DeRoche-case-tossed-out-of-court

choover said:

Almost everything in our lives is controlled in one way or another. Thats just where we are.

Click to expand...

I think we all understand that... but what many folks are saying is that once we accept that a small "restriction" is "reasonable" the door is open to any restriction being reasonable depending on how reasonable it is to who ever is in power.

It's kinda like not wanting a camel in your tent... but letting the camel stick his nose in because it is "reasonable" to let the camel smell dinner... soon enough the camel is all the way inside and eating your dinner. All because it seemed "reasonable" to let the camel in just a little bit..............

And what is a "reasonable restriction" anyway? No matter how it is packaged each and every "reasonable restriction" is nothing more than what someone thinks is how it should be done... not only by themselves but by everyone else too.

Governments intent on subjugating their population think it is "reasonable" to restrict gun ownership/carrying to only government agencies/officials/employees.

Private individuals intent on forcing other folks to abide by their own opinion of how things should be think it is "reasonable" to restrict gun ownership/carrying to only those who, and behaviors that, are acceptable in their own eyes.

No matter who comes up with a "reasonable restriction" of a right, or how carefully/cleverly/or how much it seems to make sense, it still boils down to someone wanting to control others from doing something the one controlling doesn't like.

We are all entitled to have an opinion about whether or not we agree with a "reasonable restriction" in our own personal lives... and simply not do what seems to be reasonable to restrict. But we do not have the right to force that opinion onto everyone else in the form of a law that reasonably restricts.

Thank you once more Bikenut.
Choover, now you are accusing another of dealing drugs? "oh well, deal. or.. do what theq does"
Why do that? Do you have to slam others to make you're point? I don't think any one attacked you personally, did they?springerdave.

springerdave said:

Choover, now you are accusing another of dealing drugs? "oh well, deal. or.. do what theq does"

Click to expand...

Are you serious? Is that really what you thought he meant or are you just stirring sh!t?

What he meant was: "If you dont like it, oh well, deal with it. Or.. do what theq does and try to throw jabs like you know me."

I'm simply amazed that what choover wrote could be so completely misconstrued as to be an accusation of being a drug dealer. It's simply ridiculous.

Bronson

I don't think so. Words mean stuff, even left out ones.springerdave.
My apologies if I misunderstood.

I absolutely cannot believe that there are people ON THIS FORUM (who I thought were smart and well educated about firearms and freedoms and such) who think it is OK to carry a gun outside the home while drunk or on drugs! There is a big difference between .02, .08, and can't-stand-up-blackout-drunk, and obviously it is NOT ok for someone to carry a gun (outside the home) while they are so impaired that they cannot stand up or construct coherent sentences. Yet it is being argued on this forum that it is ok for people to drink and carry. It's not even the drinking and carrying that's my problem. The AMOUNT consumed is the issue. I could drink a few beers and be legally over the limit but be fine to carry a gun. If I were to drink 10 beers in an hour, I would NOT be ok to carry a gun. Where's the distinction? That's what this discussion should be about, not zero tolerance drinking and carrying vs drink as much as you want and carrying.

EM87 said:

I absolutely cannot believe that there are people ON THIS FORUM (who I thought were smart and well educated about firearms and freedoms and such) who think it is OK to carry a gun outside the home while drunk or on drugs! There is a big difference between .02, .08, and can't-stand-up-blackout-drunk, and obviously it is NOT ok for someone to carry a gun (outside the home) while they are so impaired that they cannot stand up or construct coherent sentences. Yet it is being argued on this forum that it is ok for people to drink and carry. It's not even the drinking and carrying that's my problem. The AMOUNT consumed is the issue. I could drink a few beers and be legally over the limit but be fine to carry a gun. If I were to drink 10 beers in an hour, I would NOT be ok to carry a gun. Where's the distinction? That's what this discussion should be about, not zero tolerance drinking and carrying vs drink as much as you want and carrying.

Click to expand...

I cannot believe there are folks on this forum who don't understand the simple truth that if a thing is a "right" then there are no restrictions of any kind that can change it, control it, or restrict it.. no matter how "reasonable" it might appear. Once there is a restriction (infringement) then it is no longer a right no one can take away or control ....it becomes a privilege under the control of whoever wants to make that control seem "reasonable".

