Guns and Alcohol, Revisited

[roscoe13]

NovaCop I don't think Citizen's post is at all anti-police. It brings to light some very real realities for considerations likely not taken into account. The fact that your department has restrictions on you and your co-workers has no bearing on what might be found elsewhere through The Commonwealth.

And, just like laws, just because policy says you can't do something doesn't guarantee that nobody will...

Roscoe

 

[VW_Factor]

my dept along with every dept I know already states in s.o.p's that officers can't possess a gun while under the influence of ANY alcohol. Doing so would result in severe suspension or termination. Name another job with those requirements? Special class? Haha.

And for every dept. you know of with that policy I am sure someone there will point out officers that have done exactly that, and everyone looked the other way.

 

[peter nap]

And for every dept. you know of with that policy I am sure someone there will point out officers that have done exactly that, and everyone looked the other way.

Virginia Beach police officer arrested for DUI in Chesapeake


Another Virginia Beach Police Officer Arrested For DUI


Off-duty officer charged with DUI


Norfolk police officer arrested for DUI

Alexandria officer charged with DUI


Update: Henrico police officer arrested for DUI

Police Officer Arrested for DUI: Henrico Police Arrest a Richmond ...

Virginia DUI Lawyer - Former Kentucky Police Officer Arrested For DUI

Off-duty Sevierville police officer arrested | WEST VIRGINIA DUI ...

Officer Arrested After Chase | Car Accident Lawyer

WTOP.com - Montgomery County police officer arrested for DUI

Downtown Short Pump | Henrico Police Officer Arrested For DUI ...

Jul 19, 2010 ... This is the second case of a current or former Henrico officer being arrested for DUI in one month. A retired Henrico County police officer ...

:uhoh::uhoh:

 

[user]

So, y'all figure we should just get rid of 18.2-308(J1) & (J3)?

J1. Any person permitted to carry a concealed handgun, who is under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs while carrying such handgun in a public place, shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Conviction of any of the following offenses shall be prima facie evidence, subject to rebuttal, that the person is "under the influence" for purposes of this section: manslaughter in violation of § 18.2-36.1, maiming in violation of § 18.2-51.4, driving while intoxicated in violation of § 18.2-266, public intoxication in violation of § 18.2-388, or driving while intoxicated in violation of § 46.2-341.24. Upon such conviction that court shall revoke the person's permit for a concealed handgun and promptly notify the issuing circuit court. A person convicted of a violation of this subsection shall be ineligible to apply for a concealed handgun permit for a period of five years.
...
J3. No person who carries a concealed handgun onto the premises of any restaurant or club as defined in § 4.1-100 for which a license to sell and serve alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption has been granted by the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board under Title 4.1 of the Code of Virginia may consume an alcoholic beverage while on the premises. A person who carries a concealed handgun onto the premises of such a restaurant or club and consumes alcoholic beverages is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. However, nothing in this subsection shall apply to a federal, state, or local law-enforcement officer.
...

 

[Grapeshot]

Don't see that happening anytime soon -redistricting effectively leaves the Senate right where it is.

Sometimes it's better to avoid the fight than take too many hits. Could things change? Yes and we should be ready if it does. If only Bill Bolling would enforce Senate rules.

 

[roscoe13]

So, y'all figure we should just get rid of 18.2-308(J1) & (J3)?

Let's just get rid of 18.2-308....

Roscoe

 

[Grapeshot]

Obviously my choice would be Constitutional Carry, Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground and a few other clean ups like including state agencies (w/universities) being preempted by the State.

Oh and criminal penalties and personal liability for elected or appointed officials that deliberately try to circumvent these laws. :lol:

 

[NovaCop]

Peter****, your examples only show that officers are not above the law, they receive the same punishments as anyone else committing the crime. Police are human so like in any profession, bad judgements are made. Guess no ocers have got a DUI?

I don't know why every thread goes down this same path about anti Leo, it has nothing to do with the topic being dicussed. Leos don't make the laws so maybe your focus should be on lawmakers want to drink with their guns?

--Moderator Comment--
The specific, direct attacks on both sides of this must stop.

 

[Blk97F150]

Peter****, your examples only show that officers are not above the law, they receive the same punishments as anyone else committing the crime. Police are human so like in any profession, bad judgements are made. Guess no ocers have got a DUI?

I don't know why every thread goes down this same path about anti Leo, it has nothing to do with the topic being dicussed. Leos don't make the laws so maybe your focus should be on lawmakers want to drink with their guns?

