OC and alcohol

wylde007 · Jan 22, 2010

imported post

CC and OC apply equally except inside a restaurant that serves alcohol.

There is no law prohibiting drinking while carrying in any fashion. There are laws that prohibit one from being "intoxicated". The statute that defines "intoxicated" places it at 0.08 BAC.

I do not know if that is a general definition and applies here, but I know they use it for determination of DUI/DWI and Public Intoxication.

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 hindsight of many stupid things done not only by me but others.

We've all done some things we might not be terribly proud of and I share this part of your past. I, however, did get a DUI (it was dismissed) and determined myself to make better choices and I feel I am a more responsible person now, by far, than I was then.

nuc65 · Jan 22, 2010

imported post

It seems crazy to take the chance. If you have a drink and end up defending yourself my guess is it doesn't matter and if alcohol is hinted at you will end up being charged with everything. You will probably lose your life as you know it because alcohol is suggested by the arresting officer (I arrested him and smelled alcohol on him) and in court it will be determined that you were impaired.

wylde007 · Jan 22, 2010

imported post

nuc65 wrote:

and in court it will be determined that you were impaired.

Lose your license for drinking and driving.

Lose your right to carry (well, not really, it's a misdemeanor) for drinking and carrying.

"Impaired" is a specific charge and must be substantiated by medical (ie: breathalyzer) proof. It is not subjective to the arresting officer in any case.

You can drink, just don't get drunk. Simple to me. Not so to others I guess. Since I am not others I can only speak to myself.

curtiswr · Jan 22, 2010

imported post

marshaul wrote:

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?

Grapeshot addressed your issues of intoxication or not with regards to the letter of the law being "under the influence" and that being at the whim of perception. And with there not being a defined limit in this case then that leaves it all that much more to perception.

Can you provide a cite, statistic, or otherwise any kind of data whatsoever that indicates that only moralists and hyper-authoritarians are the ones who are settled on the mindset and rule that guns and alcohol DO NOT mix?

And in making such a reverse and polar opposite of my post you are then accusing me of trying to de-normalize guns and alcohol mixing properly... which if you've been following mine and others' posts: it's not normalized now. Besides that, normalization and generally being accepted aren't good measures of legitimacy, as is evidenced by much of the attitudes revolving around guns in society today. It is normalized and generally accepted to be taken aghast at the sight of a gun in many places, but you would agree that OCing is a legitimate and good action it seems, or else you wouldn't be here.

Keep with the ad-hominem attacks though, seeing as you missed that post along with Grapeshot's. Trying to be clever seems to create tunnel vision.

apollosmom · Jan 22, 2010

imported post

A few decades back, when I was a Company Commander, our Battalion Commander gathered us together and plain layed it out...let your wife drive if you take a drink boys he said, fastest way to make the newspaper and bring discredit to yourself and the unit.

Fast forward to today. Not even a sip. I can wait till I'm home. I for one don't want the Daily Pravda searching out Phil or anyone from the VCDL and asking for a quote in response to their headline mentality. Bad enough to see their frequent editorials, we don't need to fan their flames.

My zwei pfenning!

user · Jan 22, 2010

imported post

The so-called "legal limit" only creates a presumption of intoxication. Intoxication can be proved at trial without resort to the presumption. I don't know how many times in the GDC's of this Commonwealth I've heard exactly the same statement:

I detected a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage about his person. His speech was slurred, his eyes were red, and he was generally uncoordinated. He fumbled when I asked him for his driver's license and registration.

wylde007 · Jan 22, 2010

imported post

That gives him the authority to arrest. It still has to be proven beyond subjective observation by quantifiable methods. IE: blood test or breathlyzer.

Anyone who has gotten convicted on subjective testimony without quantitative evidence should sue their attorney for legal malpractice.

Grapeshot · Jan 22, 2010

imported post

wylde007 wrote:

That gives him the authority to arrest. It still has to be proven beyond subjective observation by quantifiable methods. IE: blood test or breathlyzer.

Anyone who has gotten convicted on subjective testimony without quantitative evidence should sue their attorney for legal malpractice.

Might better try to sue the judge.

Any body can sue - the trick is in the winning.

Every case has a winner and a loser so odds at best are only 50%.

Yata hey

KBCraig · Jan 22, 2010

imported post

It seems this is a hot-button topic in every state, but moreso in VA because of the OC/restaurant quirk.

