OC and alcohol

imported post

peter nap wrote:

HankT wrote:

longshot wrote:

Hi guys, we all know guns and booze don't mix. BUT (see a big but), when one OC's in Va, what is the legal limit? I hear that with CC the limit is zero, nada, none, zip, i.e., have any (one Lite beer)and get caught ....GO TO JAIL... DO NOT PASS GO......LOSE PERMIT FOR5 YEARS. Now,I know that a person can OC and belly up and have a couple, but is there a legal limit like .08?

Click to expand...

I don't think there is a specific BAC level that would be illegal if one is carrying a firerarm (OC or CC).

But there should be.

I would propose a state law that would make it unlawful for a gun carrier to have a BAC of .18 % or higher. Penalties would be stiff, including fines, possible incarceration, and immediate prohibition of ability to carry in public until some kind of alcohol/rehab review is completed and treatment recommendation is made.

I would support fully such a law. (As long as it was reasonable regulation allowable under 2A, which I think it would be.)

Common sense really.

The basic model would be based on the currentDUI concepts/laws.

Click to expand...

Gunowners in Va can police our own ranks Hank. The last thing we need are more damn laws.

Click to expand...

Nah.

Don't be so provincial, PN.

Actually, the last thing VA needs is some goofball OC drunkard in public to ruin the work done by VCDL and OCDO over the last few years.

imported post

SpringerXDacp wrote:

HankT wrote:

SNIP
I don't think there is a specific BAC level that would be illegal if one is carrying a firerarm (OC or CC).

But there should be.

I would propose a state law that would make it unlawful for a gun carrier to have a BAC of .18 % or higher. Penalties would be stiff, including fines, possible incarceration, and immediate prohibition of ability to carry in public until some kind of alcohol/rehab review is completed and treatment recommendation is made.

I would support fully such a law. (As long as it was reasonable regulation allowable under 2A, which I think it would be.)

Common sense really.

The basic model would be based on the currentDUI concepts/laws.

Click to expand...

Is that a typo or are you just being sarcastic? 0.18 is almost three timesthe legal limit for DUI.

Click to expand...

That's just for Hank. He can hold his liquor, he's from Joisey:uhoh:

imported post

SpringerXDacp wrote:

HankT wrote:

SNIP
I don't think there is a specific BAC level that would be illegal if one is carrying a firerarm (OC or CC).

But there should be.

I would propose a state law that would make it unlawful for a gun carrier to have a BAC of .18 % or higher. Penalties would be stiff, including fines, possible incarceration, and immediate prohibition of ability to carry in public until some kind of alcohol/rehab review is completed and treatment recommendation is made.

I would support fully such a law. (As long as it was reasonable regulation allowable under 2A, which I think it would be.)

Common sense really.

The basic model would be based on the currentDUI concepts/laws.

Click to expand...

Is that a typo or are you just being sarcastic? 0.18 is almost three timesthe legal limit for DUI.

Click to expand...

No typo.

0.18 %

We MUST make it a clear case of wanton gun carrier recklessness.

Good question, SXD.

We cannot have a gun carrier lose his rights to carry over some debatable level of impairment such as.08% or something close.

Let's face it, by the time a person is at .18%, the person is blotto. And therefore carrying a gun in that state is utterly indefensible.

imported post

HankT wrote:

SpringerXDacp wrote:

HankT wrote:

SNIP
I don't think there is a specific BAC level that would be illegal if one is carrying a firerarm (OC or CC).

But there should be.

I would propose a state law that would make it unlawful for a gun carrier to have a BAC of .18 % or higher. Penalties would be stiff, including fines, possible incarceration, and immediate prohibition of ability to carry in public until some kind of alcohol/rehab review is completed and treatment recommendation is made.

I would support fully such a law. (As long as it was reasonable regulation allowable under 2A, which I think it would be.)

Common sense really.

The basic model would be based on the currentDUI concepts/laws.

Click to expand...

Is that a typo or are you just being sarcastic? 0.18 is almost three timesthe legal limit for DUI.

Click to expand...

No typo.

0.18 %

We MUST make it a clear case of wanton gun carrier recklessness.

Good question, SXD.

We cannot have a gun carrier lose his rights to carry over some debatable level of impairment such as.08% or something close.

