• 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.

Firearms + Alcohol = BAD ???

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

Streetbikerr6 wrote:
...

Sometimes (edit: I wish)I lived in Texas, someone walks in my house I dont know I am allowed to shoot him dead if I feel necessary without any fear that a court will throw my ass in jail. Here in Kali you have to explain why you felt it was necessary to shoot the man coming at you with a knife in the dark when you could have ran out your back door instead, and you will still most likely be thrown in prison. :banghead:
Actually... CA has for a long time had law that most would call "castle doctrine".

Code:
[quote]198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or  great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to  have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great  bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that  force is used against another person, not a member of the family or  household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and  forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or  had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.[/quote]
 

Streetbikerr6

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
389
Location
Folsom, , USA
imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:
Streetbikerr6 wrote:
Some of the steroided out guys where I live increase their chances greatly of picking a fight while drinking alcohol....
... and even some of the not "steroided out" guys.

The reason I carry at bars is the same reason I carry when I go to the bank or to the grocery store. Self defense.

I've been to many, many bars. I know many people who frequent bars. There's almost always going to be someone there looking for trouble. Some of them will bring weapons, or just bring enough friends that they can stomp you to the curb.

Does my decision to have a drink at a bar mean I have to give up my right to life?

I carry at bars because I don't want to die in the parking lot at the local bar & grill.


Ok so I fail to see your opinion in this situation? Gun + alcohol = bad or good?

Of course you should always be able to carry and protect yourself, no one is disputing that. Though if you are intoxicated by a great amount, it does increasesome peoples chancesof being confrontational and aggressive. Should they be allowed to carry guns? The law says no. What do you say? Because I did not catch it in your post.
 

Streetbikerr6

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
389
Location
Folsom, , USA
imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:
Streetbikerr6 wrote:
...

Sometimes (edit: I wish)I lived in Texas, someone walks in my house I dont know I am allowed to shoot him dead if I feel necessary without any fear that a court will throw my ass in jail. Here in Kali you have to explain why you felt it was necessary to shoot the man coming at you with a knife in the dark when you could have ran out your back door instead, and you will still most likely be thrown in prison. :banghead:
Actually... CA has for a long time had law that most would call "castle doctrine".

Code:
[quote]198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.[/quote]
A man walks in your house with a knife. Your near the kitchen about 20 yards awaywith a patio door 2 feet next to you wide open for you to run out of, instead you shoot the man dead. Your going to be charged in California. In Texas, different story.
 

Streetbikerr6

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
389
Location
Folsom, , USA
imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:
Streetbikerr6 wrote:
...

Sometimes (edit: I wish)I lived in Texas, someone walks in my house I dont know I am allowed to shoot him dead if I feel necessary without any fear that a court will throw my ass in jail. Here in Kali you have to explain why you felt it was necessary to shoot the man coming at you with a knife in the dark when you could have ran out your back door instead, and you will still most likely be thrown in prison. :banghead:
Actually... CA has for a long time had law that most would call "castle doctrine".

Code:
[quote]198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.[/quote]

The NRA does not recognize CA as one holding a castle doctirine

http://www.nraila.org/images/cd.jpg
 

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
imported post

Streetbikerr6 wrote:
CA_Libertarian wrote:
Streetbikerr6 wrote:
...

Sometimes (edit: I wish)I lived in Texas, someone walks in my house I dont know I am allowed to shoot him dead if I feel necessary without any fear that a court will throw my ass in jail. Here in Kali you have to explain why you felt it was necessary to shoot the man coming at you with a knife in the dark when you could have ran out your back door instead, and you will still most likely be thrown in prison. :banghead:
Actually... CA has for a long time had law that most would call "castle doctrine".

Code:
[quote]198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.[/quote]
A man walks in your house with a knife. Your near the kitchen about 20 yards awaywith a patio door 2 feet next to you wide open for you to run out of, instead you shoot the man dead. Your going to be charged in California. In Texas, different story.
I would suspect that whether you are in kalifornicate or texass if you pull out your gun and shoot the guy you are going to lose a lot of sleep over the next few days at least. As for the police looking over the scene, slapping you on the back and saying "good shoot" only happens on TV, in jokes and on Internet gun boards. In real life there is going to be a real investigation with real lawyers, prosecutors and policemen. Hopefully you will then hear those words that they have decided that it was a justified shoot and you will not be charged.
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

Streetbikerr6 wrote:
CA_Libertarian wrote:
Streetbikerr6 wrote:
...Here in Kali you have to explain why you felt it was necessary to shoot the man coming at you with a knife in the dark when you could have ran out your back door instead, and you will still most likely be thrown in prison...
... a man walks in your house with a knife. Your near the kitchen about 20 yards awaywith a patio door 2 feet next to you wide open for you to run out of, instead you shoot the man dead. Your going to be charged in California. In Texas, different story.
Being charged is not the same as being "thrown in jail", IMO. And while certain DAs in CA are certainly very anti-gun, that is the only factor in being charged, not CA law. I doubt very much that a person in your scenario would be convicted (assuming said person is otherwise on the up-and-up).

