alcohol and firearms laws?

[mctrinket]

Guns and booze are a bad mix. /thread

Also, it's more than a little disconcerting there are some folks bristling about this topic. Let's not make a common sense thing into a 2A issue here. If you think it's fine to go get liquored up while carrying just in case you get hassled, you have a serious problem.

 

[MisterHappy]

Perfect example of why you should not live in MA. Because people like MAShooter will vote guilty on you when you might have had a beer. Stories like this remind me how so many people are sheep and will vote to punish anyone for anything the state tells them to.

To be fair, the details were not given. The convicted ones may have been falling-down drunk.

 

[xtry51]

To be fair, the details were not given. The convicted ones may have been falling-down drunk.

Doesn't matter to me. Did they hurt someone or damage property? And either way I vote not guilty on the OUI and guilty only on the damage and injury charges.

 

[xtry51]

Guns and booze are a bad mix. /thread

Also, it's more than a little disconcerting there are some folks bristling about this topic. Let's not make a common sense thing into a 2A issue here. If you think it's fine to go get liquored up while carrying just in case you get hassled, you have a serious problem.

If you think laws limiting the ability of others to defend themselves because you don't personally approve of the specific situation you may not have any common sense and are probably a part of the problem on how is country is so screwed up.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I've asked this question and the answer I got is that you can't legally have ANY alcohol in your system if you're carrying a gun. I realize that if you get stopped, what the officer THINKS will determine the outcome, but that's what I was told.

Per MGL what you were told is false. In practical terms, the rest of your statement is absolutely true. You might be diabetic and thus have an "alcohol smell" with a negative reaction (although you never touched a drop of liquor/beer) and your odds of getting your LTC lifted are still very good!

Doesn't matter to me. Did they hurt someone or damage property? And either way I vote not guilty on the OUI and guilty only on the damage and injury charges.

Juries do NOT choose the charges, the ADA does. So you get to vote only on what is presented to you. Perhaps the drunk ran over Grannie and the ADA decided ONLY to press DUI charges and drop the rest? [In the comments by the juror above we know nothing of what happened or what the charges really were so to draw any conclusions is merely "jumping to conclusions" without any evidence!!!]

 

[xtry51]

If the ADA decided to go with only the OUI charge, then granny doesn't get justice and that's not my fault. I still vote not guilty on any Drug style charges regardless of what happened because those laws should not exist.

And yes, I've been hit by a drunk driver and yes I still feel this way.

 

[dessert1st]

A lot of these laws exists because stupid people outweigh the sensible.

In some of these cases of "dumb laws", I blame the people more than the .gov.

 

[Nick Fury]

When you are a security guard with a license to carry and happen to shoot a crazed psycho stabbing a doctor to death and the only thing saving you from the gallows is public outcry, why on earth would adding alcohol to the mix be a good idea?

 

[atilla]

Having a bit of maple crown royal in my coffee for all you teetotalers out there, this one's for you!

 

[jron]

I carry when I go to the bar if Im the DD. If Im going out drinking I dont carry.

 

[dessert1st]

Having a bit of maple crown royal in my coffee for all you teetotalers out there, this one's for you!

Youre doing it wrong.

Youre suppose to have a bit of coffee with your crown royale maple.

 

[Sig Sauer Shooter]

As I'm not much of a drinker anyways, it's never been a problem for me...

 

[Pete85]

Well that is never going to happen in MA. You will never get clarity on MA gun laws because neither those that wrote them or the judicial system want such clarity . . . it allows them to prosecute (and get plea bargains) out of people they don't like.

It also allows the trial lawyers who write the laws to make more money in their private practice, as they defend people caught in the gray areas of the laws they voted to enact. Something like 25~30% of the MA legislature are trial lawyers.

It should also be noticed that the laws regarding carrying a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or drugs only applies to people with a valid LTC. While people carrying without a license will face different charges, carrying while under the influence will not be one of them.

 

[enbloc]

Guns and Booze?
They go well together when you can handle strong drink as well as your guns...

"If you contemplate some enterprise against the enemy,
the commissary must scrape together all of the
beer and brandy that can be found.
-- Frederick the Great"

Background of the Liquor Ration

Despite its risks, the liquor ration was an absolute necessity. No military commander of the 18th Century would have thought of leading his troops on any mission without planning for this need. Frederick the Great, probably the greatest military strategist of that time, advised in his writings:

If you contemplate some enterprise against the enemy, the commissary must scrape together all of the beer and brandy that can be found en route so that the Army does not lack either, at least during the first days. As soon as the Army enters enemy territory all of the brewers and distillers, especially of brandy, must be seized so that the soldier does not lack a drink, which he cannot do without.

Thomas Jefferson, as Governor of Virginia during the Revolution, attended to these needs through legislation by the General Assembly. "Officers, soldiers, sailors and marines raised under the Laws of the Commonwealth, shall, during their continuance in the service, be furnished . . . with . . . rum or brandy at ten shillings by the gallon, whiskey at five shillings by the gallon." And in August 1780 he writes that "We have lately appointed a commercial agent within whose particular line of duty it will be to provide spirit for the army. To him we shall refer the proposition of General Roberdeau to furnish whiskey." These "furnishings" were not cheap. Jefferson's papers include an order on the State of Virginia of April 4, 1781 from General Nathanael Greene for $14,500 for 110 gallons of whiskey "purchased for the use of the Southern Army."

