Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: Unloaded carry while intoxicated?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Central, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    359

    Post imported post

    I want to make sure I'm reading this right. It appears that under CT state law, it is lawful to carry an unloaded firearm while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs.

    Sec. 53-206d. Carrying a firearm while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drug prohibited. Hunting while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drug or while impaired by the consumption of intoxicating liquor prohibited. (a)(1) No person shall carry a pistol, revolver, machine gun, shotgun, rifle or other firearm, which is loaded and from which a shot may be discharged, upon his person (A) while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, or both, or (B) while the ratio of alcohol in the blood of such person is ten-hundredths of one per cent or more of alcohol, by weight.
    What say you?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    Submit the issue to DPS Special License and Firearms Unit.

    It is the absence of the fact that may cause doing so, (carrying anUNLOAED firearm while intoxicated),to NOT be prohibited or criminal in nature.

    I don't even want to touch the topic of defending an intoxicated person who intentionally carries unloadedsothey can carry while intoxicated.

    Guns and alcohol don't mix and their are limits to everything.



  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    771

    Post imported post

    Yes...that seems to be about what it says...
    States don’t have rights. People do.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Central, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    359

    Post imported post

    Edward Peruta wrote:
    I don't even want to touch the topic of defending an intoxicated person who intentionally carries unloadedsothey can carry while intoxicated.

    Guns and alcohol don't mix and their are limits to everything.
    I agree, I was just a bit surprised to read what I thought I was reading.

  5. #5
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Edward Peruta wrote:
    I don't even want to touch the topic of defending an intoxicated person who intentionally carries unloadedsothey can carry while intoxicated.

    Guns and alcohol don't mix and their are limits to everything.
    Agreed.

    I think there should be a law in every state that would make it unlawful for any person to carry a gun, loaded or unloaded, and intentionally or unintentionally, if they are impaired (drunk) by alcohol.

    "Impaired" would be set at BAC equalling or exceeding .15%.

    Such a law would be quite beneficial. No one could possibly oppose it. I mean, who wants to defend drunken gunsels?

    Not me.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Central, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    359

    Post imported post

    The sentiment is nice, but I oppose any further restriction on the right to bear arms, however benevolent...

  7. #7
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    gluegun wrote:
    The sentiment is nice, but I oppose any further restriction on the right to bear arms, however benevolent...
    Why on earth would you oppose a law that would make it illegal to carry a gun if one was blotto drunk (BAC .15)?

    That's grossly irresponsible behavior we're talking about....

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Central, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    359

    Post imported post

    I don't disagree with you on it being irresponsible.

    I flatly don't believe we should have ANY further restriction of our rights... any of them.

  9. #9
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    gluegun wrote:
    I don't disagree with you on it being irresponsible.

    I flatly don't believe we should have ANY further restriction of our rights... any of them.
    How would such a law restrict our rights?



    I would estimate that it would diminish pressure for restrictions on gun carry regulation.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Central, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    359

    Post imported post

    It would be a law that limits the number of situations under which a person could lawfully exercise their right to bear arms.

    Your estimation has no basis in fact. It is an opinion. It doesn't matter how many "feel good" laws you pass that appease people opposed to the carrying of firearms. They're opposed to the carrying of firearms, not the corner cases that are not yet regulated.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Hilton Head, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    Carrying a firearm while intoxicated, loaded or not, is unsafe and irresponsible. Doing so in a public place is an invitation to tragedy. A responsible person either stays sober and lets his (or her) friends drink, or leaves the gun at home and has a few.

    I choose to be the designated driver and carry my firearm, while the others drink in safety. It's the responsible thing to do. I won't advocate for a law forcing my concept of responsibility on others, and I won't be supportive of those who would drink and carry either.



  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605

    Post imported post

    I have heard of instances under different State Laws that say you may drink Alcohol so as long as you are Legally Sober (i.e. <.08% BAC) and Carry.

    For instance, in Lousiana it is <.05% BAC in order to Legally Carry while Drinking.

    However, as Pro-Firearm as I am, and I am more Pro-Firearm then most, drinking Alcohol and Carrying a Pistol, especially where I am from in The South, is pretty much asking for trouble.

    In Conneticut, I can almost rest assure you that if you drink Alcohol and Carry you will probably go to Jail.

    Guns in Bars is fine in my opinion, however; when you start talking aboutwanting to Drink and Carry at the same time... well,... please just do not do that.

