Common sense Gun control,based on our Constitution

[Landose_theghost]

imported post

Interceptor_Knight wrote:

[align=left]WI Self Defense laws do not mention sobriety as a requirement of lawful self defense. Self Defense is a right which is not negated by alcohol or any other chemical in your bloodstream.[/align]

[align=left]You could have acted in self defense, but you would still face the possibility of charges regarding firearm OUI.....[/align]

[align=left][/align]

[align=left]

941.20 Endangering safety by use of dangerous

weapon. (1)

Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor: [/align]

[align=left](b) Operates or goes armed with a firearm while he or she is under the influence of an intoxicant;

[/align]This is what I was reffering to,hell, get loaded and stay loaded all you want so long as you'rein your own home.

[align=left]http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0346.pdf[/align]
http://www.legalexplorer.com/legal/legal-qa.asp?sid=15

 

[Lurchiron]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

The right to self-defense persists even through an alcoholic fog.

Any idea why so few here believe this?

Or, at the very least, why so few here will say one word to stand up for this notion?

So...if you go out drinking, you believe that you cannot even raise a hand to defend yourself. Doesn't that make bars the new place to stake out and pillage, by the criminal element?

 

[Master Doug Huffman]

imported post

professor gun wrote in part:

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

"Zero tolerance" is a very popular phrase in Wisconsin regarding guns (inclusive) or alcohol. Zero tolerance is a politically correct dysphemism for thoughtlessness.

I would advise no alcohol consumption when carrying simply because if you are involved in a situation that has legal implications (e.g., drawing or firing your pistol) and you undergo testing that shows even a small level of alcohol present, this opens the gates to a number of different legal problems initiated by attorneys just on the basis of the presence of alcohol even if you are below a BAC=0.04.

Nothing here apparently excepts the home from these legalistic[sic] burdens.

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

imported post

Landose_theghost wrote:

[align=left][/align]This is what I was reffering to,hell, get loaded and stay loaded all you want so long as you'rein your own home.


[align=left]http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0346.pdf[/align]
http://www.legalexplorer.com/legal/legal-qa.asp?sid=15

Sounds like a good plan...

On the other hand, even if you have a couple of cocktails with dinner, you should not feartraveling with yourfirearm in your vehicle.

 

[Master Doug Huffman]

imported post

Lurchiron wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

The right to self-defense persists even through an alcoholic fog.

Any idea why so few here believe this? Or, at the very least, why so few here will say one word to stand up for this notion?

So...if you go out drinking, you believe that you cannot even raise a hand to defend yourself. Doesn't that make bars the new place to stake out and pillage, by the criminal element?

I hope that you have mistaken my statement. Neither Marshaul nor I believe that or even wrote it.

IIRC, it takes five drinks (12 oz. beer, 8 oz. wine, 1 oz ethanol) within a hour for me to reach 0.08 Blood Alcohol Concentration g/Kg.

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

.Nothing here apparently excepts the home from these legalistic[sic] burdens.

I would propose that since the Supreme Court opinion is such that your interests in bearing arms are greatest in your own home that you should havelittle concern of being charged for OUI in your home if you were lawfully defending against a home invader. Either way, better to be judged by 12.......

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

IIRC, it takes five drinks (12 oz. beer, 8 oz. wine, 1 oz ethanol) within a hour for me to reach 0.08 Blood Alcohol Concentration g/Kg.

.08 is irrelevant when evaluating "under the influence".... It is only applicable for PAC statutes which focus on vehicles.

 

[J.Gleason]

imported post

Lammie wrote:

I was filled with nervous and hopefulanticipation about the McDonald case until I read that the NRA is now involved. Somehow it convinced the SCOTUS that it should also be allowed to argue the case. I beleive it was given 20 minutes to do so. Now I just sit in suspicous optimism. The one person we have to thank for winning the Heller case is McDonald's lawyer Gura. Instead of letting him work his majic on the SCOTUS again, the NRA wants to get its paragon of barristers of ineptitude involved. My opinion

I don't know Lammie, I think the whole NRA deal is just so McDonald's side can cover all the bases. I don't think the NRA can add anything to the argument and I think if they hurt the case in any way it will lead to the demise of the NRA.

Although I could see the NRA arguing that mandated training is needed so they could make the big bucks off of their NRA fire arms instructors.

 

[Master Doug Huffman]

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

I hope that you have mistaken my statement. Neither Marshaul nor I believe that or even wrote it.

IIRC, it takes five drinks (12 oz. beer, 8 oz. wine, 1 oz ethanol) within a hour for me to reach 0.08 Blood Alcohol Concentration g/Kg.

Nothing about "under the influence" here. Take notes, keep up or drop the class.

 

[McX]

imported post

20 minutes to argue isn't a lot of time. i doubtany influence the nra could bring before the court. i'll be sweating and waiting until the verdict is read. praying to witness another historic moment, besides the moon landing, in my lifetime.

 

[McX]

imported post

ps; i hold a dod/doe secret clearance. i think they said level 23, but it was many years ago.