• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Unloaded carry while intoxicated?

gluegun

Regular Member
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
359
Location
Central, Connecticut, USA
imported post

GoldCoaster wrote:
I smell another postulate coming..

It is unwise to drunkenly shoot an unarmed person
It is unwise to shoot a drunk and unarmed person
It is unwise to shoot a drink out of an unarmed persons hand
Ah the postulate of civillian self-defense. Glad I took the time to look it up. Your post is much funnier now. :)
 

ESCH

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2009
Messages
107
Location
, ,
imported post

gluegun wrote:
I want to make sure I'm reading this right. It appears that under CT state law, it is lawful to carry an unloaded firearm while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs.

Sec. 53-206d. Carrying a firearm while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drug prohibited. Hunting while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drug or while impaired by the consumption of intoxicating liquor prohibited. (a)(1) No person shall carry a pistol, revolver, machine gun, shotgun, rifle or other firearm, which is loaded and from which a shot may be discharged, upon his person (A) while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, or both, or (B) while the ratio of alcohol in the blood of such person is ten-hundredths of one per cent or more of alcohol, by weight.

What say you?

I want to back the bus up a bit if I may. I re-read the stateute posted above sec. 53-206d. I have a question as to how it is written. Are the first two sentences a summary of the statute and (a)(1), (A) and (B) the specific criteria for judging wether an infraction has occured or not?

I am trying to understand the way it is written and am having trouble. After this question is answered I have specific questions about the rest of it. Anyone (ED) know the answer to my question? Thanks.
 

gluegun

Regular Member
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
359
Location
Central, Connecticut, USA
imported post

ESCH wrote:
gluegun wrote:
I want to make sure I'm reading this right. It appears that under CT state law, it is lawful to carry an unloaded firearm while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs.

Sec. 53-206d. Carrying a firearm while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drug prohibited. Hunting while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drug or while impaired by the consumption of intoxicating liquor prohibited. (a)(1) No person shall carry a pistol, revolver, machine gun, shotgun, rifle or other firearm, which is loaded and from which a shot may be discharged, upon his person (A) while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, or both, or (B) while the ratio of alcohol in the blood of such person is ten-hundredths of one per cent or more of alcohol, by weight.

What say you?

I want to back the bus up a bit if I may. I re-read the stateute posted above sec. 53-206d. I have a question as to how it is written. Are the first two sentences a summary of the statute and (a)(1), (A) and (B) the specific criteria for judging wether an infraction has occured or not?

I am trying to understand the way it is written and am having trouble. After this question is answered I have specific questions about the rest of it. Anyone (ED) know the answer to my question? Thanks.
"Carrying a firearm while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drug prohibited. Hunting while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drug or while impaired by the consumption of intoxicating liquor prohibited." is the title of the statute.

There is more the statute, but my question was not regarding hunting and I left that portion off. The underlined part is the actual prohibition I was inquiring about and (A) and (B) are the specific criteria for judging whether an offense has occurred.

Here is a link to the actual statute for reference: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/Chap943.htm#Sec53-206d.htm
 

ESCH

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2009
Messages
107
Location
, ,
imported post

Thanks gluegun, I went back and now see the first two sentences are the title of the statute. Perfect. Understood.

My next question is in reference to the terms "impaired," "Intoxicated" and "Under the influence."

It seems to me the statute explains that intoxicated refers to BAC of .10 or above.

It seems to me the statute explains that impaired refers to BAC of .07 up to .10.

The question is in the use of the term "under the influence." Does the term "under the influence" mean, at a minimum, impaired? Ordoes it simply mean under any influence?OR, Dothey simply use the term "under the influence" because it covers alcohol and drugs which cannot be measured by BAC?

One can argue, taking a teaspoon of cough medicine with alcohol in it could qualify as "under the influence" ( not to mention the drug part of the statute.) I understand that is probably not what is meant. I am just trying to understand if "under the influence" does indeed mean at a minimum impaired (.07 BAC).
 

ESCH

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2009
Messages
107
Location
, ,
imported post

Actually, the more I read this statute the more I think whomever wrote it must have been under the influence. Why is it written so poorly? I mean what a POS.

Section (a) seems to pertain to carrying a loaded firearm "under the influence"OR above .10 BAC.It doesn't state .07 or .08 it says only .10 or above.

Section (b) seems to pertain to hunting. Isn't a person hunting with a loaded rifle or shotgun already in violation of section (a)? I guess section (b) could also include bow hunting? Why does section (b) talk about BAC and the difference between .10 and .07 impaired but not section(a)?

It also says in violation by being "under the influence" OR having an elevated BAC. With this statement it appears an elevated BAC is not needed to be considered "under the influence."

The more I read it the more it doesn't make any sense. What a POS.
 

aadvark

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,600
Location
, ,
imported post

Mr. Edward Peruta,

I am just curious..., but why did you copy my thread and paste it to your own?

By the way, how did you do that and make it bold and red. I know it may be easier than what I think I am just not to computer savvy.

Did you agree with, or dislike, what I wrote? Is that why you repasted it? I ama little confused about that, or were you just reconfirming what I had wrote?
 

Edward Peruta

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
1,247
Location
Connecticut USA
imported post

To: aadvark

First, there were two statements in your post that were incorrect under Connecticut law. The first was a reference to .05 BACas some upper limitand threshold for intoxication. I know you were NOT talking about Connecticut, but everyone needs to know that it .05 is NOT a threshold amount in this state.

The second wasyour stated belief that anyonewith alcohol in their system would end up being arrested.

I posted two amounts .07 and .10 which canbe found in the particularCT State Statute that has been discussed and posted.

Asfar as my use and postinginformation, just use your mouse to highlight the text, rightclick your mouse, choose and left click on copy and then place the cursor in your new post areaand hitthe left control key while hitting the V key to pastewhat you have copied.

Once the text is copied into your post, highlight the text you want to make bold or color and use thebuttons at thetop of the posting box.

I hope this answered your questions.
 

JUMPMASTER

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
241
Location
Plymouth, Connecticut, USA
imported post

8.2-17 Carrying a Firearm while Intoxicated -- § 53-206d (a)
Revised to December 1, 2007

The defendant is charged [in count __] with carrying a firearm while intoxicated. The statute defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:


no person shall carry a pistol, revolver, machine gun, shotgun, rifle or other firearm, which is loaded and from which a shot may be discharged, upon (his/her) person while <insert as appropriate:>

  • under the influence of (intoxicating liquor / any drug / both)
  • the ratio of alcohol in the blood of such person is ten-hundredths of one per cent or more of alcohol, by weight.
For you to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Carried a firearm
The first element is that the defendant carried a <insert type of weapon> upon (his/her) person. A weapon is "carried" if it is on one's person and within one's control or dominion, meaning that the person must be aware of its presence.[suP]1[/suP]

Element 2 - Loaded and operable
The second element is that the <insert type of weapon> was loaded and capable of firing a shot.

Element 3 - While under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drug
The third element is that the defendant <insert as appropriate:>

  • was under the influence of (intoxicating liquor / any drug / both). A person is under the influence of (intoxicating liquor / any drug / both) when as a result of (drinking such beverage / ingesting such drug) that person's mental, physical, or nervous processes have become so affected that the person lacks to an appreciable degree the ability to function properly in relation to the carrying of a firearm.[suP]2[/suP]
  • had a ratio of alcohol in (his/her) blood which was ten-hundredths of one per cent or more of alcohol by weight.[suP]3[/suP]
Conclusion

In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) the defendant carried a firearm, 2) the firearm was loaded and operable, and 3) (he/she) was <insert specific allegations as to defendant's condition>.

If you unanimously find that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of carrying a firearm while intoxicated, then you shall find the defendant guilty. On the other hand, if you unanimously find that the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any of the elements, you shall then find the defendant not guilty.
_______________________________________________________

[suP]1[/suP]State v. Hopes, 26 Conn. App. 367, 375, cert. denied, 221 Conn. 915 (1992).

[suP]2[/suP]Definition of "under the influence" is derived from cases involving driving under the influence. See, e.g., State v. Gordon, 84 Conn. App. 519, 527, cert. denied, 271 Conn. 941 (2004).

[suP]3[/suP]Note that the language of this statute does not conform to the standards provided in General Statutes § 14-227a, Driving Under the Influence, regarding blood alcohol content.
 

Leverdude

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
265
Location
Norwalk, Connecticut, USA
imported post

HankT wrote:
gluegun wrote:
The sentiment is nice, but I oppose any further restriction on the right to bear arms, however benevolent...

Why on earth would you oppose a law that would make it illegal to carry a gun if one was blotto drunk (BAC .15)?

That's grossly irresponsible behavior we're talking about....
Because of the potential for abuse and it adresses a non existant problem.
Also where in either the state or federal constitution does it say that rights are dependent on sobriety?

I opposed the law that set the BAC for carry the same as for driving & will oppose any others dreamed up. Not because I think drunks should carry, but because permit holders are responsible citizens & drunks with permits dont happen very often at all. We have DWI laws because drunks were running people over & causing alot of problems. They are an example of reactive laws that address a problem that has happened. When drunk permit holders become a problem I will be more receptive to this sort of limitation.
 
Top