Let's face it, by the time a person is at .18%, the person is blotto. And therefore carrying a gun in that state is utterly indefensible.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I misunderstood. :? I thought you meant that...

ABAC reading of 0.18% = 0.0018

When really it means: a BAC reading of 0.18% = 0.18

imported post

I personally will never drink alcohol while carrying for one simple reason: liability.

I am pretty confident in my ability to make good decisions after drinking one alcoholic beverage. It doesn't impair me more than the smallest little bit.

But if the unthinkable happens and I am forced to use my weapon in self defense, you can bet that the Commonwealth's Attorney will think twice before he decides not to charge me because of that beer I had with dinner. And I'm sure I don't need to tell you how the Plaintiff's attorney's direct examiniation of the bartender at the restraunt we were at would go during the civil suit.

Does one drink impair me enough to put my ability to exercise good judgement regarding the use of my firearm? I don't think so, but:

• I don't know for sure
  It doesn't matter what I think, it's what a jury (x2) believes

FWIW: I follow the same rule regarding NyQuil, Benedryl tablets, etc.

ETA: To answer the original question, there is no BAC limit anywhere in the code, relating to handgun carry, open, or concealed.

If you are convicted of DUI (@ .08 or above) (or any of the other offenses listed in VAopencarry's post) and found in possession of a concealed handgun, then you would be charged with a class 1 misdemeanor. (18.2-308 J1) As there are absolutely no laws on the books anywhere about open carry, you could be .18 and still open carry.

imported post

ed wrote:

longshot wrote:

Please, do not respond with a sermon about guns and alcohol

Click to expand...

If you are not prepared for the answer that you know is coming, then don't ask the question.

As responsible gun owners, when any of us go out in public, we represent each other, like it or not. Having a glass of wine or a light beer really might be ok in reality but the perception is extremely damaging to our "movement as a whole" and most that I have talked to about the subject agree. So.. do us all (or 99.999%) of us a favor. If you want to drink and carry, do it in the privacy of your home.

Ed

Click to expand...

+1

imported post

peter nap wrote:

That's just for Hank. He can hold his liquor, he's from Joisey:uhoh:

Click to expand...

What in tarnation are you talking about, PN?

Do you not tire of embarassing yourself?



livitup wrote:

I personally will never drink alcohol while carrying for one simple reason: liability.

I am pretty confident in my ability to make good decisions after drinking one alcoholic beverage. It doesn't impair me more than the smallest little bit.

But if the unthinkable happens and I am forced to use my weapon in self defense, you can bet that the Commonwealth's Attorney will think twice before he decides not to charge me because of that beer I had with dinner. And I'm sure I don't need to tell you how the Plaintiff's attorney's direct examiniation of the bartender at the restraunt we were at would go during the civil suit.

Does one drink impair me enough to put my ability to exercise good judgement regarding the use of my firearm? I don't think so, but:

• I don't know for sure
  It doesn't matter what I think, it's what a jury (x2) believes

FWIW: I follow the same rule regarding NyQuil, Benedryl tablets, etc.

ETA: To answer the original question, there is no BAC limit anywhere in the code, relating to handgun carry, open, or concealed.

If you are convicted of DUI (@ .08 or above) (or any of the other offenses listed in VAopencarry's post) and found in possession of a concealed handgun, then you would be charged with a class 1 misdemeanor. (18.2-308 J1) As there are absolutely no laws on the books anywhere about open carry, you could be .18 and still open carry.

Click to expand...

You are a reasonable man. And responsible.

Seems to me if a person wants to play God, holding the power of life or death, that one ought to do havinghis wits about him.

That may not be a whole heckuvalot for some, of course.

Anyone who would carry (OC or CC) at .18 % is a disgrace to society and the gun owner/carrier community. Anyone who would carry at .18 % is a menace and should be immediately relieved of gun and prohibited from carrying in public. Such a sot is inherently anti-gun by his irresponsiblebehavior.

Same as the DUI model. Only more strict, once the .18 % is confirmed.

imported post

On the other hand, if we applied the no gun/no alcohol rule to the founding father's principles we would have no Bill of Rights, no 2A.

Different place in space and time - I abhor "reasonable restrictions" yet I understand and acept them.

Yata hey

imported post

HankT wrote:

peter nap wrote:

That's just for Hank. He can hold his liquor, he's from Joisey:uhoh:

Click to expand...

What in tarnation are you talking about, PN?

Do you not tire of embarassing yourself?

Click to expand...

You mean you Joisey boys can't hold your liquor? Another myth shattered.:?
Next you'll be telling me you yankees won the war:banghead:

imported post

I have found that not very many members of this site agree, but I do not see anything wrong with imbibing responsibly while carrying any more than if one is driving a vehicle.

And, since I am usually driving when I am out having supper with my family, it serves to reason that I'm not going to drink myself into a stupor.

I know, I know, I've heard the "you're going to give open carry a bad name" and "well, don't drink around us, we'll shun you" spiels plenty enough and I can honestly say that if you feel that way, I respect it... but in my eyes you're no better than an anti who says we shouldn't have guns at all if you're going to apply someone else's perception to an observation and then broad-brush the entire community with it.

Think about it for a minute and try to get your head around just how hypocritical that sounds on an academic level.

Thanks for reading... and not flaming if'n you was a-gonna.:lol:

imported post

wylde007 wrote:

I have found that not very many members of this site agree, but I do not see anything wrong with imbibing responsibly while carrying any more than if one is driving a vehicle.

And, since I am usually driving when I am out having supper with my family, it serves to reason that I'm not going to drink myself into a stupor.

I know, I know, I've heard the "you're going to give open carry a bad name" and "well, don't drink around us, we'll shun you" spiels plenty enough and I can honestly say that if you feel that way, I respect it... but in my eyes you're no better than an anti who says we shouldn't have guns at all if you're going to apply someone else's perception to an observation and then broad-brush the entire community with it.

Think about it for a minute and try to get your head around just how hypocritical that sounds on an academic level.

Thanks for reading... and not flaming if'n you was a-gonna.:lol:

Click to expand...

It's not so much the appearance, although that is a major consideration. There are certain rules that you get in the habit of never breaking. Some things as simple as always handing a revolver to someone with the cylinder open or never sweeping the room. They just become habits. Never drinking while carrying is one of those "never break rules".

If we start breaking protocal, we could end up like Hank!:shock:

imported post

peter nap wrote:

Never drinking while carrying is one of those "never break rules".

Click to expand...

For you, maybe. That's a "rule" that someone came up with here that cannot be enforced nor mandated to everyone. What about the likely hundreds (or maybe thousands, judging by Monday's turnout) of rural VA citizens who would OC to their favorite watering hole on the way home from the John Deere shop? Should they not have a drink to unwind?

If it's something that makes you feel better by adhering to, then that's great! I have no concern or problem with that. The difference is when you (not "you" individually, but you, collectively) tell someone that they can't do something because you don't like it.

That's how the antis, the liberal mind, works. For you and I as [hopefully] classical conservative in that sense, if we don't want to do something we don't do it. The liberal says "If I don't want to do something, then nobody should be able to."

It's a sort of morality argument and it places your opinions into play against someone else's.

If we start breaking protocol, we could end up like Hank!

Click to expand...

Well, I certainly don't want that. I've got enough problems without having to find a bridge to live under from which to scare little children.

imported post

Curtis wrote:

If you'd like to brag about having one beer after shooting and try to normalize it good for you... I guess. :uhoh: But I don't see the point of doing it in a thread where the OP is clearly trying to determine the maximum limit to get away with, which if misinterpreted by the OP or others like him could lead to the idea that hey it's okeydokey to drink, carry, and/or shoot. Guess this is another instance of you not understanding what is being said or asked.

Click to expand...

If you'd like to brag about never having one beer while shooting and try to de-normalize it good for you... I guess. :uhoh: But I don't see the point of doing it in a thread where the OP is clearly trying to determine the maximum limit to get away with, which if properly interpreted will lead others to the inevitable conclusion that firearms and non-intoxicating amounts of alcohol are not prohibited and do not incur a social taboo in anybody but moralists the hyper-authoritarian (just like having a non-intoxicating amount of alcohol and driving).