The point I have been trying to make is that once a right... the right to keep and bear in this instance... is restricted in any way shape or form, such as someone who has the opinion that a person under the influence of a drug or alcohol should not carry a gun making that opinion a law then, no matter how "reasonable" that restriction may seem, the right to keep and bear now becomes a privilege under the control of whoever wants to add any new restriction that seems "reasonable".

The point that needs to be understood is that a right cannot be restricted in any way because once it is it is no longer a right but becomes a privilege under the control of whoever is in power subject to the whims of whoever is in power.

What I find scary is that folks have been sold the idea that as long as it is "reasonable" it is perfectly justifiable to change, restrict, remove, and put under the control of the government, what used to be a right. Not only have they been sold on the idea that infringing on a right is perfectly OK... they argue for infringing as if adding chains that deny freedom is a good thing.

And the difference is... rights mean each person is in control of their life... privileges mean someone else, someone in authority, is in control of your life. Which one do you prefer?

A right is freedom from control... restricting rights, especially with the lie that a restriction is "reasonable", is a method of forcing control.

One thing that is being missed in this emotional discussion about drunks with guns.... the problem isn't the gun... the problem is the drunk.

Bikenut said:

I cannot believe there are folks on this forum who don't understand the simple truth that if a thing is a "right" then there are no restrictions of any kind that can change it, control it, or restrict it.. no matter how "reasonable" it might appear. Once there is a restriction (infringement) then it is no longer a right no one can take away or control ....it becomes a privilege under the control of whoever wants to make that control seem "reasonable".

The point I have been trying to make is that once a right... the right to keep and bear in this instance... is restricted in any way shape or form, such as someone who has the opinion that a person under the influence of a drug or alcohol should not carry a gun making that opinion a law then, no matter how "reasonable" that restriction may seem, the right to keep and bear now becomes a privilege under the control of whoever wants to add any new restriction that seems "reasonable".

The point that needs to be understood is that a right cannot be restricted in any way because once it is it is no longer a right but becomes a privilege under the control of whoever is in power subject to the whims of whoever is in power.

What I find scary is that folks have been sold the idea that as long as it is "reasonable" it is perfectly justifiable to change, restrict, remove, and put under the control of the government, what used to be a right. Not only have they been sold on the idea that infringing on a right is perfectly OK... they argue for infringing as if adding chains that deny freedom is a good thing.

And the difference is... rights mean each person is in control of their life... privileges mean someone else, someone in authority, is in control of your life. Which one do you prefer?

A right is freedom from control... restricting rights, especially with the lie that a restriction is "reasonable", is a method of forcing control.

One thing that is being missed in this emotional discussion about drunks with guns.... the problem isn't the gun... the problem is the drunk.

Click to expand...

Here is my point bud, we are already infringed on and that will NEVER change. As far as how much infringement is all we can change. Do you think we actually stand a chance of them ever actually completely unrestricting it? Maybe pack the UZIs by the bubble gum for the kids lol? There will always be restrictions and we have made huge strides in reducing those. It was not to long ago that we were not a shall issue state, it was not to long ago that you could not open carry anywhere hardly.

Debating as to letting them infringe or not is a moot point because we are past that. IMO the new fight is to make OC more common, to eliminate PFZs and help make shall issue or Constitutional carry EVERYWHERE and all states recognize it.

ETA: You have very well articulated yourself in your posts, I think our differences in views will remain so I think we have to respectfully agree to disagree and I am gonna show myself the door on this topic, but I did enjoy your posts very much in all honesty.

EM87 said:

I absolutely cannot believe that there are people ON THIS FORUM (who I thought were smart and well educated about firearms and freedoms and such) who think it is OK to carry a gun outside the home while drunk or on drugs! There is a big difference between .02, .08, and can't-stand-up-blackout-drunk, and obviously it is NOT ok for someone to carry a gun (outside the home) while they are so impaired that they cannot stand up or construct coherent sentences. Yet it is being argued on this forum that it is ok for people to drink and carry. It's not even the drinking and carrying that's my problem. The AMOUNT consumed is the issue. I could drink a few beers and be legally over the limit but be fine to carry a gun. If I were to drink 10 beers in an hour, I would NOT be ok to carry a gun. Where's the distinction? That's what this discussion should be about, not zero tolerance drinking and carrying vs drink as much as you want and carrying.

Click to expand...