Your original assertion implied that CA law requires you to retreat while in your home. I simply don't see any reason to believe that's true.

Hopefully none of us will ever have to find out, but anybody breaks into your house and threatens you with a knife, I hope you don't hesitate to stop the threat. I know I wouldn't.
 

demnogis

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
911
Location
Orange County, California, USA
imported post

Doing something atrocious, such as bringing us back on topic...

I have carried to bars and drinking establishments before. The notion of consuming alcohol and carrying is quite controversial to many people. I believe in CA one of the regulations on a CCWP is that you cannot consume alcohol if you are carrying.

Of course, there are some of us who have had an alcoholic beverage whilst carrying. I have, but am not bound to the CCWP requirement. I feel that if a person has enough self control to not get drunk while carrying, they are not a risk.

Then again, the actions determine the person, not the irrational fear of what could be.
 

Streetbikerr6

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
389
Location
Folsom, , USA
imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:
Streetbikerr6 wrote:
CA_Libertarian wrote:
Streetbikerr6 wrote:
...Here in Kali you have to explain why you felt it was necessary to shoot the man coming at you with a knife in the dark when you could have ran out your back door instead, and you will still most likely be thrown in prison...
... a man walks in your house with a knife. Your near the kitchen about 20 yards awaywith a patio door 2 feet next to you wide open for you to run out of, instead you shoot the man dead. Your going to be charged in California. In Texas, different story.
Being charged is not the same as being "thrown in jail", IMO. And while certain DAs in CA are certainly very anti-gun, that is the only factor in being charged, not CA law. I doubt very much that a person in your scenario would be convicted (assuming said person is otherwise on the up-and-up).

Your original assertion implied that CA law requires you to retreat while in your home. I simply don't see any reason to believe that's true.

Hopefully none of us will ever have to find out, but anybody breaks into your house and threatens you with a knife, I hope you don't hesitate to stop the threat. I know I wouldn't.

Charged and convicted only because there was no immediate danger. In California, I am still not quite sure if we have an obligation to retreat our homes, unlike Texas where you never have to retreat. Here in Cali one must be in immediate danger. Meaning if a man 30 feet away is coming at you or anotherwith a knife, you are not in immediate danger. If he is in stabbing range and is motioning a stab then you may shoot to stop him, not shoot to kill. Now if the only way of stopping him was to kill him then your fine.If he has agun and he has forcibly entered your house, then it is really up to the court to see if he was an immediate threat, even if the gun wasnt pointed at you.Though as I said earlier I wish this were texas, I want to know this person in my house will never bother me again, even if I have to shoot him in the back, but thats not the law here :cuss:

1Judicial Council Of California Criminal Jury Instruction 505 -- Justifiable Homicide: Self-Defense or Defense of Another. ("The defendant acted in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) if: [1] The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/ [or] <insert name or description of third party<) was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury [or was in imminent danger of being (raped/maimed/robbed/ <insert other forcible and atrocious crime<)]; [2] The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against that danger; AND [3] The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.")

See also Judicial Council Of California Criminal Jury Instruction 3470 -- Right to Self-Defense or Defense of Another (Non-Homicide). ("The defendant acted in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) if: [1] The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/ [or] <insert name of third party<) was in imminent danger of suffering bodily injury [or was in imminent danger of being touched unlawfully]; [2] The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use of force was necessary to defend against that danger; AND [3] The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.")

Here is a Texas story...a neighbor ran after 2 men that had just burglarizing his neighbors house, he shot both in the back and was let off the hook. His 911 call is even on youtube, its pretty insane.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=4272882&page=1#

Now to PT111, of course there will alwaysbe an investigation, no matter how brief, I never said there would not be. Though that does not necessarilymean anyone will be arrested. In one story I read a year ago, a Texas man shot aburglar climbing through his business window at night. The Sheriff was quoted saying something a long the lines of "he saw the burglar and shot him dead, that is his right as a business owner here in Texas, good job". I'm still trying to find the story, but what a badass sheriff!!!!
 

