I would like to take another “exercise in stupidity”

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....

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":

http://library.municode.com/showDoc...PTIICOOR_CH50OFMIPR_ARTVIIIWE_S50-261UNUSWEEN

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.

peterarthur said:

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":

http://library.municode.com/showDoc...PTIICOOR_CH50OFMIPR_ARTVIIIWE_S50-261UNUSWEEN

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.

Click to expand...

Any city ordinance to the contrary of RSMO 571.030.1.(5) would be entirely irrelevant and unenforceable since it would not comply with our preemption laws found in RSMO 21.750.

cshoff,

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.

MK said:

cshoff,

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.

Click to expand...

I agree. Laws should be designed/implemented to punish actual irresponsible/negligent behavior, not to preemptively punish responsible behavior because at some point, it could possibly become irresponsible or negligent. The entire premise of, "we must make it completely unlawful for everyone because some of our fellow citizens will act irresponsibly" is the antithesis of freedom and personal responsibility.

OC for ME said:

Careful, when having a wee nip and packing. Some political subdivisions will at a minimum detain you if the local peace officer suspects that you are packing AND had a wee nip. They know that state statute prempts their understanding/enforcement of the law (local ordinance) concerning the legality of nipping and packing. They will make it difficult for you at a minimum. RSMo has no minimum BAC for a wee nip and packing.

Click to expand...

Actually, RSMO 571.030.1.(5) has no standard AT ALL for being "intoxicated" and in possession of a firearm. Simply stated, the two of them together, in any amount, are NOT unlawful. A political subdivision would unlawfully detain you at their own risk.

peterarthur said:

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":

http://library.municode.com/showDoc...PTIICOOR_CH50OFMIPR_ARTVIIIWE_S50-261UNUSWEEN

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.

Click to expand...

In the area I live we have things called "meat shoots". It is a simple competition where men/women take shots at paper targets, with shotguns(we even have .22 rounds) in an effort to get as close as possible to the center of the target in order to win. The person who gets the closest wins a prize of meat(bacon, pork steak, cheese, shrimp,etc.). Each cycle of tries is called a round. The average length of one of these meat shoots is 12 to 15 rounds. The contestants generally pay $3 a "meat round" and $5 for a 50/50 "money round". They may enter all the rounds or chose to only shoot in specific rounds. The contestants generally bring their own guns but the ammo and targets are supplied by those putting on the competition. Around this area it is also customary to allow anyone one else in competition with you in a round, to use your gun if they like(I can't tell you how many times I've been beat with my own gun). Now, here's the part that makes all this relevant. Guess were they are always held...... BARS.

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.

Festus_Hagen said:

I think it boils down to personal responsibility. That's all.

Click to expand...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This

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.

cshoff said:

Any city ordinance to the contrary of RSMO 571.030.1.(5) would be entirely irrelevant and unenforceable since it would not comply with our preemption laws found in RSMO 21.750.

Click to expand...

How does that apply to open carry, since it is NOT included in pre-emption?:

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)??

peterarthur said:

How does that apply to open carry, since it is NOT included in pre-emption?:

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)??

Click to expand...

Yes, everything, INCLUDING any rule or ordinance that has anything to do with possession of a firearm while intoxicated. In other words, a municipality CAN enact an ordinance that makes it unlawful to openly carry a firearm, but they CANNOT enact an ordinance that makes it unlawful to be intoxicated while in possession of an openly carried firearm.

cshoff said:

Yes, everything, INCLUDING any rule or ordinance that has anything to do with possession of a firearm while intoxicated. In other words, a municipality CAN enact an ordinance that makes it unlawful to openly carry a firearm, but they CANNOT enact an ordinance that makes it unlawful to be intoxicated while in possession of an openly carried firearm.

Click to expand...

Hmmm. It was my understanding that the state did give them superseding restriction rights on any OC (not including carry on your own property or property you are authorized to carry on). Like some muni's restrict OC in "car carry". polling places, parks and other odd places. You are saying that if they had no non OC law they couldn't write a legal law to regulate OC while intoxicated?

Doc

sohighlyunlikely said:

Hmmm. It was my understanding that the state did give them superseding restriction rights on any OC (not including carry on your own property or property you are authorized to carry on). Like some muni's restrict OC in "car carry". polling places, parks and other odd places. You are saying that if they had no non OC law they couldn't write a legal law to regulate OC while intoxicated?

Doc

Click to expand...

What I am saying is that, per RSMO 21.750, political subdivisions in this state may ONLY enact ordinances that regulate "the open carrying of firearms". Any other firearm-related ordinances must be in exact compliance with the provisions in RSMO 571.010 to 571.070.

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.

cshoff said:

What I am saying is that, per RSMO 21.750, political subdivisions in this state may ONLY enact ordinances that regulate "the open carrying of firearms". Any other firearm-related ordinances must be in exact compliance with the provisions in RSMO 571.010 to 571.070.

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.

Click to expand...

I am not sure I am following your logic on this one and it just got even more foggy when you added the discharge reference. As is my understanding. Muni's have equal rights(per the state) to restrict OC (other than consented PP carry) and discharge. Have you seen St Charles or Jennings OC laws they have very odd OC stipulations Not to mention the new one Maplewood(Now a communist block member) wrote. I am not sure they couldn't write a no OC while intoxicated law. or even a no blue shirt while OCing. I am not yet seeing eye to eye with you on this one.

Doc

sohighlyunlikely said:

I am not sure I am following your logic on this one and it just got even more foggy when you added the discharge reference. As is my understanding. Muni's have equal rights(per the state) to restrict OC (other than consented PP carry) and discharge. Have you seen St Charles or Jennings OC laws they have very odd OC stipulations Not to mention the new one Maplewood(Now a communist block member) wrote. I am not sure they couldn't write a no OC while intoxicated law. or even a no blue shirt while OCing. I am not yet seeing eye to eye with you on this one.

Doc

Click to expand...

A city may restrict open carry. They can enforce that restriction under RSMO 21.750. That restriction can carry a certain, specified misdemeanor penalty.

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).

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.

cshoff said:

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.

Click to expand...

Now we are on the same page. That was the way I saw it. I think The same logic would apply to few of the OC laws that have odd stipulations (Like can't gather in a group of 6 or more).

Doc

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.