I think it boils down to personal responsibility. That's all.
Having a weapon in possession while intoxicated in Missouri is not a violation of the law.
A person in Missouri can’t even be arrested for Public Intoxication.
It has been suggested that I may advocate drinking and carrying, this is not the case. I would and will always suggest that if you intend to drink, do not carry a weapon, but that in itself leaves a conundrum. How do you protect your self if you should decide to have a few drinks?
If you have noticed lately, the police vehicles no longer have the logo “Protect and Serve”…why is this?..They know that it is not their duty to protect us.
So my question is, if the police are not obligated to protect us, will the people that are hard set on drinking and guns, going to put a sign on their car, list their cell number, and promise to be there the minute I feel my life threatened, even if I had a few drinks?
The problem with this discussion is not the legality, it is the personal opinions in regards to alcohol and firearms, a legitimate concern, but do we let personal opinions and dislikes compromise the right given to us by the Constitution?
I hear the “N” word everyday from customers and I am ashamed (only for the people of Missouri) that I have to listen to it, and I make a point to tell them it is inappropriate, it does not stop them from saying it, because it is their right to do so. And I have no “right” to tell them they cannot espouse their opinion as much as I may disagree. Sure I can kick them out of my store, but I still have no “right” to tell them that can’t do it again.
In Missouri, you have the right to walk down 5th Street in St Charles and hit every bar that is there, for that matter anywhere in Missouri, with no fear of a public intoxication charge. I am sure if they want to charge you with something they will, but PI cannot be charged. Carrying a weapon while intoxicated cannot be charged either.
Which basically brings me to my point.
Yes, carrying a weapon while intoxicated, is not against the law, and never a smart thing, but I will NEVER suggest that you do not have the right,
nor the duty to protect yourself and your family.
Opinions are just that, and I just voiced mine, but if you are responsible enough to own a weapon, then you should be more than responsible enough to know when, where, and how to handle said weapon, and what condition you should be in. There seem to be some, that think we are not capable of this decision. But this again is nothing more than an opinion.
With that....I am out....will post the cancellation of the BBQ....
Last edited by zekester; 05-22-2011 at 02:18 PM.
GOD gave me rights!!!....The Constitutuion just confirms it!!
I think it boils down to personal responsibility. That's all.
I may not be up to speed on the other conversation that (apparently) took place regarding drinking and firearms, so I may be missing something here. But with that said, I don't remember seeing anyone suggest that you should forfeit your right to self protection when you are intoxicated.
Let's get a couple of things out of the way right off the bat here; drugs/alcohol and firearms are a bad mix. Due to the fact that drugs and alcohol impair your vision, your hearing, your reflexes, your perception of time and distance, and your judgment, it stands to reason that a person should NOT partake in any activity that requires a moderate to high level of cognizance when they are under the influence of such substances. Those activities could include but not be limited to driving, operating machinery, boating and water sports, shooting and general gun handling, among many other activities that require quick and accurate physiological and psychological responses.
Now that we have my stance on alcohol/drugs and guns out of the way, I can try to give my opinion on the topic in the OP from a more pragmatic point of view. No, I don't believe you ever give up your right to defend yourself or, at a deeper level, your instinct for self preservation. As long as you are conscious and able to breath in oxygen, self preservation is programmed into your DNA. It is part of your subconscious and comes from the most primitive part of the brain, the archipallium.
We talk about a number of different ideas and concepts in the various classes we teach. Of those ideas and concepts, there are a number of things that are best to avoid as a normal practice, but possibly necessary under the rare chance you would find yourself involved in a lethal force encounter. For example, when we talk about choosing an appropriate caliber for self defense, we never recommend a .22 rimfire, but certainly even the most ardent big-bore proponent must acknowledge that the diminutive .22 is a much better choice than NOTHING when you suddenly find yourself under attack. After all, who in their right mind would say, "The .22 is so worthless, I wouldn't even bother picking it up if I came under attack. Instead, I'd fight it out with those three armed attackers with my fists"? Another example would be handloaded ammunition. There are both legal and tactical liabilities involved with using handloaded ammunition as your normal, day to day carry ammo. Yet, if it's all you had at the moment you needed to use a gun to defend yourself, it would be foolish to NOT use it due to those liabilities.
Being intoxicated has the same type of implications. While it would be foolish to purposefully go out and "tie one on" before heading to the shooting range or before cleaning your guns, circumstances beyond your control may dictate that the most prudent thing to do at a given moment is use a firearm, while you are intoxicated, to defend yourself. Things happen, and they happen without warning and despite the preparations we've made. As I've said many times before, YOU do not get to decide if or when you will be involved in a lethal force encounter.
I think it's important to consider that if you ever DO have to use your firearm in self defense while you are intoxicated, you had better be prepared for the entirety of your judgment to use such force to be called into question, and (probably) rightfully so. Your judgment IS impaired and your decisions SHOULD be scrutinized.
Setting a personal limit for yourself, and actually sticking to that limit, is just a good idea, IMHO. And only you can decide what the appropriate limit is for you.