1. PR-wise, it's probably not a great idea to have a drink while OCing. The same argument can be made (and has been made) about being a beer-gutted Bubba in camo, or being a BMWAG.

2. Legally, a justified shooting is justified whether you're a tee-totaller or blind drunk.

3. Civilly, I don't doubt that some lawyers would love to play up the fact that someone was drinking when they defended themselves against the plaintiff's late loved one's attempt to assault them, but refer back to #2.

4. The idea that a single drink significantly impairs a normal-sized adult, other than by someone with an abnormal response to alcohol, is ludicrous. Swiss shooting clubs (you know, the ones that haven't had a fatal accident in over 400 years) serve beer and wine, and shooters frequently have a drink before stepping up to the line. The relaxing effects of a drink helps improve shooting scores.

I'm surprised no one has yet discussed the law, other than VAopencarry, way back at the top of the first page in this thread. He pointed out that "intoxicated" doesn't mean 0.08 BAC unless you're driving.

Here's what § 4.1-100 ("Definitions") says:

"Intoxicated" means a condition in which a person has drunk enough alcoholic beverages to observably affect his manner, disposition, speech, muscular movement, general appearance or behavior.

A good officer can make that case against almost anyone, but most aren't that good. They'll rely on a combination of cut-and-paste boilerplate language, and the subject's cooperation in hanging themselves.

user · Jan 23, 2010

imported post

wylde007 wrote:

That gives him the authority to arrest. It still has to be proven beyond subjective observation by quantifiable methods. IE: blood test or breathlyzer.

Anyone who has gotten convicted on subjective testimony without quantitative evidence should sue their attorney for legal malpractice.

You're confusing science with law.

"Evidence" is what a live witness with personal knowledge of the facts will say under oath. If a cop/trooper/deputy shows up and testifies to enough "facts" that he personally observed that give rise to the inference of intoxication, the only question remaining is whether the finder of fact (judge or jury) believes that evidence. It is then incumbent upon the defendant to come forward with some credible affirmative defense ("I have a disease condition that makes me like that.", for example. A stroke, cerebral palsy, or muscular distrophy will do, andI saw PMS used successfully, once.)

user · Jan 23, 2010

imported post

KBCraig wrote:

...I'm surprised no one has yet discussed the law, other than VAopencarry, way back at the top of the first page in this thread. He pointed out that "intoxicated" doesn't mean 0.08 BAC unless you're driving.
...

I thought I did that. The "legal limit" (.08 BAC by weight and by volume) isn't even necessary in a DUI case. It only creates a presumption. The state doesn't have to rely on a presumption. I also supplied the "boilerplate" and "cookie cutter" language I've heard so many timesin exactly the same formulationthat I've got it memorized.

Since we've brought up DUI, i've got a couple of tangential observations: first, it doesn't matter what you're riding on, if it's got a motorof some kind, whether you have to wind it up or run it off batteries; and secondly, "roadside sobriety tests", including the "Breathalyzer" are strictly voluntary - it's perfectly legal to say, "No, thank you, officer, I prefer not to."

NovaCop · Jan 23, 2010

imported post

user wrote:

KBCraig wrote:

...I'm surprised no one has yet discussed the law, other than VAopencarry, way back at the top of the first page in this thread. He pointed out that "intoxicated" doesn't mean 0.08 BAC unless you're driving.
...

Click to expand...

I thought I did that. The "legal limit" (.08 BAC by weight and by volume) isn't even necessary in a DUI case. It only creates a presumption. The state doesn't have to rely on a presumption. I also supplied the "boilerplate" and "cookie cutter" language I've heard so many timesin exactly the same formulationthat I've got it memorized.

Since we've brought up DUI, i've got a couple of tangential observations: first, it doesn't matter what you're riding on, if it's got a motorof some kind, whether you have to wind it up or run it off batteries; and secondly, "roadside sobriety tests", including the "Breathalyzer" are strictly voluntary - it's perfectly legal to say, "No, thank you, officer, I prefer not to."

A field (PBT) breathalyzer is voluntary but the real breathalyzer at booking is not voluntary. If you refuse to blow.. you face an unreasonable refusal charge and automatic loss of license for a year. In most cases, a PBT will only help someone in a dui case. If you blow a lower number (although didn't do well on the field tests) most officers are more likely to let you go because they don't wanna argue the presumption. Also keep in mind, a lot of times when you stop someone, give them all the tests, arrest them, tow their car, drive them to booking, wait the extra 20 mins during the "observation phase"... a person's bac will drop a lot since when they were driving. For example... I stopped someone who blew a .19 on the PBT (which is very accurate) by the time I got them to the real breathalyzer, they blew .11. The courts realize that just because someone blows a .06 and brings that to court doesn't mean they were .11 driving on the street.