Streetbikerr6

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
389
Location
Folsom, , USA
imported post

demnogis wrote:
Doing something atrocious, such as bringing us back on topic...

I have carried to bars and drinking establishments before. The notion of consuming alcohol and carrying is quite controversial to many people. I believe in CA one of the regulations on a CCWP is that you cannot consume alcohol if you are carrying.

Of course, there are some of us who have had an alcoholic beverage whilst carrying. I have, but am not bound to the CCWP requirement. I feel that if a person has enough self control to not get drunk while carrying, they are not a risk.

Then again, the actions determine the person, not the irrational fear of what could be.

Yah in CA you can not drink while CC'ing though in Nevada you can be anywhere less than .08 I believe or .06 or something around there.

I mean I think the main issue here is that while everyone is going to drive worse while drunk,not everyone is subject to becoming aggresive while drunk and be more likely to use their gun in an illegal manner. So where does the law draw the line?

Edit: Alcohol is clasified as a depressant, and personally since I do frequent the bars a lot, I don't think I would want to see a gun in the possession of some of the drunk guys I see there. Wayy too aggressive and when they start a fight or end a fight I think their judgement of knowing when use of lethal force is altered and one more very important thing needed to handle and fire a gun correctly is altered.. their vision.
 

MudCamper

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
709
Location
Sebastopol, California, USA
imported post

It boils down to personality. Some people are bad drunks. Some are not. I mean, some get more obnoxious/aggressive/stupid/etc when they drink. These people should not be carrying when they drink. Others are perfectly normal when drinking. When I go camping (which is a lot), I usually drink with friends around the campfire, and I am always packing. I have no problems. I do not unholster or otherwise handle my firearms when drinking however. I think shooting when drinking is a bad idea. But this is a situation one might find himself in while drinking, and a self-defense situation arose. But it may be necessary / justifiable. If you've had a few beers and a sociopath decides to attack you at that time, are you just supposed to lay down and take it? Of course not. There is no black and white answer to this.
 

Streetbikerr6

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
389
Location
Folsom, , USA
imported post

MudCamper wrote:
It boils down to personality. Some people are bad drunks. Some are not. I mean, some get more obnoxious/aggressive/stupid/etc when they drink. These people should not be carrying when they drink. Others are perfectly normal when drinking. When I go camping (which is a lot), I usually drink with friends around the campfire, and I am always packing. I have no problems. I do not unholster or otherwise handle my firearms when drinking however. I think shooting when drinking is a bad idea. But this is a situation one might find himself in while drinking, and a self-defense situation arose. But it may be necessary / justifiable. If you've had a few beers and a sociopath decides to attack you at that time, are you just supposed to lay down and take it? Of course not. There is no black and white answer to this.

Say instead of a few beers its more like 12. When someone is that inebriated, they give up certain privileges for the safety of others around them, such as driving a car, operating heavy machinery, flying a plane, performing surgery... basically anything that could be potentially harmful to others when the judgement or mind is hindered by the individual handling the dangerous object. Now should handling a firearm be different? I am aware you may not necessarily be handling the firearm, just being in posession of it.. though it is sort of the same thing as having the keys in the ignition of a car and being drunk.. sure the car is not on, but you are drunk sitting in the passenger seat.. you aregetting a dui.

Personally, I would love to be able to know I am safe even when I am dead drunk, though it may be rather selfish of me... and I think it is sort of my obligation to the ones around meto know which privileges I give up in order to have my mind and judgementaltered with many many drinks.
 

MudCamper

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
709
Location
Sebastopol, California, USA
imported post

Streetbikerr6 wrote:
Say instead of a few beers its more like 12. When someone is that inebriated, they give up certain privileges for the safety of others around them, such as driving a car, operating heavy machinery, flying a plane, performing surgery... basically anything that could be potentially harmful to others when the judgement or mind is hindered by the individual handling the dangerous object. Now should handling a firearm be different? I am aware you may not necessarily be handling the firearm, just being in posession of it.. though it is sort of the same thing as having the keys in the ignition of a car and being drunk.. sure the car is not on, but you are drunk sitting in the passenger seat.. you aregetting a dui.

Personally, I would love to be able to know I am safe even when I am dead drunk, though it may be rather selfish of me... and I think it is sort of my obligation to the ones around meto know which privileges I give up in order to have my mind and judgementaltered with many many drinks.
I agree with you that, if you are over a certain level of inebriation, you should not be carrying. Personally, I'd be fine with whatever the legal limit for driving is in the state.

If you want to drink more than that, do it at home, or on private property, or way out in the woods, or somewhere you likely won't need to defend yourself.