Maybe it is not illegal in Missouri, but it certainly is in Kansas City, Sec 50-261, found on Municode.com searching for the term "weapons":
Better check the city you are in. Many cities have a law like this. I am somewhat inclined to agree with this one. Drinking is not a "necessary" activity, like banking, grocery shopping or driving to work.
Do you also think it is ok to drink and drive?
I know I will ruffle many feathers with this statement but alcohol and guns don't mix well. While I feel it is somewhat safe to have "a" drink while armed, I think it is giving too much credit to the general population to make it legal. MOST people I know who drink don't have proper self control to stop when they should. 75% of my coworkers think nothing of a happy hour stop on the way home and then driving home after "only 2 or 3". It is a FACT that this is dangerous (for the other drivers).
So, sorry to be the buzzkill, but guns and drinking should be mutually exclusive. You want to drink, bring a designated "shooter" and leave yours at home... please.
That first post on this thread was very well stated in my opinion.
I ask this. Since some are afraid of guns + alcohol, should we now ban alcohol outright because that one person out of a hundred might drink and pick up their gun anyways, even if the combination of the two were to be made illegal? Banning alcohol altogether would help reduce that occurance even more, never mind that it targets a large swath of responsible as well as innocent people who at no fault of their own are now also having a liberty denied to them based upon other people's fears.
Just as I don't feel alcohol should be made illegal due to people's fears about the "what ifs" involved, I feel that same way about alcohol and firearms. The fact is, there are alot of people who actually can drink responsibly and I am one of them. If I ever planned to get completely smashed, I would probably leave my firearm at home. I don't get smashed though. I don't drink and drive either and if I don't have a safe way home, I don't drink while I am out.
I am secure in the feeling that I won't have to worry about getting so tainted on alcohol that I will make a huge behavioral mistake with my firearm but I do accept the fact that even a small amount of alcohol could very well impede upon my precision with using that instrument as it could with many other tools and machineries.
I don't want laws to be passed just because of other people's fears about "what if" in regards to someone else. I would much rather those who do screw up be held accountable for their screw ups and not have a whole segment of a population targeted due to their loose affiliation with that minority that does run afoul. We have too many laws alike to this on the books already and to me it has become suffocating in its totality.
I can judge my situation for myself and I would really like to trust all others here in this State to do the same in their own personal lives. Of course, there will be a very small minority that can't accomplish this but to me that is the lesser of the two evils here. I don't want to put fences around and shackles upon everyone else in our society because I am afraid of what the very small percentage of them might do.
I see now, this post was edited to include the cancellation of the bbq.
John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."
These shoots have been happening off and on for my entire 40+ years and well before. In that time there has never been an injury. They don't happen every weekend and there are spans, sometimes lasting years, where they don't happen, but they in no way could be called rare. The majority of the people who go to these(both men and women) are known to partake in an adult beverage here and there. Believe it or not, alcohol has touched the lips of people using firearms and no one died. How is the possible? These shoots can draw anywhere from 10 to 35 participants a round and I have seen larger ones last for 5 hours. That should only up the chance of innocent blood on the ground, and yet, once again, no is injured. How is the possible?
The same reason the highways aren't covered in blood from all the people who "drink" and drive. The competitors and the vast majority of those who drink and then drive, do so responsibly. Drinking and Driving is in fact not illegal nor is Drinking and Firing, doing either while intoxicated is. I realize it is hard for some to understand, but as a responsible adult I am able to consume alcohol in a responsible way and not get pi$$ drunk. I am further able to preform tasks after having a drink with in the same spectrum of competence as someone who didn't have a drink.
I am no fool and realize that there are those who cannot or will not control themselves when alcohol is around. These individuals often cause harm to themselves and others, it's sad but true. My problem is with those who would lump me in with them. I drink responsibly, they don't. Do not equate my actions with theirs, just because you don't like how they act. If I am doing something responsibly(and let's go with not harming anyone else as a definition and not "doing something someone else doesn't agree with" as one) and not jeopardizing anyone else, get of your high horse.
Savage, you said that better than I could. We used to have them around here closer and still do in the outlying areas. We call 'em "Turkey matches" , even though there are other meats involved.
I drink and shoot guns with my dad or some friends, but we do it responsibly and don't break the firearms rules. We've done it since I was a kid.
Last edited by Festus_Hagen; 05-24-2011 at 05:10 PM.
Nothing contained in this section shall prohibit any ordinance of any political subdivision which conforms exactly with any of the provisions of sections 571.010 to 571.070, with appropriate penalty provisions, or which regulates the open carrying of firearms readily capable of lethal use or the discharge of firearms within a jurisdiction, provided such ordinance complies with the provisions of section 252.243.
Isn't RSMO 21.750 a pre-emption statute for everything EXCEPT open carry (excluding open carry for hunting, section 252.243)??
Last edited by peterarthur; 05-24-2011 at 09:42 PM.
