SB 1395 Handgun; Class 1 misdeameanor for carrying while under the influence of alcoh

Citizen said:

This is not a law to solve a problem, this is a hit on pretty much any open carrier.

Click to expand...

Ditto. If anyone at the table has an alcoholic beverage (or even if a "cooperative" server delivers one to the table and it sits untouched), an unethical LEO could make an arrest for drinking while carrying.

Important note: while there is an "implied consent" to alcohol testing while driving, there is no such obligation while dining in public. An officer can make a case based on his observations, but you're under no obligation to assist him. Being offended, protesting, insisting on your rights, etc., will all look like someone behaving out of the norm (thus "impaired").

Again: Don't talk to the police!

t33j said:

Maybe for you, maybe not for me, maybe not for the guy down the street.

Non-issue, needs to die.

Click to expand...

Out of all the responses that address this so eloquently, This one puts it all in a nutshell.

Drinking is a personal issue, drunks are something else.
We can argue about drinking and carrying all day....but the Government needs to stay out of responsible drinking and let us decide that among ourselves.

And yes, it's a non issue.

I think most of us agree that carrying while drunk is a no-no, but what leads some to the conclusion that we should ban carrying after drinking any alcohol when there are so many other substances that can have adverse affects on cognitive abilities? Yes a drink or two will impair you somewhat, but so do many of the other things we do every day

What about the person who carries after suffering a debilitating back injury that requires her to take opiate based painkillers? Should she not be able to carry because those painkillers slow her down? What about folks who take allergy or cold medications? Many of those medications cause drowsiness. What about carrying while tired? Some studies have found that driving while tired is similar to driving after having a few drinks. In fact 56,000 car crashes are attributed to drowsiness each year (cite:http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4794514). If it is so dangerous for driving, isn't it just as bad for carrying?

Are any of those things any better or worse than having a beer while carrying?

Besides all that, if a drunken fool is open carrying, he can be cited for any number of offenses starting with public intoxication depending on what he/she is doing. Why add more laws? At the end of the day a misdemeanor does not revoke your right to carry openly anyways.

mpd8488 said:

I think most of us agree that carrying while drunk is a no-no

Click to expand...

Drunk? Perhaps. But upon whose opinion? Yours? Mine?

It is no responsibility of ours to see a right legislated away for something we may consider taboo or improper.

Shall not be infringed. Period. There are no asterisks in the Bill of Rights as far as I am aware.

But under VA law Class I Misde is up to 12 months and/or 2500 dollar fine. That kind of sucks. And I don't like the fact that is a discretionary law/statute. Who determines how far you can go?
Bad law...

wylde007 said:

Drunk? Perhaps. But upon whose opinion? Yours? Mine?

It is no responsibility of ours to see a right legislated away for something we may consider taboo or improper.

Shall not be infringed. Period. There are no asterisks in the Bill of Rights as far as I am aware.

Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with you. I was merely asking why is there such a controversy over drinking and carrying, but not over carrying while impaired in other ways? What makes alcohol so different?

For the record I have had a beer while carrying in a restaurant once and only once. It was Five Forks Cafe in Williamsburg. The server noticed my 1911 and asked whether it was legal. I informed her that since I was OCing, there was no law against it. She seemed a bit apprehensive at first, but that was the end of the discussion.

I choose not to do that any more, but I will stand behind anybody that believes that having a beer at a restaurant while OCing fits in perfectly with the mission of normalizing the sight of citizens carrying guns in their everyday lives.

mpd8488 said:

I choose not to do that any more, but I will stand behind anybody that believes that having a beer at a restaurant while OCing fits in perfectly with the mission of normalizing the sight of citizens carrying guns in their everyday lives.

Click to expand...

Would you stand behind somebody who believes that there is absolutely no justifiable reason to infringe on the rights of others under the auspices of "safety"?

Many (most) laws are written as a way to quantify punishment for straying from some preconceived state of normalcy - an arbitrary and oft-times analogous perception of "decency".

wylde007 said:

Would you stand behind somebody who believes that there is absolutely no justifiable reason to infringe on the rights of others under the auspices of "safety"?

Many (most) laws are written as a way to quantify punishment for straying from some preconceived state of normalcy - an arbitrary and oft-times analogous perception of "decency".

Click to expand...

There are a lot of apples and oranges getting compared here.

I've said many times I don't want to be around someone drinking and carrying. That however..is my opinion, not law.

This thread started over a proposed law which I am absolutely against. The Government needs to butt out!

wylde007 said:

Would you stand behind somebody who believes that there is absolutely no justifiable reason to infringe on the rights of others under the auspices of "safety"?

Click to expand...

To answer you question, Yes I would. And I happen to hold that belief myself. You can't simply pick apart rights based on society's current definition of conforming behavior. Rights protect individuals that do unpopular things (in this discussion drinking while carrying), and anything less is an infringement.

mpd8488 said:

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with you. I was merely asking why is there such a controversy over drinking and carrying, but not over carrying while impaired in other ways? What makes alcohol so different?

Click to expand...

In my mind, nothing. I think the standard should be "evidenced impairment", whatever the substance. But in the context of this thread, alcohol is special because alcohol is being singled out.

