Virginia: Drinking at an "Establishment" while open carrying: Legal?

[riverrat10k]

I look at it like this:

Even if you are below the legal intoxication limit for driving (seems there is no statutory limit for intoxication while OC, ergo, if the officer testifies you were intoxicated you could be seen as such) some other fool can run into you (or cause you to defend yourself).

If it goes to court, do you really want to try the "Yeah, but he was more wasted than I was" defense?

That said, I do like my beer. Ya makes yer choices. Be careful and don't be stupid. Everything in moderation.

 

[Glockster]

I look at it like this:

Even if you are below the legal intoxication limit for driving (seems there is no statutory limit for intoxication while OC, ergo, if the officer testifies you were intoxicated you could be seen as such) some other fool can run into you (or cause you to defend yourself).

If it goes to court, do you really want to try the "Yeah, but he was more wasted than I was" defense?

That said, I do like my beer. Ya makes yer choices. Be careful and don't be stupid. Everything in moderation.

Summarizes my viewpoint fairly well. It seems that guns + alcohol = (often) potential Darwin Award candidate.

 

[Grapeshot]

Guns and alcohol do NOT mix..........alcohol strips all of the lubricating and rust inhibiting properties from them - dat is a bad thing.

 

[ryan7068]

Guns and alcohol do NOT mix..........alcohol strips all of the lubricating and rust inhibiting properties from them - dat is a bad thing.

Maybe I should start drinking some CLP then yummy!

 

[peter nap]

Maybe I should start drinking some CLP then yummy!

Could help if you're on a low fiber diet

 

[scouser]

Sadly, this is true.

I try to make sure that every one of my students gets a VCDL brochure/app put into their hands in every class. I can't say that we've added to the numbers, but we try.

no, but I can say that you have. I got my VCDL application from one of your classes

 

[ProShooter]

no, but I can say that you have. I got my VCDL application from one of your classes

Excellent!

So we're +1...

 

[gm2max]

Do me a favor and do not handle any weapons when drinking. I dont, my buddies dont. There can be nothing good that stems from drinking and firearms. When I drink at the house (that is the only place I drink) my gun gets left alone in its holster on the table. Not on me. Its up there with drinking and driving, drinking and hitting on fat chicks, and doing drugs.


This is my $.02 YMMV

edited due to someone thinking that it is not an unanimous opinion that alcohol and guns is a good idea. Sorry to offend.

 

[wylde007]

Do us all a favor and do not handle any weapons when drinking.

Do us all a favor and refrain from presenting your opinion as being the one favored by the entire community.

 

[Grapeshot]

Originally Posted by gm2max
Do us all a favor and do not handle any weapons when drinking.

Do us all a favor and refrain from presenting your opinion as being the one favored by the entire community.

Most here would agree that it is prudent to avoid mixing the two behaviors simultaneously. At the least it avoids the perception of an impropriety by those that might use such against us. In greater quantity, the risk of expense is increased proportionally as either conduct is expanded.

Driving has a statutory limit in Va. - .02 BAC under 21, .04 BAC commercial & .08 BAC for 21 years of age.
http://dui.drivinglaws.org/virginia.php

The FAA has stringent rules effecting pilots and flight instructors that limit to 8 hours prior and as low as .02 BAC.
http://www.boaf.org/alpaarticle.htm

 

[MagiK_SacK]

Do us all a favor and do not handle any weapons when drinking. I dont, my buddies dont. There can be nothing good that stems from drinking and firearms. When I drink at the house (that is the only place I drink) my gun gets left alone in its holster on the table. Not on me. Its up there with drinking and driving, drinking and hitting on fat chicks, and doing drugs.


This is my $.02 YMMV

So on the table verses on your hip. What is the difference? You still have quick access to it. It may not me immediate, but it is definitely readily available. I fail to see why it being on the table while drinking is any better than on your hip.

Most here would agree that it is prudent to avoid mixing the two behaviors simultaneously. At the least it avoids the perception of an impropriety by those that might use such against us. In greater quantity, the risk of expense is increased proportionally as either conduct is expanded.

Driving has a statutory limit in Va. - .02 BAC under 21, .04 BAC commercial & .08 BAC for 21 years of age.
http://dui.drivinglaws.org/virginia.php

The FAA has stringent rules effecting pilots and flight instructors that limit to 8 hours prior and as low as .02 BAC.
http://www.boaf.org/alpaarticle.htm

If drinking while carrying to any extent is frowned upon by most in this community. Why would it bother those that don't agree with drinking while carrying if there was a statute on the books? Not saying I want one, just asking the question.

 

[wylde007]

Most here would agree that it is prudent to avoid mixing the two behaviors simultaneously.

Of those who do, I wager the greater number do so because they don't want to be seen as rabble.

At the least it avoids the perception of an impropriety by those that might use such against us.

Fear is indeed a great motivator.

Oh noes, I might do something improprietous while drinking! Woe is me.

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, and all that. The "perception" that guns and alcohol don't mix, like anything else, is a perception and while some people believe that carrying and drinking should be verboten, and take it upon themselves to remind everyone else how responsible they are and how they would NEVER drink and carry they are, in fact, attaching the same flawed logic to the argument that the antis attach to theirs. That "guns" cause crime.

I argue that is just another form of projection. Someone who doesn't drink is afraid that they can't hold their own liquor and therefor nobody else would be able to either. They want to apply their own fears to the self-righteous (moral) regulation of someone else's activities because THEY DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE.