Again, there is no cut and dry answer for this.
 

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
imported post

PT111 wrote:
Greengum wrote: We talked about it afterward and my father commented that if he were OC'ing he would have felt more comfortable standing up to them.
Now that comment makes me uncomfortable.


Why? When confronted with superior numbers having the means to properly defend yourself is paramount to your safety and security. Besides, I would contend that if he was OC'ing this group of thugs probably would not have harassed him to begin with. An armed society promotes a peaceful and polite society.
 

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
imported post

greengum wrote:
I agree with coolusername for the most part. In general I have a pretty basic view on personal Liberties. You can do what ever you want as long as you don't violate some one elses Rights. As far as having a .08 law while having a gun, I must admit I don't agree. Is it a bad idea to drink and carry? I would say YES. Do I believe it should be against the law with even more government regulation? Nope. I am not a fan of the nanny state we are slowly becoming.
The .08 law is not a nanny state law, IMHO. Seatbelts, helmets, trigger locks, car seats,unloaded open carry, and all the sort are nanny state laws.
 

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
imported post

dirtykoala wrote:
the cause and effect relatinship between alcohol and ______ is way over used and it comes down to personal responsability.
I don't think so. Alcohol passes through the blood brain barrier and affects one's mental reasoning, motor skills, vision, and more. Which is why personal responsibility starts before becoming inebriated. If you need a drug while you carry, may I suggest you stick to caffeine? I do. :cool:
 

mjones

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
976
Location
Prescott, AZ
imported post

I'd like to see a cite to authority for statutory prohibition on CA CCW + Alcohol = not allowed.

Barring a printed restriction on the license from the issueing authority; it doesn't exist...
 

demnogis

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
911
Location
Orange County, California, USA
imported post

That's what we're talking about. I don't have one of these mythical permission slips, but I do hear that they usually have an alcohol prohibition clause for while carrying.

mjones wrote:
I'd like to see a cite to authority for statutory prohibition on CA CCW + Alcohol = not allowed.

Barring a printed restriction on the license from the issueing authority; it doesn't exist...
 

mjones

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
976
Location
Prescott, AZ
imported post

demnogis wrote:
That's what we're talking about. I don't have one of these mythical permission slips, but I do hear that they usually have an alcohol prohibition clause for while carrying.

mjones wrote:
I'd like to see a cite to authority for statutory prohibition on CA CCW + Alcohol = not allowed.

Barring a printed restriction on the license from the issueing authority; it doesn't exist...

Mine doesn't.

It's come up a few times over at calccw.com; the impression I have is that only afew counties print restrictions of any kind.
 

yelohamr

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
516
Location
Vista, California, USA
imported post

Way back in one of my previous lives, about 20+ years ago, the CCW permit I got from SDSO there was a provision that I not consume alcohol while armed. I don't recall if it was on the permit or in the letter that came with it.
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

Streetbikerr6 wrote:
...Here in Cali one must be in immediate danger...

Wrong. One must "reasonably believe" they are in immediate, grave danger. If the BG broke into your home, then you are presumed to have reasonably believed you were in danger.

...Meaning if a man 30 feet away is coming at you or anotherwith a knife, you are not in immediate danger. If he is in stabbing range and is motioning a stab then you may shoot...

Please cite a case to prove this assertion.

A state-mandated firearm training course I once took taught us that using lethal force would be legal and advisable in the above situation. The reason is that even if you shoot/obliterate their heart, the brain can function without new blood flow for 8 seconds. The training video (designed for LE) demonstrated that 8 seconds is enough time to charge 30 feet and inflict several life-threatening knife wounds.


The above applies to threats on the street, where you don't have the presumption of innocence and have to prove you were justified in shooting. If they're in your home, you don't have to prove anything. The DA has to prove you weren't in reasonable fear for your life.

..Here is a Texas story...a neighbor ran after 2 men that had just burglarizing his neighbors house, he shot both in the back and was let off the hook...

From reading the article in the link you provided, it sounds like Horn's case is going before a grand jury. He's not off the hook yet, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him indicted for premeditated murder. (He did tell the dispatcher, "I'll kill 'em" and then shot two men in the back...) Now, I don't know if they'll get a conviction to stick with a jury trial in Texas... but I don't think he's anywhere near "off the hook" just yet.

But you are right, Texas law is better than CA by far. My point is that your assertions about CA law are inaccurate.

You don't have to wait until you're mortally wounded to start defending your life. This is just CCW-instructor/Gun-shop FUD.
 
Top