I would oppose this for any intoxicant. Blanket, black-and-white laws leave no room for the nuances of life. Which are where all the fun comes from!

The wording

The wording of this (and i believe the current law regarding CC) always troubles me. In 2004 someone ended up shooting me due to poor gun safety. A .45 slug went through my foot destroying several bones. I can get around okay, but some days I have to take prescription painkillers to be able to walk. At any given time, if I were to be subjected to a drug screening, I could test positive for opioids.

I'm quite tolerant to them and they never impair my judgement by any means, but I always worry about what could potentially happen. The wording specifies illegal drugs, and I have a prescription. However, all it takes is the wrong cop on the wrong day...

I've finally figured out the whole LEO drinking and carrying while in the performance of their duty thing. They must undergo some sort of super secret special training in order to consume alcohol and not have it impair their judgment or impair their reaction time. If it works for drinking and driving, think of all of the lives it might save if they made this special training available, no mandatory for everyone in order to get a drivers license.


Note, I'm being sarcastic and I am not advocating driving under the influence or drinking while carrying. I don't. Heck, I don't even drink a beer during league bowling. I am uncoordinated enough without drinking.

These penalties would be stacked!

So any person who carried a loaded gun, where concealed, or openly, into a restaurant which serves alcohol, and takes a sip, and, is convicted of even mere "public intoxication" (cl 4 misdemeanor with no requirement for any BAC level, just testomoney of police saying you appeared intoxicated) re any substance, even a legal prescription medicine for pain etc., would be guilty of 3 crimes with >3 penalties:

1 year imprisonment and fine for carrying the loaded gun while publicly intoxicated

6 month inprisonment and fine for taking a sip of wife's drink while in restaurant

Fine and night in jail to de-tox for being publicly intoxicated

5 Year loss of right to obtain a Virginia concealed handgun permit

Probably loss of, and a lifetime ban on obtaining, employment requiring a security clearance, or other job which requires a background check

Mike said:

even a legal prescription medicine for pain etc.

Click to expand...

Are you sure legal prescriptions would be included? From what I saw it said illegal drugs. As I said before, I am 100% taking a painkiller so I can walk in no way, shape, form, or fashion alters my judgement. And I can happily have my doctor, as well as the surgeon who operated on me to get the slug out come to court and state I have a valid medical need. It's not like I'm abusing a substance...

FretlessMayhem said:

Are you sure legal prescriptions would be included? From what I saw it said illegal drugs. As I said before, I am 100% taking a painkiller so I can walk in no way, shape, form, or fashion alters my judgement. And I can happily have my doctor, as well as the surgeon who operated on me to get the slug out come to court and state I have a valid medical need. It's not like I'm abusing a substance...

Click to expand...

Perhaps Mike is referring to the Morrissey bill, which includes this vague language:

... or any other self-administered intoxicant or drug of whatever nature, ...

Click to expand...

So does that include such meds as, what, Oxycodone?

There is a BIG difference between 'illegal' and 'illicit' -- do the gun-haters care?

Repeater said:

So does that include such meds as, what, Oxycodone?

There is a BIG difference between 'illegal' and 'illicit' -- do the gun-haters care?

Click to expand...

In my case, I take Percocet on a semi-regular basis. Some days it's not so bad, but some days I can't walk. Typically after playing a rock show the night before, for instance.

I refuse to let having a disability stop me from having fun. If I have to take medicine occasionally, so be it.

Perhaps our representatives should be held to the same standard. No legislating under the influence of any substance. Wonder how much they'd like that.

Mike said:

So any person who carried a loaded gun, where concealed, or openly, into a restaurant which serves alcohol, and takes a sip, and, is convicted of even mere "public intoxication" (cl 4 misdemeanor with no requirement for any BAC level, just testomoney of police saying you appeared intoxicated) re any substance, even a legal prescription medicine for pain etc., would be guilty of 3 crimes with >3 penalties:

1 year imprisonment and fine for carrying the loaded gun while publicly intoxicated

6 month inprisonment and fine for taking a sip of wife's drink while in restaurant

Fine and night in jail to de-tox for being publicly intoxicated

5 Year loss of right to obtain a Virginia concealed handgun permit

Probably loss of, and a lifetime ban on obtaining, employment requiring a security clearance, or other job which requires a background check

Click to expand...

This is the biggest fear I have with absolutely everything I do regarding my weapon, whether it's OC or CC.

t33j said:

Perhaps our representatives should be held to the same standard. No legislating under the influence of any substance. Wonder how much they'd like that.

Click to expand...

Man, that's scary accurate. Such a great idea -- no chance of becoming law.

"Any person who legislates under the influence of alcohol or any other self-administered intoxicant or drug of whatever nature, is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor."

No chance whatsoever.

Repeater said:

Man, that's scary accurate. Such a great idea -- no chance of becoming law.

"Any person who legislates under the influence of alcohol or any other self-administered intoxicant or drug of whatever nature, is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor."

No chance whatsoever.

Click to expand...

Yeah, they're all constantly intoxicated by their lust for power....

Roscoe