Personally, I think it "looks bad" for the movement that we consider ourselves so utterly irresponsible that this discussion can never be carried out in a positive, productive fashion. Are we adults or teenagers?

imported post

wylde007 wrote:

peter nap wrote:

If we start breaking protocol, we could end up like Hank!

Click to expand...

Well, I certainly don't want that. I've got enough problems without having to find a bridge to live under from which to scare little children.

Click to expand...

I can't reply. It may be a day or two before I CAN STOP LAUGHING!:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

imported post

wylde007 wrote:

peter nap wrote:

Never drinking while carrying is one of those "never break rules".

Click to expand...

snip....
If it's something that makes you feel better by adhering to, then that's great! I have no concern or problem with that. The difference is when you (not "you" individually, but you, collectively) tell someone that they can't do something because you don't like it.

Click to expand...

Not "telling" you that you can't and not throwing you under the bus either.

Each one of us represents the group collectively - just like when CHP holder commits a crime the anti's bonfire is fueled. You make your own choices for personal or group effect as you decide. It's the "No man is an island" theme.

Yata hey

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Not "telling" you that you can't and not throwing you under the bus either.

Click to expand...

I was really trying not to take it that way and hoped to keep this as an objective and rational discussion, particularly because:

Each one of us represents the group collectively - just like when CHP holder commits a crime the anti's bonfire is fueled. You make your own choices for personal or group effect as you decide. It's the "No man is an island" theme.

Click to expand...

Could not be more true, and I follow the logic train 100%.

I also feel that if we can carry openly, imbibe responsibly and show that we are no more a danger than Joe Unarmed, that we can make headway as well.

I do offer that when I'm with a group (like OC suppers, for instance) who have chosen not to drink and asked the group at that gathering to also refrain, then I have no problems doing so. I would liken it to a smoker dining with a group of non-smokers and refraining from smoking throughout the meal or in their presence.

Although the law is pretty clear on that now, isn't it?

imported post

wylde007 wrote:

but in my eyes you're no better than an anti who says we shouldn't have guns at all if you're going to apply someone else's perception to an observation and then broad-brush the entire community with it.

Think about it for a minute and try to get your head around just how hypocritical that sounds on an academic level.

Thanks for reading... and not flaming if'n you was a-gonna.:lol:

Click to expand...

In carful consideration to your view, I have to use an example that is separated from guns. A license to drive is a privilege not a right guaranteed under the constitution as are gun rights. In a perfect world common sense would come into play as driving responsible and drinking. Through the years more laws put on the books because some people could not self restrain and control themselves. Even now time after time even with laws enacted some people still don’t get it and it always seems the excuse that I didn’t think I was that bad.

Headline, hello, the anti’s have us under a watchful eye. Yes it would seem that since driving is a privilege they would have more control of idiots on the road but they don’t, they would rather focus their attention on us.

I don’t want to make it any easier for them to try to enact any new laws on us as a whole because of my actions. My feeling of this I consider a responsible decision not to carry if wanting a drink to keep from bad public publicity of gun ownership. As we know good publicity is not on any priority list with the media.. For me to think other wise and making one little mistake even though I believe I wouldn’t is nothing more than a long shot gamble and could hurt more than just me. How many people use shoulda coulda woulda after the fact? I would much rather go out un- armed and risk my own life not being able to protect myself if alcohol meant that much to me, rather than add to the headaches of other fellow gun owners of bad publicity. If this makes me sound like an anti, than so be it, consider me anti stupidity.

imported post

kennys wrote:

In careful consideration to your view, I have to use an example that is separated from guns. A license to drive is a privilege not a right guaranteed under the constitution as are gun rights. In a perfect world common sense would come into play as driving responsible and drinking. Through the years more laws put on the books because some people could not self restrain and control themselves. Even now time after time even with laws enacted some people still don’t get it and it always seems the excuse that I didn’t think I was that bad.

Click to expand...

I think it is actually very easy to make the connection between alcohol-driving and alcohol-firearms.

But you hit the important part first off. Driving is a privilege. Firearms ownership (and carry) is a RIGHT. The moment we forget that is the moment that the antis gain the traction they need to disarm everyone and make us perpetual victims to the criminal element and permanent slaves to the federal empire.

If I am "sober" enough to drive (under legal limit) then I don't see how I would be any more dangerous if I was armed.