Also, there aren't laws directly relating to alcohol consumption and guns, besides hunting and drinking. Personally I believe there should be laws pertaining to drinking and guns. It's too big of a liability to drink and carry your weapon, even if you do something right, your alcohol consumption will come into play. As a LEO I agree with many aspects of carrying firearms, although I disagree with some aspects as well. I enjoy reading some of your insights however.Sorry I might have made some typos, but I just got home from my 12 hour night shift. Going to bed before I have to do it again. night.

user · Jan 23, 2010

imported post

NovaCop10 wrote: ...A field (PBT) breathalyzer is voluntary but the real breathalyzer at booking is not voluntary.

[/quote]

True. If one has been arrested, which means the cop had probable cause to believe that the driver is intoxicated, the breath test at the Adult Detention Center is not exactly optional. I say, "not exactly", because you have the right to demand a blood test instead of the breath test, and you can refuse to take any test at all, if you're willing to be found guilty of the crime of refusal. I've known some folks to do that, because they thought the Commonwealth couldn't make the intoxication charge stick without the breath or blood test, and the penalty for refusal is much slighter than that for DUI. I've actually seen that work a couple of times. I wouldn't take the risk, myself, but then I rarely drink alcohol at all, much less before I drive.

NovaCop10 wrote: ... Also keep in mind, a lot of times when you stop someone, give them all the tests, arrest them, tow their car, drive them to booking, wait the extra 20 mins during the "observation phase"... a person's bac will drop a lot since when they were driving.

[/quote]

Also true; however, depending on how recently a person was drinking, his BAC may actually still be going UP.

NovaCop10 wrote: ...

Also, there aren't laws directly relating to alcohol consumption and guns, besides hunting and drinking. Personally I believe there should be laws pertaining to drinking and guns.

[/quote]

It is a crime to be in possession of a firearm while intoxicated if one is hunting, Va. Code § 18.2-285. Also while carrying a handgun at all if one has a concealed carry permit. Va. Code § 18.2-308(J1). But apparently, there is no statute prohibiting carrying firearms while intoxicated, other than the drunk in public statute, Va. Code § 18.2-388 (a class-four misdemeanor), if one does not have a concealed carry permit.

NovaCop10 wrote: ....Sorry I might have made some typos, but I just got home from my 12 hour night shift. Going to bed before I have to do it again. night.

No problem, Hope to hear from you again when you've got time.

(I'm not sure I like this editor - I'd rather be able to exercise a bit more control over where and how the formatting codes are placed.)

VaLiberty · Jan 23, 2010

imported post

longshot wrote:

WHY is this topic not discussed..........????

Sadly, because as much as some talk about their dislike of a "nanny" state, they want to be the one to make the rules for the rest of us. Freedom, and Liberty mean having the opportunity to make mistakes and learn from them, it's a process. If you consume too much alcohol while in possession of a weapon, there should be consequences. But that doesn't mean you take away the right for anyone else to enjoy a nice apple jack on their stroll to the local tavern, does it?

Do we really want to get to the point where we're creating more and more laws, just to make people feel comfortable? Does my carrying a gun make you feel uncomfortable? Is it any more likely to jump out of the holster and dance a jig if I've had one beer? So many times I read folks talk about how the soccer mom @ Target gave them a dirty look for carrying a gun - I don't want that in front of my children she says. Or don't sit down to eat at my table if you have a gun. That's the same thing being said to folks who'd like to have a simple beer while they reserve the right to protect themselves and family.

Legislating our way to morality is as worthwhile as legislating stupidity - both of which most in this thread would presume to tell me that having a 'drink' while in posession of a weapon fall under.

Where, in the natural rights of man is it said that any level of intoxication diminishes his or her right to protect himself or his family?

DrMark · Jan 23, 2010

imported post

On-topic incident?

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum54/37045.html

MackTheKnife · Jan 24, 2010

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Guns and alcohol do not mix - alcohol removes the lubrication.

Alcohol and gun carriers don't mix - lubricates them.

So Wild Turkey 101 isn't for hunting like weekends weren't made for Michelob?.

[line]

Grapeshot · Jan 24, 2010

imported post

MackTheKnife wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

Guns and alcohol do not mix - alcohol removes the lubrication.

