imported post
compmanio365 wrote:
Let me throw this out there, just to put another thought on the table for discussion. How many people reading this thread are on medication, of any kind? Why is it OK to carry while on medication, many of which ARE mind altering to at least some degree, but not while you have any kind of alcohol in your system? A drug is a drug is a drug.
I'moncaffeineyesIamisn'titgreat?! Ilovetohavethreecupsofcoffeeinthemorningtostartmydaythenacoupledietsodas. Workgivesusfreesodaandcoffeesoit'sobviouslyokay. Isitjustmeoristheworldshakingabitnothat'sjustmylegnevermindIthinkIneedtopeenowohgeezI'mtiredzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
While I happen to agree with what you're saying, I think the law tries (well, used to try, pre MADD) to draw a line between reasonably prudent and unsafe/harmful behavior. In the case of vehicles, this used to be .1-.12 BAC, which is around the point reactions become slow enough that operating high speed machinery is dangerous. I'd say about the same (maybe even .15) is a good limit for in public and armed.
We talk about harm or attempted harm being the basis for punishment, but there are other important considerations. Negligence and gross negligence don't require a person acts with the intention of being harmful, simply that they blatantly disregard the safety of others in how they act, putting them at extreme peril for life and limb. While firing randomly into the air, driving smashed while swerving around the road, or carrying a firearm while too drunk to walk straight might not harm anyone, and even if you have no intent on harming anyone while doing so, they are still acts that have a distinct chance of causing harm. When evaluated to a "reasonable person" standard, undertaking such actions is tantamount to assault on every person you encounter or could reasonably affect while doing such.
What I would prefer, here in WA, is that the law established a line as such... Taking HankT's offer of .15BAC, if a person is walking home from a restaurant, gets mugged, and shoots the attacker and is found to have a BAC of .18, no charges should be filed against them, as there is no evidence that their BAC was an issue in the self defense. However, say that same person is walking home, and sees someone who owed them money. They approach, get into a fight, et cetera, and end up shooting the other person. In this case, the BAC of .18 would be strong evidence that the person was acting negligently in their carrying of firearms. In a similar fashion, if a person is making a ton of noise, stumbling around, et cetera (Drunk in public/disturbing the peace) and a cop pulls them over, finding they are .18 and carrying, those actions coupled with their BAC indicate a level of negligence.
Flipping to the other side, say the person is below the limit (.12) and ends up in the second scenario (person owes them money, they approach, fight starts, shoot). In this case, the BAC should still be considered as a contributing factor, but should not on its own stand up as evidence without additional evidence support (e.g. previous incidences involving low quantities of alcohol) that alcohol played a large part. The punishment should, in my opinion, be lower (no alcohol rider) as the person was below the legal "likely unsafe" limit.
Law often comes down to probability of harm. While I don't see a problem for someone who is walking home to have a drink or three with dinner (depending on the person's size, obviously - this is based on my size, where to even reach .08 requires consuming 6 servings of alcohol within an hour); I don't think a person who spends the night drinking at a club then heads home should be carrying. At that point, the probability of doing something dumb (this thread's OP) increases beyond what is probabilistically safe. That person's friend, though, should be able to come with them armed and serve as protection. That friend may have a drink or two, but they must stay within a reasonable boundary and keep their wits about them.
