Funny CCW Story

[Gunslinger]

Actually, someone has every right to be irresponsible, as long as it doesn't hurt or limit anyone else's rights. What's that phrase bandied around here" your Rights end at my nose". As long as the man didn't break the law or hurt anyone, what he chooses to do is his decision. The right or wrong of it is his as well.

Everyone keeps saying he should be more responsible. Who decides what kind of actions that should entail? I have heard plenty of CC'ers state that it irresponsible, stupid, just plain wrong, etc. to OC a firearm. You can't have it both ways. Either, he has the same right to do as he pleases(as long as it's within the law) the same as us, or we all have to accept someone else's definition of what's right and responsible.


And while I can't speak for NH in MO it is perfectly legal to carry while intoxicated.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5710000030.HTM

Missouri Revised Statutes
Chapter 571
Weapons Offenses
Section 571.030

(5) Has a firearm or projectile weapon readily capable of lethal use on his or her person, while he or she is intoxicated, and handles or otherwise uses such firearm or projectile weapon in either a negligent or unlawful manner or discharges such firearm or projectile weapon unless acting in self-defense;

You'd better reread the statute. "Handles" means to touch. This section makes it illegal to touch a firearm while intoxicated. In any way or manner. Under Common Law, impaired = negligent. It is on that basis this is written. Even brushing the weapon with the back of your hand could be grounds for conviction. Only a moron would put it to the test.

 

[Gunslinger]

By acclimation, guns and alcohol are NOT a good mix.

Those that make bad choices must live with the results of their personal decisions.

**** them. It's the innocents who have to live with the consequences of an idiot's bad choice that I worry about.

 

[Grapeshot]

There most certainly is a law against it in NH. "If you can't responsibily carry (drive a car, fly a plane) while drunk..."
This is a joke, right? Maybe the cop who sees you're carrying while intoxicated will get a kick out of it as he puts the cuffs on.

631:3 Reckless Conduct. –
I. A person is guilty of reckless conduct if he recklessly engages in conduct which places or may place another in danger of serious bodily injury.
II. Reckless conduct is a class B felony if the person uses a deadly weapon as defined in RSA 625:11, V. All other reckless conduct is a misdemeanor.
III. A person convicted of a class B felony offense under this section shall not be subject to the provisions of RSA 651:2, II-g.

Thanks for ferreting that out.

You think Locklear will come back and acknowledge new found knowledge?

Not likely as his limit seems already exceeded.

 

[Gunslinger]

Thanks for ferreting that out.

You think Locklear will come back and acknowledge new found knowledge?

Not likely as his limit seems already exceeded.

I lived in NH for 16 years, so am well acquainted with the law. If he gets picked up for Public Intoxication and is found to be armed, he can tell the judge it's ok because he "knows" it's legal. Can tell the other inmates at Concord how well that went.

 

[bomber]

P.S.- Yes, I was carrying while drunk. I do often, as there is no law against it in NH. If you can't responsibly carry while drunk, you probably shouldn't be carrying at all. So don't bother trying to lecture me.

wow dude, I'll raise a glass to your candor

 

[SavageOne]

You'd better reread the statute. "Handles" means to touch. This section makes it illegal to touch a firearm while intoxicated. In any way or manner. Under Common Law, impaired = negligent. It is on that basis this is written. Even brushing the weapon with the back of your hand could be grounds for conviction. Only a moron would put it to the test.

I was unaware you were a member of the MO BAR. The other members of it, that I have discussed it with, don't seem to agree with you. The present statue was changed last year, it add the negligent wording and the handling wording, as a protection, so additional charges couldn't be added for perceived violations. In other words, it someone was found to be intoxicated while CCing(usually a DUI case), but had not been brandishing or firing the weapon, they couldn't use the possession of the gun to add additional charges.

Thanks for your input, but again, I will listen to an actual lawyer from my state.

 

[Grapeshot]

The present statue was changed last year, it add the negligent wording and the handling wording, as a protection, so additional charges couldn't be added for perceived violations. In other words, it someone was found to be intoxicated while CCing(usually a DUI case), but had not been brandishing or firing the weapon, they couldn't use the possession of the gun to add additional charges.

Thanks for your input, but again, I will listen to an actual lawyer from my state.

Yet I am reasonably sure that the same members of the BAR would advise against public intoxication and more so when operating dangerous equipment. Yes?

 

[EyeHog]

You'd better reread the statute. "Handles" means to touch. This section makes it illegal to touch a firearm while intoxicated. In any way or manner. Under Common Law, impaired = negligent. It is on that basis this is written. Even brushing the weapon with the back of your hand could be grounds for conviction. Only a moron would put it to the test.

This is the way I have always understood it. One thing is for sure, I'm not going to be arguing with a cop over the definition of "handle" as he cuffs me for possession of a firearm while intoxicated.

 

[SavageOne]

This is the way I have always understood it. One thing is for sure, I'm not going to be arguing with a cop over the definition of "handle" as he cuffs me for possession of a firearm while intoxicated.

It is understandable why you would think it illegal. Until August of last year the Missouri statue said that the mere possession of a firearm while intoxicated was illegal. That has since been changed. It even added wording making it legal to use the firearm in self-defense if intoxicated.

If it were still illegal to be in possession of a firearm while intoxicated the legislation wouldn't have changed the statue. They could have simply left the wording the way it was and said possession under all circumstances is illegal if intoxicated. They chose to change it and said it is the way a person acts with the gun, not the mere possession which is illegal.

 

[Grapeshot]

It is understandable why you would think it illegal. Until August of last year the Missouri statue said that the mere possession of a firearm while intoxicated was illegal. That has since been changed. It even added wording making it legal to use the firearm in self-defense if intoxicated.

If it were still illegal to be in possession of a firearm while intoxicated the legislation wouldn't have changed the statue. They could have simply left the wording the way it was and said possession under all circumstances is illegal if intoxicated. They chose to change it and said it is the way a person acts with the gun, not the mere possession which is illegal.

That should be the standard for all things related to RKBA.

 

[SouthernBoy]

I smell troll, but here's my $.02:

Putting aside the physical risks to yourself & others plus just general bad form, think about the legal ramifications to yourself if you are actually involved in a self defense shooting while drunk.

Now, I'm not familiar with the laws of NH (nor am I a lawyer) but I would be willing to bet if you had to shoot someone in self defense and it came out during trial that you had been drinking, this is going to adversely effect your defense in a big way (especially during a civil case). Why give the prosecutor any extra "ammo" to put you away or increase monetary damages awarded? On this point alone, drinking while carrying is very foolish. Carrying a deadly weapon carries with it a huge responsibility and while doing so, you must conduct yourself with a certain level of bushido.

I can't speak for everyone, but I'm fairly confident that the vast majority of responsible firearms owners do not want to project themselves in the manor you have in regards to drinking/carrying. It may be technically legal for you in your state, but you leave yourself and others open to risk that would not be there if you had not been drinking.

I think we have all been lectured at one point or another (probably for our betterment) - I know I have. It says a lot about a person's character as to how they receive constructive criticism. Are you going to be the type of person who listens to others and takes a good hard look at themselves and maybe changes for the better? Or, are you going to follow down your current path perhaps for the worse? Ultimately, as with most things in life this is up to you. But when you are sitting in a prison cell or are financially destitute don't say that you weren't warned...

Superbly worded post!

 

[Gunslinger]

I was unaware you were a member of the MO BAR. The other members of it, that I have discussed it with, don't seem to agree with you. The present statue was changed last year, it add the negligent wording and the handling wording, as a protection, so additional charges couldn't be added for perceived violations. In other words, it someone was found to be intoxicated while CCing(usually a DUI case), but had not been brandishing or firing the weapon, they couldn't use the possession of the gun to add additional charges.

Thanks for your input, but again, I will listen to an actual lawyer from my state.

I'm not, but I can draw an assumption based upon understanding of statutes and Common Law principals as well as they can. Unless you can cite to a case, I'll stick with what I said. I know lots of "members of the ___bar" that are great patent attorneys but don't know lese majesty from respondeat superior.

 

[RetiredOC]

I will defend the OP a bit here. I still carry when I drink. I have been drunk while carrying. I guess I'm just the only one in the entire world who doesn't turn into a moron when drinking. I don't drink often, but when I do, I am carrying. I think the GUNS AND ALCOHOL DON'T MIX LIKE GUNS AND CARS DON'T MIX is stupid.

Handling firearms while drinking is a bad idea, as is driving and drinking is a bad idea. You can sit in a car all day and drink with out turing a key.

Now if you really want to "be cool", and get to "Carry 100%" Join the armed forces and volunteer for Afghanistan. Get yourself tested. and See if you can measure up. As a great many of the "Elitist" Members of this forum have. If you don't have the intestinal fortitude to do so, than at least have a little respect for those that have. Who knows, you might even learn something.

If you want to carry 100%, DO NOT join the armed forces. You will be forced to disarm yourself daily when you have drive to and from work. If you live on base, forget about your 2nd amendment right of the constitution you swore to defend. If CARRY 100% was our motto then the Fort Hood incident would have never happened.

You will be able to carry a M9 to defend your government, but you can't carry your gun to defend your life driving home from work at 0100, through areas where murder scenes happen on the side of the road.

 

[epilogue]

I will defend the OP a bit here. I still carry when I drink. I have been drunk while carrying. I guess I'm just the only one in the entire world who doesn't turn into a moron when drinking.