I know.. but it is their choice and all we can do is peacefully discuss it

Bronson said:

Are you serious? Is that really what you thought he meant or are you just stirring sh!t?

What he meant was: "If you dont like it, oh well, deal with it. Or.. do what theq does and try to throw jabs like you know me."

I'm simply amazed that what choover wrote could be so completely misconstrued as to be an accusation of being a drug dealer. It's simply ridiculous.

Bronson

Click to expand...

Thank you

springerdave said:

Thank you once more Bikenut.
Choover, now you are accusing another of dealing drugs? "oh well, deal. or.. do what theq does"
Why do that? Do you have to slam others to make you're point? I don't think any one attacked you personally, did they?springerdave.

Click to expand...

You may have mis-read it or my initial intention may have not been as clear as it should have been but please if you are going to quote me I ask that you include the entire sentences you are quoting and not snip-its that can be misleading. And yes I do feel some of the responses were intended to be personal attacks, subtle but there none the less

choover said:

Here is my point bud, we are already infringed on and that will NEVER change.

The idea that being infringed on will never change is why it is so important to not accept that being infringed on will never change.

As far as how much infringement is all we can change.

That, to my mind, is not "all" we can change... I like to think that with diligent never ending effort we can change it "all".

Do you think we actually stand a chance of them ever actually completely unrestricting it?

I think there is a chance that WE... not "they" can get our rights back in their pure form. But it is WE who have to fight "they" in order to do it because "they" will never give up the control restrictions of rights give them.

Maybe pack the UZIs by the bubble gum for the kids lol? There will always be restrictions and we have made huge strides in reducing those.

Yes, there have been huge strides... but as long as we believe that "there will always be restrictions" then we have accepted the concept that restrictions are unavoidable... that there will always be someone in a position to allow.. or disallow. And if we think that way then "all" is lost.

It was not to long ago that we were not a shall issue state, it was not to long ago that you could not open carry anywhere hardly.

I, and others, were open carrying long before it became a movement. The law concerning OC was the same then as it is now. But let is not be confused... "shall issue" carry permits are still "permits" and a "privilege". While that may be progress in making a restriction less restricting it is still a restriction upon what is supposed to be a right. If the right to keep and bear were to be recognized then there would not be any "permits"... shall issue or not.

Debating as to letting them infringe or not is a moot point because we are past that.

The attitude of accepting that the war is lost and all that is left is to fight a few battles to salvage what we can is what I personally cannot accept.

IMO the new fight is to make OC more common, to eliminate PFZs and help make shall issue or Constitutional carry EVERYWHERE and all states recognize it.

Believe it or not Sir... I respect your opinion and I welcome your efforts in the war we both are fighting. And Constitutional carry is the perspective that there is no such thing as a "reasonable restriction" and that there are no "infringements" of any kind that are acceptable and the infringements already in effect must be removed in order to return what has become a privilege to what started out as a right.

Click to expand...

I understand that we must deal with the way things are at this moment.... I just refuse to believe that there will always be restrictions on rights because if I begin to believe that then I believe that there are no rights.... there is only restricted privileges....

Once the greater population believes it is OK to make rights into restricted privileges then we have no rights and the Lords in the castle will decree what privileges us peasants in the mud are allowed to have.

EM87 said:

I absolutely cannot believe that there are people ON THIS FORUM (who I thought were smart and well educated about firearms and freedoms and such) who think it is OK to carry a gun outside the home while drunk or on drugs!

Click to expand...

Just curious: why do you draw the line at the threshold of one's home? Or do you really draw it at the property line? What about a backyard party among neighbors, or at a close relative's house, where you plan to crash the couch after watching the ball game? Does the line extend to the circle of close friends and acquaintances? Suppose we're in a campground, where there are no distinct property lines?

I'm not trying to argue, just understand exactly where you draw the line, and why. I suspect we disagree, but I'd at least like to know over what, and why.

EM87 said:

There is a big difference between .02, .08, and can't-stand-up-blackout-drunk, and obviously it is NOT ok for someone to carry a gun (outside the home) while they are so impaired that they cannot stand up or construct coherent sentences. Yet it is being argued on this forum that it is ok for people to drink and carry.

Click to expand...

Is it okay for someone to carry a gun inside the home while they are "so impaired that they cannot stand up or construct coherent sentences"? Is it okay to even be that impaired when not armed?

Personally, I don't think it's "okay" to be that wasted. It's also not my business, unless that impairment directly threatens me or mine.

A gun in the pocket no more threatens me than car keys in the pocket. It doesn't matter to me if they're in their house, or in the restaurant. Now, if they drive their car, or if they pull out their gun, then the terms of our encounter change significantly.

Back to the "outside the home" issue: someone in their home who owns guns, and owns a car, probably has pretty equal access to both at all times. The car is locked up in the garage or driveway, "loaded" with a tank of gas, but the owner has the keys. The guns might be in various states of secure and/or loaded, but again: the owner has the keys.

EM87 said:

It's not even the drinking and carrying that's my problem. The AMOUNT consumed is the issue. I could drink a few beers and be legally over the limit but be fine to carry a gun. If I were to drink 10 beers in an hour, I would NOT be ok to carry a gun. Where's the distinction? That's what this discussion should be about, not zero tolerance drinking and carrying vs drink as much as you want and carrying.

Click to expand...

This discussion is about someone who was not carrying, not in possession of a gun, and said gun was unloaded in an entirely different part of the house while he was in his own home, where police were invited in by someone who didn't live there.

And his BAC was nowhere near "can't-stand-up-blackout-drunk", at 0.13, while not in possession of an unloaded firearm while he was in his own home.

As much as I'd love to express my views here, I haven't posted on this forum in a long time for a reason and I will not be engaging in any more discussion. I probably should not have posted at all.

Carry on.

We seem to be missing some information- what was the individual's behavior that alarmed the mother in law concern sufficient to request law enforcement intervention?

Presuming that she is not a total *****, something happened that we don't know about. (at least I don't- maybe it was in another thread?)

I have no problem with someone with any BAC, peacefully reposing in their own castle with their weapons safely stowed. Just know that you've handicapped yourself as it relates to a number of actions. If, say, you dropped your bottle, cut yourself and needed medical intervention, you still be open to OUIL if you drove yourself to the emergency room. In fact, its quite likely they would notify the local LEOs to look into it.

Self defense, although a right, would be open to intense scrutiny if practiced under the influence. Depending on the local prosecutor's attitude, you could be in for some very large legal bills trying to justify to 12 people that you were in complete control when you made the decision to kill while you were under the influence. I can't imagine how it could be done. Remember the 'reasonable man' standard. Based on the debate here, I'm not sure you could empanel a jury of 12 'reasonable men' that would find in your favor.

Once you step outside, however, you are held to a higher standard. If you want to impair your ability and inhibitions with some substance, legal or otherwise, please stay home, or at least stay the hell away from me. (rant off)

Nevertheless, we need more information on the individual's alleged behavior prior to the call, and the actions that may have taken place between the call and the arrival of law enforcement. Did the mother in law have RAS? Perhaps.....

Shadow Bear said:

I can't imagine how it could be done. Remember the 'reasonable man' standard. Based on the debate here, I'm not sure you could empanel a jury of 12 'reasonable men' that would find in your favor.

Click to expand...

Good thing you don't need 12 people to get off. You only need 1 person of conviction to hang a jury, then the DA would have to retry the case.

The DA needs all 12 to vote guilty in order to convict.

You need 12 people to vote not guilty in order for double jeopardy to apply and be done with the case.

I do agree with your assessment that if you need to shoot someone in your home for self-defense your case is best helped if you have not been drinking.

The reasonable person standard that applies to self-defense assumes what a reasonable sober person would do. The legal fictitious "reasonable" person NEVER drinks.

TheQ said:

Good thing you don't need 12 people to get off. You only need 1 person of conviction to hang a jury, then the DA would have to retry the case.

The DA needs all 12 to vote guilty in order to convict.

You need 12 people to vote not guilty in order for double jeopardy to apply and be done with the case.

I do agree with your assessment that if you need to shoot someone in your home for self-defense your case is best helped if you have not been drinking.

Click to expand...

True enough, it just takes one to double your legal bills. Lousy odds, either way. Just went through the jury thing, myself. Federal case, 21 count indictment, conspiracy, robbery, use of a firearm in the furtherance of a robbery and brandishing, 8 days of testimony, 20+ prosecution witnesses.

As they say, your fate will be decided by 12 people who are not smart enough to get out of jury duty. Well, 11- I wanted to be there to see how it worked.