  13. #13
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,614

    Post imported post

    There are already enough laws regulating any illegal act one might do with a firearm.

    Do we really need another law regulating what one might do with an unloaded gun?

    The antis must love this thread.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Enfield, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    Whats CT's definition of "loaded"? maybe you could carry a SA as long as one is not in the chamber? if i am going to have over 2 beers i won't carry or just leave it in my car...if there was no law i would carry....you could get some pepper spray if you are concerned about something happening while you are "intoxicated"

  15. #15
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,614

    Post imported post

    buketdude wrote:
    Whats CT's definition of "loaded"? maybe you could carry a SA as long as one is not in the chamber? if i am going to have over 2 beers i won't carry or just leave it in my car...if there was no law i would carry....you could get some pepper spray if you are concerned about something happening while you are "intoxicated"
    If I knew what or when something was going to happen, I could simply wait until then......and leave 30 sec before.

    I don't see that what I do or you do has any relevance. Carrying an empty gun should be as illegal as having a car with no gas - neither makes much sense but hardly endangers any one.

    This is simply a solution looking for a problem, again.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    123

    Post imported post

    This would obviously permit the police to stop me on the street if I was OC'ing and stumbled, or "appeared to be intoxicated" and conduct a field sobriety test, which might lead to a BAC test. If I am driving (at least in NC) and refuse to submit to a BAC, my license is automatically revoked for a year.
    What's to say my right to carry wouldn't be revoked if I refused a BAC test while carrying? Who's to say this isn't just a tool to harass law abiding OC'ers?

    Sober people are pulled over everyday just to be checked out by some racial-profiling or overzealous cop with the excuse "You were weaving a little bit" or "You were over the center line". "Appeared to be intoxicated" is at the total discretion of the officer and what he believes (or wants) to see.

    Sorry, I'm just not willing to give up that much freedom.


    "Those who would give up a little liberty in exchange for a little security deserve neither liberty nor security."

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    Let's get serious,

    Ligitimate Quesiton or Statement deserve answers.

    So here is the answer:

    Connecticut law(s) allow a person with a valid permit to drinkalcohol IF their BAC does not reach or exceed .07 which by statute is the threshold for being IMPAIRED or .10 which is the threshold for being INTOXICATED and triggers some very serious, stiff, (and inmy opinion), well deserved criminal MISDEMEANOR charges.

    The State Police attempted to have the .10 limit reduced to .08 which is the DUI threshold and the measure failed to pass.

    Yes, a person legally carrying with a valid permit may drink while carrying, but I do NOT recommend it nor will I do it.


    [b]BAC) and Carry.

    For instance, in Louisiana it is <.05% BAC in order to Legally Carry while Drinking.

    However, as Pro-Firearm as I am, and I am more Pro-Firearm then most, drinking Alcohol and Carrying a Pistol, especially where I am from in The South, is pretty much asking for trouble.

    In Connecticut, I can almost rest assure you that if you drink Alcohol and Carry you will probably go to Jail.

    Guns in Bars is fine in my opinion, however; when you start talking aboutwanting to Drink and Carry at the same time... well,... please just do not do that.
    [/quote]

  18. #18
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,614

    Post imported post

    The OPs premise/topic was UNloaded carry, so why are other detours becoming the focus?

    I agree and will not consume alcohol when I carry.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Stratford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    646

    Post imported post

    I smell another postulate coming..

    It is unwise to drunkenly shoot an unarmed person
    It is unwise to shoot a drunk and unarmed person
    It is unwise to shoot a drink out of an unarmed persons hand

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Central, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    359

    Post imported post

    Grapeshot wrote:
    The OPs premise/topic was UNloaded carry, so why are other detours becoming the focus?

    I agree and will not consume alcohol when I carry.

    Yata hey
    A certain individual has interesting ideas for making it easier for the government to intrude on our rights while making those opposed to our cause feel better about allowing us to continue exercising our privileges and facilitating the running of serial numbers, manufacture dates, etc with less "hassle" and more "efficiency". I felt the need to respond, but it seems to be over now.

    It appears the question has been fully answered and I want to thank everyone for their input.

    I'd like to close with mixing guns and alcohol is irresponsible and should not be done. Whenever I am drinking, my firearm is locked up. When I am sober and others are drinking it remains locked up or holstered under my direct control. As responsible gun owners, I hope everyone follows similar procedures.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Central, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    359

    Post imported post

    GoldCoaster wrote:
    I smell another postulate coming..