I realize that you are a 'protected class' here, and won't get reprimanded by a Mod..... but is the name calling really necessary?

Oh, and not 'every thread goes down the same path'..... only the ones that you post in. Go figure.

 

[grylnsmn]

Petercrap, your examples only show that officers are not above the law, they receive the same punishments as anyone else committing the crime. Police are human so like in any profession, bad judgements are made. Guess no ocers have got a DUI?

Have you considered that you might be a little too defensive and thin-skinned on this sort of issue? Not every criticism is an attack, after all. For example, consider your earlier post.

The post above me is so typical... Almost every thread turns into anti police. I say I don't like a law restricting alcohol and guns because it's intrusive on citizens and unenforceable however it is perceived that cops are alcoholics. What the hell? On a side note, my dept along with every dept I know already states in s.o.p's that officers can't possess a gun while under the influence of ANY alcohol. Doing so would result in severe suspension or termination. Name another job with those requirements? Special class? Haha.

Note what I put in bold. If that is the case, then what is the basis for exempting police officers (and Commonwealth's Attorneys, etc) from the law on drinking while carrying concealed? (Peter's examples all related to DUI, not CUI - Carrying Under the Influence, but that is because it is not a crime for a cop to carry under the influence.)

Remember, the law is public knowledge. Department policy is not (usually). At the very least it creates a justified impression that cops are being held to a different standard than everyone else. If it would be a crime for a private individual to do it, then it should be a crime on the exact same level for a cop to do it as well, unless he is operating in his official capacity. (For example, I can't run a red light legally, but a cop can if he is doing so as a part of his official duties.)

 

[utbagpiper]

Just as a point of reference, I note that here in Utah (with our image of being very anti-alcohol), we have no laws limiting the otherwise lawful possession of firearms in restaurants that serve alcohol, nor even in bars. OC (with or without a permit) or concealed (with a permit). Your choice.

Neither do we have any law against consuming alcohol while legally armed.

The only law we have in this regard is that one may not be intoxicated while in possession of a firearm. "Intoxicated" is taken to be the same BAC as for DUI. Police officers are exempt and can be over the legal limit while still armed and not be in violation of the "intoxicated and armed" statute.

So if a mature adult wants to have a drink with a meal and then drive home all while legally armed, that is a personal decision, not a matter for criminal law.

I know many drinkers who will completely abstain from all alcohol if they are going to have drive themselves home or if they are carrying a gun. They figure, 'better to err on the side of caution." I certainly respect such conduct.

I know others who know their limits, stay well within them, but will have a drink to complement a nice meal even when they are legally armed and/or will be driving home. I have no personal beef with this approach either.

Near as I can tell, we have had about zero problems in Utah with private citizens. We had one case recently of an off duty, possibly intoxicated officer shooting someone at bar. He claimed lawful defense of a third party. BAC tests were taken so late as to be inconclusive as to his BAC at time of shooting. And the shooting was ruled officially justified.

There are the usual stabbings and occasional shootings outside bars after closing time. Most of these seem to involve those who are not legal to carry a gun anyway.

As in most areas involving law abiding citizens and guns, we just haven't seen a problem with our lack of excessive laws preventing the otherwise lawful possession of firearms in bars, nor banning any consumption at all while carrying.

To each State their own. But I just thought I'd pass along a data point for my friends in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Charles

 

[Grapeshot]

Peter****, your examples only show that officers are not above the law, they receive the same punishments as anyone else committing the crime. Police are human so like in any profession, bad judgements are made. Guess no ocers have got a DUI?

I don't know why every thread goes down this same path about anti Leo, it has nothing to do with the topic being dicussed. Leos don't make the laws so maybe your focus should be on lawmakers want to drink with their guns?

--Moderator Comment--
The specific, direct attacks on both sides of this must stop.

With no disrespect to either, LEOs and Commonwealth Attorneys are in a different class when it comes to laws concerning carrying concealed in a restaurant where adult beverages are concerned. The lawmakers (read GA) enjoy no such special treatment.

If the law enforcement community believes so strongly in parity/equality before the law, then they should lobby to that effect, promote it openly - not stand against such standards. Every time they take a stance against the rights of the people, they add a brick to the "blue wall" that need not, should not exist.

We won't even get into who commits less crime, who is safer, who tends to shoot better. I understand the various reasons for this and happen to think it is correctable.
I do respect most of our LE community as a group, though there is a lot of education and training still needed. On an individual basis, respect is a two way street.

 

[peter nap]

I realize that you are a 'protected class' here, and won't get reprimanded by a Mod..... but is the name calling really necessary?

Oh, and not 'every thread goes down the same path'..... only the ones that you post in. Go figure.

Don't worry about the name calling Blk. He's not very good at it. It probably took all night to come up with that.

 

[Repeater]

Don't see that happening anytime soon -redistricting effectively leaves the Senate right where it is.

Sometimes it's better to avoid the fight than take too many hits. Could things change? Yes and we should be ready if it does. If only Bill Bolling would enforce Senate rules.

Wonder why grassroots Virginians, including gun owners, did not -- or would not -- get involved with the Senate redistricting process. Now that Bob for Jobs McDonnell has announced he will sign the legislation, Saslaw can claim victory. Too bad.

 

[peter nap]

Have you considered that you might be a little too defensive and thin-skinned on this sort of issue? Not every criticism is an attack, after all. For example, consider your earlier post.



Note what I put in bold. If that is the case, then what is the basis for exempting police officers (and Commonwealth's Attorneys, etc) from the law on drinking while carrying concealed? (Peter's examples all related to DUI, not CUI - Carrying Under the Influence, but that is because it is not a crime for a cop to carry under the influence.)

Remember, the law is public knowledge. Department policy is not (usually). At the very least it creates a justified impression that cops are being held to a different standard than everyone else. If it would be a crime for a private individual to do it, then it should be a crime on the exact same level for a cop to do it as well, unless he is operating in his official capacity. (For example, I can't run a red light legally, but a cop can if he is doing so as a part of his official duties.)

Actually, I wasn't responding to him. My post quoted another member that said something like Cops always look the other way if it involves Cops.

My post was showing where Cops hadn't looked the other way and the DUI's were prosecuted.

 

[marshaul]

SNIP... there are people who will obey the law, who might otherwise, by an error in judgment, cause someone else irreparable harm.

You really think someone capable of such a lapse in "judgment" is going to have the judgment to know and follow the letter of the law, especially in his own home?

I think your premise is unsupportable, sir.

 

[marshaul]

Interestingly enough, in the VA statute for possessing marijuana, there is an exception for medical use. I've often wondered why no one ever mentions it.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-250.1

It is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess marijuana unless the substance was obtained directly from, or pursuant to, a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by the Drug Control Act (§ 54.1-3400 et seq.).

Key word: prescription. The federal government regulates the issuance of "prescriptions". Marijuana is a schedule 1 substance, and "prescriptions" are not allowed, so the Virginia law is moot.

This is why other states to pass medical marijuana laws in recent years have referred to a doctor "recommendation", not a "prescription".

 

[marshaul]

If someone gets drunk [strike]in their home[/strike] and recklessly handles a firearm, then charge them with recklessly handling a firearm, you don't need a possession while intoxicated adder charge in addition to the first.

+1 That is the crux of the matter.

It is illegal to murder, intoxicated or not. It is illegal to batter, drunk or sober.
It is illegal to be drunk in public (yes?)

The smell of alcohol, maybe mouthwash, should limit my ability/right to defend myself why? If justified charge me with my faulty actions, but NOT because I have had a beer or taken a medication. Personal responsibility cannot be legislated.

Not having committed any overt act against society or person and then have to spend time/money to defend myself against "what if," non-performed actions is abhorrent.

Thank you for articulating the best possible defense of the pro-liberty position.

User's proposed law would serve as an irrelevant redundancy addressing an incredibly rare circumstance, with a great potential for legal ramifications for individuals who aren't a risk. Those individuals who are a risk are already addressed by existing law, if and to whatever extent the law is capable of dealing with such people.

 

[FretlessMayhem]

Order

Key word: prescription. The federal government regulates the issuance of "prescriptions". Marijuana is a schedule 1 substance, and "prescriptions" are not allowed, so the Virginia law is moot.

This is why other states to pass medical marijuana laws in recent years have referred to a doctor "recommendation", not a "prescription".

Yes, but it does also exempt an "order".

 

[marshaul]

Yes, but it does also exempt an "order".

A. No person shall be prosecuted under § 18.2-250 or § 18.2-250.1 for the possession of marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinol when that possession occurs pursuant to a valid prescription issued by a medical doctor in the course of his professional practice for treatment of cancer or glaucoma.

Not in my copy.