Hypocrisy on any scale is still hypocrisy. It is no better than the "supporter" of the 2nd amendment who only supports conceal carry. Or the one who has "always had guns" but doesn't feel like you should be allowed to carry one. Or who supports cops having guns but not citizens.

It's just different degrees of coercive behavior and it is appalling to me that we even entertain it.

 

[Grapeshot]

--snip--
If drinking while carrying to any extent is frowned upon by most in this community. Why would it bother those that don't agree with drinking while carrying if there was a statute on the books? Not saying I want one, just asking the question.

--snip--
If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, and all that. The "perception" that guns and alcohol don't mix, like anything else, is a perception and while some people believe that carrying and drinking should be verboten, and take it upon themselves to remind everyone else how responsible they are and how they would NEVER drink and carry they are, in fact, attaching the same flawed logic to the argument that the antis attach to theirs. That "guns" cause crime.

I argue that is just another form of projection. Someone who doesn't drink is afraid that they can't hold their own liquor and therefor nobody else would be able to either. They want to apply their own fears to the self-righteous (moral) regulation of someone else's activities because THEY DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE.

Hypocrisy on any scale is still hypocrisy. It is no better than the "supporter" of the 2nd amendment who only supports conceal carry. Or the one who has "always had guns" but doesn't feel like you should be allowed to carry one. Or who supports cops having guns but not citizens.

It's just different degrees of coercive behavior and it is appalling to me that we even entertain it.

We have two separate issues here.

One being public relations, promoting our cause before the general public, fence sitters and ultimately the General Assembly.

The other being a statute making it a crime to carry/possess a gun while having alcohol in your system. Should one's right to self-defense be negated because they have had an amount (any amount) of alcohol? IMO, not on that basis alone. Yet we do already have a law that says we cannot carry if "under the influence."

VA Code 18.2-308
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.

 

[TFred]

We have two separate issues here.

One being public relations, promoting our cause before the general public, fence sitters and ultimately the General Assembly.

The other being a statute making it a crime to carry/possess a gun while having alcohol in your system. Should one's right to self-defense be negated because they have had an amount (any amount) of alcohol? IMO, not on that basis alone. Yet we do already have a law that says we cannot carry if "under the influence."

VA Code 18.2-308
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.

Did anyone ever find a section of code that applied to Open Carry, beyond the catch-all "intoxicated in public?"

TFred

 

[Grapeshot]

Did anyone ever find a section of code that applied to Open Carry, beyond the catch-all "intoxicated in public?"

TFred

Do not think so - not something I am likely to make an issue of either :uhoh:

 

[Tanner]

Correct me because im sure im wrong but
"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."
This sounds like if you have a CHP you may not carry a firearm in any manner. OC or CC. while intoxicated.
But if you dont have a CHP you may then ONLY OC while drinking.

 

[WhatTimeIsIt?]

Correct me because im sure im wrong but
"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."
This sounds like if you have a CHP you may not carry a firearm in any manner. OC or CC. while intoxicated.
But if you dont have a CHP you may then ONLY OC while drinking.

If "such" were "a" then yes, CHP holders couldn't carry OC or CC while intoxicated. The way it is worded though, with "such", it only applies to concealed carry. Because the permit is to "carry a concealed handgun", "while carrying such handgun" could be reworded as "while carrying a concealed handgun" and maintain the same meaning. "Such" most logically derives its meaning from the previous use of the noun "handgun" in the sentence, which had the adjective "concealed"; "such" is referring to the adjective previously used with the same noun in the sentence.

 

[ProShooter]

If "such" were "a" then yes, CHP holders couldn't carry OC or CC while intoxicated. The way it is worded though, with "such", it only applies to concealed carry. Because the permit is to "carry a concealed handgun", "while carrying such handgun" could be reworded as "while carrying a concealed handgun" and maintain the same meaning. "Such" most logically derives its meaning from the previous use of the noun "handgun" in the sentence, which had the adjective "concealed"; "such" is referring to the adjective previously used with the same noun in the sentence.

This is exactly correct.

 

[gm2max]

in response to questions about whether I have my handgun on me or on the table by the sofa. 1. I never get over .07 or so BAC. I don't mess with my gun in the holster when drinking, as if it was on me when I go to the bathroom, computer chair, outside, back porch, it has the chance of me not thinking and want to "play" with it. There is a separate thought process between the natural movement of my hand to my pistol compared to me leaning forward to reach for my gun and trying not to spill my beer. When I drink at bars, my wife has control of my gun (left in the car) and I don't get it back until the next day. I dont have room for a self inflicted wound, ND, or any firearms accidents when my job is "Gunner" for the gvmt.

As I said, YMMV in my original post. This works for me.

 

[wylde007]

And it is no more valid an argument than the employer (like mine) who states that he doesn't want an employee to bring a gun to the workplace because it would make someone uncomfortable or that person might use it if they get angry at someone.

To which I contend that nothing would stop that person from going home and retrieving a weapon and bringing it back to the workplace to incite or enact violence. If someone is going to commit battery, malicious assault, assault with a deadly weapon and/or murder, then a policy of "comfort" does nothing to stop them.

You do what's good for you and I'll do what's good for me. I'll leave you alone until you bother me and you leave me alone until I bother you.

That's the way it SHOULD BE and the way it would be... if only. And hopefully EVERYONE here know what I mean by "if only".