    It is unwise to drunkenly shoot an unarmed person
    It is unwise to shoot a drunk and unarmed person
    It is unwise to shoot a drink out of an unarmed persons hand
    Ah the postulate of civillian self-defense. Glad I took the time to look it up. Your post is much funnier now.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    gluegun wrote:
    I want to make sure I'm reading this right. It appears that under CT state law, it is lawful to carry an unloaded firearm while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs.

    Sec. 53-206d. Carrying a firearm while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drug prohibited. Hunting while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drug or while impaired by the consumption of intoxicating liquor prohibited. (a)(1) No person shall carry a pistol, revolver, machine gun, shotgun, rifle or other firearm, which is loaded and from which a shot may be discharged, upon his person (A) while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, or both, or (B) while the ratio of alcohol in the blood of such person is ten-hundredths of one per cent or more of alcohol, by weight.
    What say you?
    I want to back the bus up a bit if I may. I re-read the stateute posted above sec. 53-206d. I have a question as to how it is written. Are the first two sentences a summary of the statute and (a)(1), (A) and (B) the specific criteria for judging wether an infraction has occured or not?

    I am trying to understand the way it is written and am having trouble. After this question is answered I have specific questions about the rest of it. Anyone (ED) know the answer to my question? Thanks.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Central, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    359

    Post imported post

    ESCH wrote:
    gluegun wrote:
    I want to make sure I'm reading this right. It appears that under CT state law, it is lawful to carry an unloaded firearm while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs.

    Sec. 53-206d. Carrying a firearm while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drug prohibited. Hunting while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drug or while impaired by the consumption of intoxicating liquor prohibited. (a)(1) No person shall carry a pistol, revolver, machine gun, shotgun, rifle or other firearm, which is loaded and from which a shot may be discharged, upon his person (A) while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, or both, or (B) while the ratio of alcohol in the blood of such person is ten-hundredths of one per cent or more of alcohol, by weight.
    What say you?
    I want to back the bus up a bit if I may. I re-read the stateute posted above sec. 53-206d. I have a question as to how it is written. Are the first two sentences a summary of the statute and (a)(1), (A) and (B) the specific criteria for judging wether an infraction has occured or not?

    I am trying to understand the way it is written and am having trouble. After this question is answered I have specific questions about the rest of it. Anyone (ED) know the answer to my question? Thanks.
    "Carrying a firearm while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drug prohibited. Hunting while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drug or while impaired by the consumption of intoxicating liquor prohibited." is the title of the statute.

    There is more the statute, but my question was not regarding hunting and I left that portion off. The underlined part is the actual prohibition I was inquiring about and (A) and (B) are the specific criteria for judging whether an offense has occurred.

    Here is a link to the actual statute for reference: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/Chap9...Sec53-206d.htm

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    Thanks gluegun, I went back and now see the first two sentences are the title of the statute. Perfect. Understood.

    My next question is in reference to the terms "impaired," "Intoxicated" and "Under the influence."

    It seems to me the statute explains that intoxicated refers to BAC of .10 or above.

    It seems to me the statute explains that impaired refers to BAC of .07 up to .10.

    The question is in the use of the term "under the influence." Does the term "under the influence" mean, at a minimum, impaired? Ordoes it simply mean under any influence?OR, Dothey simply use the term "under the influence" because it covers alcohol and drugs which cannot be measured by BAC?

    One can argue, taking a teaspoon of cough medicine with alcohol in it could qualify as "under the influence" ( not to mention the drug part of the statute.) I understand that is probably not what is meant. I am just trying to understand if "under the influence" does indeed mean at a minimum impaired (.07 BAC).

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    Actually, the more I read this statute the more I think whomever wrote it must have been under the influence. Why is it written so poorly? I mean what a POS.

    Section (a) seems to pertain to carrying a loaded firearm "under the influence"OR above .10 BAC.It doesn't state .07 or .08 it says only .10 or above.

    Section (b) seems to pertain to hunting. Isn't a person hunting with a loaded rifle or shotgun already in violation of section (a)? I guess section (b) could also include bow hunting? Why does section (b) talk about BAC and the difference between .10 and .07 impaired but not section(a)?

    It also says in violation by being "under the influence" OR having an elevated BAC. With this statement it appears an elevated BAC is not needed to be considered "under the influence."

    The more I read it the more it doesn't make any sense. What a POS.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •