imported post
I think it goes back to that whole "life. liberty, and pursuit of happiness" thing. If you do not endanger any of the above, then I see it as nobody's business what you do. Of course, this does not encompass contract law... I'm speaking more in the direction of criminal.
Driving while drunk... it can be argued that you are endangering others... a criminal offense. The fact is that you are OPERATING something while under the influence. Carrying while drunk... not so much. What are you operating? What harm have you caused? What danger have you created? Who can step forth and claim themselves a victim?
What if you're Chuck Norris... what if your fists and feet can be deemed dangerous weapons in 49 States? Should you not be allowed to drink because you MIGHT punch or kick someone? Or should people mind their own business and then throw the book at you if you DO bring harm to someone while under the influence?
I'll not argue against the idea that a drunk person carrying a gun is a bad idea, don't get me wrong. Judgment may be impaired leading to a bad decision to draw... and with motor skills impaired it's inherently possible that the shooter misses and hits an unintended target. But until they actually DO something illegal with the weapon (notwithstanding that Michigan law says that it's illegal in and of itself to be impaired and carrying), I don't see how it's fair to convict them of anything. But guess what? A person doesn't have to be drunk to have a lapse in judgment or to miss a target. Should we accept a law that says you can't carry a weapon while you're in a bad mood... because you just MIGHT be predisposed to having an itchier than normal trigger finger? Should we force people to wear mood rings if they're carrying a pistol and subject them to random inspections by officers? "Sir... your mood ring is purple... put your hands above you're head... you're under arrest for carrying while under the influence of anger."
And if you are under the influence of alcohol, are you suddenly less deserving of the right to defend yourself against an armed assailant? "Yep... that guy deserved to be mugged and shot because he was drunk."
Switching gears for a moment, drinking and smoking are generally accepted as being bad for your health. So is eating fast food. And yet people do it legally every day. I can, if I so choose, smoke 2 packs of cigarettes, eat 10 Big Macs, and wash it all down with a fifth of whiskey every day of my life and the law can't say anything to me about it. However, if I want to drive around the block without my seatbelt on, I've violated some law and can be taxed... er, excuse me, fined. Which is more dangerous?
The point being that I perceive the issue to be more about economics and less about public interest.
I know, I know... by accepting a license to drive, you waive rights. Yes, yes, I'm aware. Now we get into contract law. But let's be honest... who can really live in America without accepting unilateral contracts, privileges, and licenses for many things? You want to own a dog... you need a license. You want to get married... you need a license. You want to catch a fish... you need a license. If you want to BUY a fish, you have to pay taxes. You want to dig a pond and grow your own fish... you need a permit. How can a man do something so fundamental as EAT in this country without being held liable to some unilateral agreement in which he waives rights? How hard is it to pay bills without a bank account? How are you going to be a good taxpayer and get to work with no license? Take the bus? You're still engaged in a commercial transaction, subject to terms and conditions. What I'm getting at is that nearly every day of our lives, we are "willfully" engaging in commercial contracts that cause us to waive rights. I say "willfully", because the alternative to accepting them is to deny them... and then to deny our American dreams of home ownership, stable income, health care, the ability to travel freely, the ability to eat, etc, etc. Our very Constitution is becoming a mythical entity... something that is illusive to us under all the layers of contractual BS that we "must" agree to in order to maintain a normal American lifestyle.
Back to criminal charges: The legislation of morals is not something I support. I believe in being held responsible for harm or damaged actually caused or for creating actual danger of such occurring. This "pre-crime" crap and compulsory request for permission to do things is unjust, to me... it's a form of bondage. It causes us to be held financially responsible for things that may not have, nor may ever, occur.
There are so many dichotomies in law... it's ridiculous. This issue regarding bearing arms while intoxicated is just the tip of the iceberg. And believe me, it should be the least of anyone's concerns.