Alcohol and gun carriers don't mix - lubricates them.

Click to expand...

So Wild Turkey 101 isn't for hunting like weekends weren't made for Michelob?.

Click to expand...

A toddy 'round the campfire is a religious experience.

Yata hey

gbentzen8 · Jan 25, 2010

imported post

NovaCop10 wrote:

user wrote:

KBCraig wrote:

...I'm surprised no one has yet discussed the law, other than VAopencarry, way back at the top of the first page in this thread. He pointed out that "intoxicated" doesn't mean 0.08 BAC unless you're driving.
...

Click to expand...

I thought I did that. The "legal limit" (.08 BAC by weight and by volume) isn't even necessary in a DUI case. It only creates a presumption. The state doesn't have to rely on a presumption. I also supplied the "boilerplate" and "cookie cutter" language I've heard so many timesin exactly the same formulationthat I've got it memorized.

Since we've brought up DUI, i've got a couple of tangential observations: first, it doesn't matter what you're riding on, if it's got a motorof some kind, whether you have to wind it up or run it off batteries; and secondly, "roadside sobriety tests", including the "Breathalyzer" are strictly voluntary - it's perfectly legal to say, "No, thank you, officer, I prefer not to."

Click to expand...

A field (PBT) breathalyzer is voluntary but the real breathalyzer at booking is not voluntary. If you refuse to blow.. you face an unreasonable refusal charge and automatic loss of license for a year. In most cases, a PBT will only help someone in a dui case. If you blow a lower number (although didn't do well on the field tests) most officers are more likely to let you go because they don't wanna argue the presumption. Also keep in mind, a lot of times when you stop someone, give them all the tests, arrest them, tow their car, drive them to booking, wait the extra 20 mins during the "observation phase"... a person's bac will drop a lot since when they were driving. For example... I stopped someone who blew a .19 on the PBT (which is very accurate) by the time I got them to the real breathalyzer, they blew .11. The courts realize that just because someone blows a .06 and brings that to court doesn't mean they were .11 driving on the street.

Also, there aren't laws directly relating to alcohol consumption and guns, besides hunting and drinking. Personally I believe there should be laws pertaining to drinking and guns. It's too big of a liability to drink and carry your weapon, even if you do something right, your alcohol consumption will come into play. As a LEO I agree with many aspects of carrying firearms, although I disagree with some aspects as well. I enjoy reading some of your insights however.Sorry I might have made some typos, but I just got home from my 12 hour night shift. Going to bed before I have to do it again. night.

NOVACOP, glad there are officers here chiming in, but there are laws related to guns and alcohol other than hunting, which is why I started this thread in the first place. I wanted to open the discussion, because I was surprised be my own ignorance of the law and wondered if I was the only one, and also I wanted to share some info pertinent to CC, while raising its relationship to OC.

I met a lawyer who is pro gun, has a CCW permit, and practices often at the Fairfax County Courthouse. He told me that technically one beer and a person could be deemed under the influence of alcohol, if they had that one beer and were carrying a concealed firearm with a CCW permit. He told me to look at Va Code Sec 18.2-308. I did.. Hence, this thread.

Virginia Code 18.2-308 J1 makes it clear that a person only needs to be under the influence (not .08 and nobreath test required...per lawyer)..and carrying CC to be charged with a Class1 misdomeanor and convicted. It further says that one loses their permit for 5 years. OUCH !

So guys and gals, please spread the word that it isn't just about PR or good safetypractice, it is also about a conviction and loss of permit for five years for that beer or two. The law is pretty clear.BUT (a big but)......it still begs the question that if you had that one beer, would shifting to open carry shield you, which gets back to my opening thread.... one can legally drink at a bar while OC (I don't) , which begs the question......what is the limit? For CC the limit is NONE. LONGSHOT

blt38 · Mar 17, 2010

imported post

LMAO peter, I guess you missed Lee's memo from Appomattox CH

OC and alcohol

wylde007

Regular Member

nuc65

Activist Member

wylde007

Regular Member

curtiswr

Regular Member

apollosmom

Regular Member

user

Accomplished Advocate

wylde007

Regular Member

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior

KBCraig

Regular Member

user

Accomplished Advocate

user

Accomplished Advocate

NovaCop

New member

user

Accomplished Advocate

VaLiberty

Regular Member

DrMark

Lone Star Veteran

MackTheKnife

Regular Member

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior

gbentzen8

Regular Member

blt38

Regular Member