In other words, a city couldn't enact an ordinance such as:
"It shall be unlawful for any person to openly possess a firearm while intoxicated".
The state has already preempted the entire field of legislation relating to the possession of firearms while intoxicated.
They could, however, enact an ordinance such as:
"It shall be unlawful for any person to openly possess a firearm while intoxicated, AND discharge said firearm within city limits or use it in a negligent or unlawful manner".
As long as the penalty provisions were in also in exact compliance with the provisions of RSMO 571.010 to 571.070.
Last edited by sohighlyunlikely; 05-24-2011 at 10:50 PM.
What they cannot do is restrict possession of a firearm while intoxicated unless they do it in exact compliance with, in this case, RSMO 571.030.1.(5). They also would not be able to enact and enforce a "blue shirt" OC ordinance like you mentioned above. Why, you ask?
Because the state has preempted EVERYTHING except "open carrying of firearms readily capable of lethal use or the discharge of firearms within a jurisdiction". The state has preempted everything regarding the "sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permit, registration, taxation other than sales and compensating use taxes or other controls on firearms, components, ammunition, and supplies" except for openly carried firearms and the discharge of firearms. That preemption would INCLUDE possession of a firearm while intoxicated or possession of a firearm while wearing a blue shirt.
So let's look at this from the opposite angle. If I am understanding you correctly, it seems as though you feel that political subdivisions have carte blanche to make up any restriction they want, as long as they attach it to open carry. So on that note, could a city enact an ordinance that made it unlawful to openly carry a firearm without a license from the city? Of course not. Could the city enact an ordinance that made it unlawful for males between the ages of 21 and 30 to openly carry firearms, but nobody else? Of course not. They are, very specifically, limited to the two exceptions in 21.750.3. Of course, they may also prohibit firearms (open and concealed) in portions of buildings they own or control, subject to the exceptions in 571.107.1.(6).
Last edited by cshoff; 05-24-2011 at 11:28 PM.
Doc - See if this makes the issue a bit more clear.
If a city passed an ordinance that made it unlawful to be in possession of a openly carried firearm while intoxicated, the only thing you could be charged with if you were found openly carrying while you were intoxicated is a misdemeanor open carry violation. You could NOT be prosecuted for being intoxicated while in possession. Again, a political subdivision may only restrict open carry, NOT the consumption of alcohol while in possession of a firearm. In addition to that, any court above a municipal court would likely overturn any conviction that was predicated on an ordinance written in that manner as it would clearly be outside the very narrow parameters of 21.750.3.
Personally, I feel that it is a matter of personal responsibility. I have personally never been drunk in my life. I have certainly had drinks. If I am of such weak state of mind that I cannot make the decision to carry and limit myself to 1 beer since it tastes so good with wings, then I agree with the others on this post that the firearm is best left in the safe.
"or which regulates the open carrying of firearms ". Passing a law against being intoxicated would fall neatly into this law since it is "regulating the OPEN CARRY of firearms. I agree that CCW is pre-empted. Open carry is not, INCLUDING open carry while intoxicated or open carry while juggling bowling balls or whatever... seems fairly obvious... open carry CAN be regulated which is not limited to just STOPPING open carry but prescribing the manner in which it might be illegal to open carry. If the RSMO said that munis could make it illegal to OC that would be one thing. But they are allowed to "regulate" it, to put rules around it.
A local ordinance that prohibits openly carried firearms while intoxicated would clearly get into the "use", "possession", and "bearing" portions of preemption and fall outside of the narrow limit of merely "regulating" openly carried firearms. So, as I stated above, only a portion of this kind of ordinance would be valid, and an ordinance that is only partially valid should be ruled completely invalid by any court (though it doesn't always work that way, especially with municipal courts).2. No county, city, town, village, municipality, or other political subdivision of this state shall adopt any order, ordinance or regulation concerning in any way the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permit, registration, taxation other than sales and compensating use taxes or other controls on firearms, components, ammunition, and supplies except as provided in subsection 3 of this section.
Put another way, this would be like a city trying to impose a "open carry tax" whereby you had to pay the city a tax if you wanted to open carry withing their jurisdiction. That would be in clear violation of 21.750. Or as another example, it would be like a city trying to implement a gun registration requirement for those who wanted to open carry within their jurisdiction. Again, an ordinance such as that would be in clear violation of 21.750. The state has completely preempted those subjects as they relate to firearms and a city is not at liberty to attempt to delve into those fields of legislation under the guise of open carry regulation.
I guess I need to make sure the MW PD knows the law in case my shirt blows up while scooting through. I have taken most of my shopping elsewhere since there OC ban.
Furthermore, I'm not really sure where the idea that a vehicle is an extension of your home really comes from. Clearly, you have certain private property rights in your vehicle, but they don't go nearly as far as they do in your home.
I think it comes from the inclusion of vehicles in the "Missouri Castle Doctrine". Section 563.031.3 includes vehicles as an area you are not required to retreat from. I would bet many have taken this to mean their vehicle is therefore considered the same as their home(i.e. their "castle").