Of course that requires one to apply logic and reason to the situation which are in limited supply in the mind of a liberal.

However, I still believe that I'm not harming the OC community by carrying and having a drink. The city of Virginia Beach and Norfolk (yes, NORFOLK!) police who have witnessed these infrequent occasions didn't seem too terribly concerned either. Theirs is truly my gauge.

imported post

wylde007 wrote:

kennys wrote:

In careful consideration to your view, I have to use an example that is separated from guns. A license to drive is a privilege not a right guaranteed under the constitution as are gun rights. In a perfect world common sense would come into play as driving responsible and drinking. Through the years more laws put on the books because some people could not self restrain and control themselves. Even now time after time even with laws enacted some people still don’t get it and it always seems the excuse that I didn’t think I was that bad.

Click to expand...

I think it is actually very easy to make the connection between alcohol-driving and alcohol-firearms.

But you hit the important part first off. Driving is a privilege. Firearms ownership (and carry) is a RIGHT. The moment we forget that is the moment that the antis gain the traction they need to disarm everyone and make us perpetual victims to the criminal element and permanent slaves to the federal empire.

If I am "sober" enough to drive (under legal limit) then I don't see how I would be any more dangerous if I was armed.

Of course that requires one to apply logic and reason to the situation which are in limited supply in the mind of a liberal.

However, I still believe that I'm not harming the OC community by carrying and having a drink. The city of Virginia Beach and Norfolk (yes, NORFOLK!) police who have witnessed these infrequent occasions didn't seem too terribly concerned either. Theirs is truly my gauge.

Click to expand...

Every one has their own opinion based on instances of their own life, as well as goings on of others. While I do drink occasionally at home, I once was a heavy drinker back in my younger days. While I have never had a DUI or other issues due to it, I as well hold the hind site of many stupid things done, not only by me but others. While there are those that can drink responsibly there as well those that think they can only to learn a hard lesson. I don’t believe any ever mean to loose a job over it, have a domestic dispute, loose there family as well as other things but they do.

Truly it is ones choice on how they wish to conduct themselves being armed, I respect that. In a rational world of self accountability for ones own actions this would not be a big issue but unfortunately we do not have that luxery, they group the one to the many linking us all whether we like it or not. I personally wouldn’t want to be the one egg to spoil the dozen.

imported post

ed wrote:

longshot wrote:

Please, do not respond with a sermon about guns and alcohol

Click to expand...

If you are not prepared for the answer that you know is coming, then don't ask the question.

As responsible gun owners, when any of us go out in public, we represent each other, like it or not. Having a glass of wine or a light beer really might be ok in reality but the perception is extremely damaging to our "movement as a whole" and most that I have talked to about the subject agree. So.. do us all (or 99.999%) of us a favor. If you want to drink and carry, do it in the privacy of your home.

Ed

Click to expand...

ED, the above that you quoted from mewas not a question, rather it was a request. I never open carry and drink in public, nor do I advocate drinking and gun carrying. I was asking if there is a legal limit, because I believe that gun owners should be fully aware of the pit falls of having that beer or two at home and then carrying whether CC or OC.

I haven't seen this topic discussed here, but from a couple of responses I guess it has been. I'm not trying to set back the movement, having been a VCDL member since the days of NVCDL. However, I don't believe that one needs to receive a sermon re. guns and booze for merely asking a question about blood alcohol limits as related to gun laws.

Ya know, a fella might CC and stop at a buddys house and have one Lite beer from Miller and leave completely non buzzed. How does that affect the legality of ones CC permit should one have a LEO encounter (for whatever reason) and said LEO smells one Lite beer on your breath? Would OC be treated differently than CC? These are valid questions, not advocacy of drinking and carrying.

I believe that OC goes way back in the Commonwealth, whereas, CC (in its current form) dates back to 1995. My concern is what did the anti gun pols put in the CC law re. alcohol limits. Raising this question is not just for me, rather it is for anyone who comes to this site and CC's or OC's.....it is also for their friends and the whole gun community. Information is power, so why can't this be discussed openly without someone stating the obvious that guns and alcohol don't mix. Would it be better for members to find out the hardway what thatone beer could cost you? LONGSHOT