaged in a commercial transaction, subject to terms and conditions. What I'm getting at is that nearly every day of our lives, we are "willfully" engaging in commercial contracts that cause us to waive rights. I say "willfully", because the alternative to accepting them is to deny them... and then to deny our American dreams of home ownership, stable income, health care, the ability to travel freely, the ability to eat, etc, etc. Our very Constitution is becoming a mythical entity... something that is illusive to us under all the layers of contractual BS that we "must" agree to in order to maintain a normal American lifestyle.

Back to criminal charges: The legislation of morals is not something I support. I believe in being held responsible for harm or damaged actually caused or for creating actual danger of such occurring. This "pre-crime" crap and compulsory request for permission to do things is unjust, to me... it's a form of bondage. It causes us to be held financially responsible for things that may not have, nor may ever, occur.

There are so many dichotomies in law... it's ridiculous. This issue regarding bearing arms while intoxicated is just the tip of the iceberg. And believe me, it should be the least of anyone's concerns.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

Veritas wrote:
Driving while drunk... it can be argued that you are endangering others... a criminal offense. The fact is that you are OPERATING something while under the influence. Carrying while drunk... not so much. What are you operating? What harm have you caused? What danger have you created? Who can step forth and claim themself a victim?

Using your logic, we really shouldn't charge drunk drivers with anything if they are making their way home, or to the next bar, as long as they don't hit anything.

After all, if the drunk doesn't hit anything, then nothing or no one is injured. No one was been hurt. Therefore, no one was endangered.

No harm, no foul.

Can't have it both ways.
 

Veritas

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
662
Location
Oakland County, Michigan, USA
imported post

HankT wrote:
Veritas wrote:
Driving while drunk... it can be argued that you are endangering others... a criminal offense. The fact is that you are OPERATING something while under the influence. Carrying while drunk... not so much. What are you operating? What harm have you caused? What danger have you created? Who can step forth and claim themself a victim?

Using your logic, we really shouldn't charge drunk drivers with anything if they are making their way home, or to the next bar, as long as they don't hit anything.

After all, if the drunk doesn't hit anything, then nothing or no one is injured. No one was been hurt. Therefore, no one was endangered.

No harm, no foul.

Can't have it both ways.
Not at all what I said. Quite the opposite, in fact. Read the sentence in my quote that I made bold. As a drunk driver you are, in fact, OPERATING (as in, in the COMMISSION) of creating danger.

Whereas carrying while drunk... what are you committing? As long as you don't pull your firearm, how are you any different than an unarmed drunk? Charging someone with carrying a firearm while under the influence is a lot like charging someone for carrying car keys while under the influence. Until they put those keys to use, what crime have they committed? The second you pull your firearm while drunk, just like the second you get behind the wheel of a car while drunk, a crime has been committed. Until/Unless that moment occurs, no crime has been committed.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

Veritas wrote:
HankT wrote:
Veritas wrote:
Driving while drunk... it can be argued that you are endangering others... a criminal offense. The fact is that you are OPERATING something while under the influence. Carrying while drunk... not so much. What are you operating? What harm have you caused? What danger have you created? Who can step forth and claim themself a victim?

Using your logic, we really shouldn't charge drunk drivers with anything if they are making their way home, or to the next bar, as long as they don't hit anything.

After all, if the drunk doesn't hit anything, then nothing or no one is injured. No one was been hurt. Therefore, no one was endangered.

No harm, no foul.

Can't have it both ways.
Not at all what I said. Quite the opposite, in fact. Read the sentence in my quote that I made bold. As a drunk driver you are, in fact, OPERATING (as in, in the COMMISSION) of creating danger.

Whereas carrying while drunk... what are you committing? As long as you don't pull your firearm, how are you any different than an unarmed drunk? Charging someone with carrying a firearm while under the influence is a lot like charging someone for carrying car keys while under the influence. Until they put those keys to use, what crime have they committed? The second you pull your firearm while drunk, just like the second you get behind the wheel of a car while drunk, a crime has been committed. Until/Unless that moment occurs, no crime has been committed.

I did not say that you said it. Read my post again. I am saying (and said) that your logic produces the result stated.

Your reliance on equivocation of the word "operating" notwithstanding, your stated logic means: No harm, no foul.

Can't have it both ways.

With regard to your drunk with keys but keys not in use, I'm sure you are aware that in some states it is possible to still be charged (and convicted) with DUI if the drunk is in constructive control of the vehicle--even if he is passed out, not driving, keys on the car floor.

So, there it is, the idea of "constructive control" of an object is already settled and accepted in regulatory law. So it will be with future drinking and carrying laws. The drunk will be found to be in "constructive control" of a deadly weapon. Since drunk andnot of sound judgment, that will be considered dangerous and inappropriate...and illegal.
 

Veritas

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
662
Location
Oakland County, Michigan, USA
imported post

HankT wrote:


Your reliance on equivocation of the word "operating" notwithstanding, your stated logic means: No harm, no foul. This is absolutely what I'm saying. If there is NO HARM caused (harm includes "threat of danger"), then how can you convict?

Can't have it both ways. I'm not trying to have it both ways. Quite clearly, I believe that OPERATING a vehicle while drunk creates danger... there is harm, and therefore foul.

With regard to your drunk with keys but keys not in use, I'm sure you are aware that in some states it is possible to still be charged (and convicted) with DUI if the drunk is in constructive control of the vehicle--even if he is passed out, not driving, keys on the car floor. Fully aware. And Michigan is one of those states. However, let's stay on point. I'm not talking about something with care, custody, and control of the vehicle (i.e. passed out with keys on the floor). I'm talking about somebody who's in a bar, with his keys in his pocket, with his car parked out back, drinking himself stupid. Can he be charged with the criminal offense of DUI simply because he's carrying keys? No.. because we don't yet have evidence to suggest that he intends to drive, nor have we caught him in the act. For all we know, he's taking a cab home... or if he's lucky, going home with the girl he spent $100 on already. The same can be said about the dude carrying a pistol. What crime has he committed? Until he pulls his pistol for an unlawful purpose, all you've got is a man carrying a tool. A tool with potential for destruction, sure. But car keys are a tool with the potential for destruction as well.

So, there it is, the idea of "constructive control" of an object is already settled and accepted in regulatory law. So it will be with future drinking and carrying laws. The drunk will be found to be in "constructive control" of a deadly weapon. Since drunk andnot of sound judgment, that will be considered dangerous and inappropriate...and illegal. I can actually see your point on the "constructive control" issue. But this is really a gray area for me. If I have a mini arsenal in my home, and I decide I want to get sloppy drunk, can my neighbors have me arrested because I'm surrounded by weapons and ammunition? The problem with creating these gray areas is that they only get bigger... and at the end of the day, they tend to turn black and run all over us. So while I can see your point about constructive control... I'm going to have to disagree that it should be considered an acceptable excuse to charge someone under the law. The same with a drunk carrying car keys with his car parked outside... he has absolute constructive control of that vehicle by virtue of holding the keys. But what sort of outrage could we expect from the citizenry if officers started arresting drunk people who were carrying car keys?
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

marshaul wrote:
You know, it might have been the same with drinking and driving if it weren't for MADD. Do you think we'll have a Mad Mothers Against Armed Drunkards (MMAAD) any time soon? I just don't see the real-world incidents to engender it. Drunk drivers actually cause large numbers of deaths. I know loads of drunk drivers. On the other hand, I don't know any armed drunkards.
There don't have to be a lot of armed drunkards. Just a few will do to justify the political and LE reactions necessary to establish the drinking and carrying laws. Just do a Google News search on drinking and gun. Or alcohol and gun. Shouldn't be hard to find some cases.

The anti forces have been committing almost all their energies toward being anti-gun....abolishing guns...prohibiting guns...

Once it gets through their thick skulls that that war is over, that they've lost, they'll focus more on regulatory efforts.

And, no, it won't be MMAD. It will be Mothers Against Drunk Operators of Guns.

:p
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

If we "can't have it both ways", then no harm, no foul it is. I'll take the tempestuous sea of liberty, thankyouverymuch. People still drunk drive anyway, although they don't OC while drunk. Lot of good your authoritarianism does. :quirky
 

Veritas

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
662
Location
Oakland County, Michigan, USA
imported post

HankT wrote:
The anti forces have been committing almost all their energies toward being anti-gun....abolishing guns...prohibiting guns...

Once it gets through their thick skulls that that war is over, that they've lost, they'll focus more on regulatory efforts.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. As such, I believe in the Tsun Tzu approach of doing things... as in to preempt this by preparing for it now. Work to cut the binding ropes of existing regulations in order to set the anti's back in their tracks when they finally realize that the battle has moved to a new field.
 

Veritas

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
662
Location
Oakland County, Michigan, USA
imported post

For the record here: I'm NOT advocating that I think people should drink and carry, even if it WERE legal. But I am truly all about liberties... as in people should not be compelled to walk in a straight line all the time.

On this note, I am not a drug user... although I believe they should be legal. Just because they may be legal does not mean I would advocate using them. Drinking to excess is legal... I don't advocate doing it. Smoking is legal... I don't advocate doing it.

Just want to be clear on this point. My morals, and my visions of liberty, are not always on the same beta wave.
 
Top