You don't turn into a moron when drinking because you are already there, thinking that it's a good idea.

I don't drink often, but when I do, I am carrying. I think the GUNS AND ALCOHOL DON'T MIX LIKE GUNS AND CARS DON'T MIX is stupid.

This...

Handling firearms while drinking is a bad idea, as is driving and drinking is a bad idea. You can sit in a car all day and drink with out turing a key.

...doesn't add up, at all.

 

[RetiredOC]

You don't turn into a moron when drinking because you are already there, thinking that it's a good idea.

It's not a GOOD IDEA. It's just not a ZOMFG WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE bad idea. Just because you aren't capable of controlling yourself when drinking doesn't mean I'm not. I know angry drunks who decide not to carry when they are drunk because they know they can't control themselves. Good on them. I'm just not crazy when I drink. My gun doesn't leave the holster unless it has to. That goes for being drunk or sober. It's a last resort for self-defense.

This ...doesn't add up, at all.

You call me a moron, yet you are not capable of understanding a simple analogy... Funny how that works.

 

[SavageOne]

Yet I am reasonably sure that the same members of the BAR would advise against public intoxication and more so when operating dangerous equipment. Yes?

True, I don't doubt there are plenty. I would also guess there are plenty who would advise against walking around with an openly displayed handgun, even if it's perfectly legal.

 

[epilogue]

It's not a GOOD IDEA. It's just not a ZOMFG WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE bad idea.

No one said alcohol+gun=immediate death and injury.

Just because you aren't capable of controlling yourself when drinking doesn't mean I'm not.

Yeah, remember that time you and I went out drinking? Oh, we've never met?

I know angry drunks who decide not to carry when they are drunk because they know they can't control themselves. Good on them. I'm just not crazy when I drink. My gun doesn't leave the holster unless it has to. That goes for being drunk or sober. It's a last resort for self-defense.

Right, and there's an ever-growing list of people sitting in jail for killing someone when they were POSITIVE they were fine to drive after drinking, hell, they do it all the time, why would this time be any different? I mean... the only thing that changed was the people they hit. I'm sure they'll do better next time.

You call me a moron, yet you are not capable of understanding a simple analogy...

You compared guns and alcohol to guns and cars, I don't think anyone here believes that driving impairs your ability to carry a gun.

Funny how that works.

Nothing about this is funny.

...Except maybe your forum handle, and the position you took.

 

[SavageOne]

I'm not, but I can draw an assumption based upon understanding of statutes and Common Law principals as well as they can. Unless you can cite to a case, I'll stick with what I said. I know lots of "members of the ___bar" that are great patent attorneys but don't know lese majesty from respondeat superior.

So, let me get your position right. Is it your opinion that the MO state legislature changed the wording of a statue that stated any possession of a firearm while intoxicated(regardless of the circumstances) was illegal, to the present wording and that the present wording somehow makes it illegal to touch any firearm? I assume you have read the posts were I have stated that the statue was changed last August, and what changes were made, so no need to state you are unaware of what it said prior or was changed to what.

May I ask what states you have been a member of the BAR of? You are correct not every lawyer is a trial attorney, but THEY have at least pasted the basic requirements necessary for a license

 

[Grapeshot]

Yet I am reasonably sure that the same members of the BAR would advise against public intoxication and more so when operating dangerous equipment. Yes?

True, I don't doubt there are plenty. I would also guess there are plenty who would advise against walking around with an openly displayed handgun, even if it's perfectly legal.

One combination has the power to cause harm in and of itself - the other not so much.

To tell the difference, I do not need an esteemed member of the bar.

 

[Gunslinger]

So, let me get your position right. Is it your opinion that the MO state legislature changed the wording of a statue that stated any possession of a firearm while intoxicated(regardless of the circumstances) was illegal, to the present wording and that the present wording somehow makes it illegal to touch any firearm? I assume you have read the posts were I have stated that the statue was changed last August, and what changes were made, so no need to state you are unaware of what it said prior or was changed to what.

May I ask what states you have been a member of the BAR of? You are correct not every lawyer is a trial attorney, but THEY have at least pasted the basic requirements necessary for a license

I'm not a practicing attorney, but have a legal education. My job entails specific, accurate knowledge of, and involvement with the USC, CFR, FAR and UCC. The legislature writes laws; the judge interprets them. "Handle" is the word at issue. The intent of the writer may have been to twirl it around like Roy Rogers; the interpretation of the judge may be to touch in any way--including moving the holster so it doesn't stick you in the kidney. That is my point. The facts of the case will establish a 'touch' took place. The law, as interpreted by the judge, whether that 'touch' was actionable under his definition. In summation: intent of the Legislature on a poorly worded statute is open to wide discretion by the judiciary.