It is false to justify restrictions because restrictions are going on "for a long time." Using that logic, you could state that LE can detain you without cause because they have been doing such for a long time. In some states, it is not against the law to be in possession of a firearm and have a drink or two. In other states it is illegal to do so. Frankly, your feelings on the topic are irrelevant. What you need is facts. The fact is, that it isn't about you.

choover said:

Regardless of what word games you wanna play, or how you think it should be.. guess what it IS regulated, it IS restricted and has been for for a long time and will probably be forever. You guys are jumping on your soapboxes like I am trying to propose new gun legislation. I think the government is over reaching on a lot of things, patriot act..need I say more... ok I will.. Obamacare... But that does not change the fact that my personal feelings are being under the influence of drink or drugs and carrying a gun are not a good mix.

If you dont like it, oh well, deal. or.. do what theq does and try to throw jabs like you know me. A lot of you really need to grow up, a lot.

Like I said, my fight is to try to get the gun laws to where I think they are reasonable, we all may have a different view of what that is.. thats just life. I think every law abiding adult who is sane should be able to carry anywhere in any fashion they so choose...but for F**ks sake, now while they are drunk or stoned, cocaine was the drug mentioned here earlier I think..

Click to expand...

choover said:

Here is my point bud, we are already infringed on and that will NEVER change. As far as how much infringement is all we can change. Do you think we actually stand a chance of them ever actually completely unrestricting it? Maybe pack the UZIs by the bubble gum for the kids lol? There will always be restrictions and we have made huge strides in reducing those. It was not to long ago that we were not a shall issue state, it was not to long ago that you could not open carry anywhere hardly.

Click to expand...

Yes, it CAN be changed. What makes you believe it is not possible?

choover said:

Debating as to letting them infringe or not is a moot point because we are past that. IMO the new fight is to make OC more common, to eliminate PFZs and help make shall issue or Constitutional carry EVERYWHERE and all states recognize it.

Click to expand...

So, to you, Rights do not exist.

choover said:

ETA: You have very well articulated yourself in your posts, I think our differences in views will remain so I think we have to respectfully agree to disagree and I am gonna show myself the door on this topic, but I did enjoy your posts very much in all honesty.

Click to expand...

The difference is that since Rights are currently infringed, you seem okay with allowing this to continue. To me, it isn't okay to allow infringements to continue.

@ choover & like-minded.

You need to realize that being free doesn't mean being safe. There is no inalienable right to safety. Even in socialistic societies that legislate "safety", there is no way to guarantee safety. The closest we can get to being safe is a right to defend ones self or ones family from violent criminals. Guess what, we have that in the U.S., at least we did at the start. Some of those folks if not most of the folks that wrote and ratified the Constitution were drunks and reefer heads.

You folks talk about drink & drugs impairing folks, and say because they choose to ingest a mind-altering substance that you want, and or agree with legislation that would take away their inalienable right to self defense. Believe me, our forefathers knew we had the right to put into our body anything we darn well choose; whether it be drink, drugs or a bullet. They didn't specify such things because they didn't have a clue that our society would change so drastically, that we would outlaw such obviously normal behavior. It would be like outlawing the use of electricity today. It seems so absurd that words against its ban aren't needed, or are they...

No one has brought up the subject of completely legal and unregulated drugs like sugar & caffeine. I don't know about you all, but when I'm standing in line at the store or bank or what have you, I have more worry of the shifty-eyed armed dude looking nervous and can't stand still because he only got a couple hours of sleep the night before and guzzled a gallon of coffee and drank one of those 5 hour energy things than I do of the armed drunk guy that passed out in the street.

Nothing is perfect or perfectly safe, but the worst thing we can do as a "free" society is legislate morality or legislate out of fear, neither promote freedom and both take freedom from us. So the next time you hear or see legislation about safety or morality, think about this post. Freedom has been tried over & over in our human history, that's why more & more countries and borders were made, but time & time again it is well meaning uncontentious do-gooders like yourselves that has made it impossible to stay free.

EM87 said:

As much as I'd love to express my views here, I haven't posted on this forum in a long time for a reason and I will not be engaging in any more discussion. I probably should not have posted at all.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry to hear that. We've had a civilized and polite discussion.

Feel free to return to the conversation any time you feel like jumping in.