The liquor ration authorized by resolution of Congress November 4, 1775 for General Washington's Continental Army included "one quart of good spruce or malt beer." After the Constitution was established, Congress by the Act of April 30, 1790 gave the enlisted man of the Army (in addition to clothing and food allowance) a daily ration of "half a gill of rum, brandy or whiskey." This basic ration was revised by Congress by the Act of March 16, 1802 authorizing a liquor ration of one gill of rum (thus the official ration throughout the Lewis and Clark Expedition) which remained in effect through the War of 1812. By the time of that war, temperance sentiments seemed to have set in. A veteran of 1812, Charles Cist, relates his belief that the whiskey ration "was drank by parts only of each mess; but its presence, and the convivial spirit of those days, doubtless led too many to contract a relish for ardent spirits, which brought individuals in after-periods of their lives to a premature grave."

 

[Chet0729]

Since there is no requirement to submit to a BAC test or drug test unless you are driving, unless you admit you were drinking there is no way for anyone to prove it.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Since there is no requirement to submit to a BAC test or drug test unless you are driving, unless you admit you were drinking there is no way for anyone to prove it.

They don't need to prove anything before revoking your LTC!

 

[GJH86]

I always carry when I go out to da club, appendix style. Have a few drinks? No problem. It has worked wonders for me and my career.

Love
- Plexico Burress

 

[dcmdon]

If you think laws limiting the ability of others to defend themselves because you don't personally approve of the specific situation you may not have any common sense and are probably a part of the problem on how is country is so screwed up.

This is where we disagree. This has nothing to do with the law.

If you choose to carry a tool that allows you to kill someone with the twitch of a finger at distance, then you have an ethical responsibility to be the master of that tool to the best of your ability.

If you choose to impair that ability, then you lose your right to use that tool. I'm not saying you can't defend yourself, but ethically, if your impairment is putting others at risk, then you lose your ethical justification. If you're going out drinking and want to carry a weapon, bring a knife. Its highly unlikely you'll accidentally stab the wrong guy.

 

[el duderino]

This is where we disagree. This has nothing to do with the law.

If you choose to carry a tool that allows you to kill someone with the twitch of a finger at distance, then you have an ethical responsibility to be the master of that tool to the best of your ability.

If you choose to impair that ability, then you lose your right to use that tool. I'm not saying you can't defend yourself, but ethically, if your impairment is putting others at risk, then you lose your ethical justification. If you're going out drinking and want to carry a weapon, bring a knife. Its highly unlikely you'll accidentally stab the wrong guy.

Im just as responsible for my decisions whether im drunk or not, and I carry a knife always, but im not going to rely on it to protect myself and my loved ones. Ive had a gun stuck in my face by a drunk offduty cop, a guy I happen to like who is a friend of a relative and sure we kicked his ass for that but I still believe just because you might make a mistake carrying while drunk, you might not. Those are 50/50 odds which is good enough for me.

 

[Chet0729]

They don't need to prove anything before revoking your LTC!

So they are going to revoke my LTC for carrying my gun. I think they would have a hard time with this.

 

[Len-2A Training]

So they are going to revoke my LTC for carrying my gun. I think they would have a hard time with this.

Sorry, you have no idea how it really works in MA.

Someone on the North Shore posted how anxious he was to get his (first) LTC. His chief put two and two together figuring out who it was and DENIED him because he was "too anxious". I don't know if the thread is still here or if Derek deleted it, but it really did happen right here. No MA (liberal, gun-haters all) judge will overrule a chief on "discretion" and "suitability" . . . many have tried and have nothing but lawyer bills to show for it.

 

[bobsher]

Hard to believe that the question was even asked,especially here where we should know better. When I received my first Mass resident permit way back in 1962 the COP told me " I don't ever want to hear any reports of you hanging around any bars with a gun in your possession,if I do you'll lose the LTC".

You just don't carry in a bar or anyplace that serves liquor.

Bob

 

[montemuscle1970]

Hard to believe that the question was even asked,especially here where we should know better. When I received my first Mass resident permit way back in 1962 the COP told me " I don't ever want to hear any reports of you hanging around any bars with a gun in your possession,if I do you'll lose the LTC". You just don't do it.

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if it was revoked for any type of formal complaint against you, with or without alcohol being involved. Or even NOT being in possession of your firearm when it happened. It could be locked up at home, but they could probably revoke your license for you just being with someone who got into an altercation at a bar.

Hell, I was worried when I got stopped for my expired inspection sticker. I thought they would think I was irresponsible.

Mass inspection. Hmph...that's a whole different thread.

 

[dcmdon]

So they are going to revoke my LTC for carrying my gun. I think they would have a hard time with this.

You don't seem to get how MA works. You have the ability to not only carry guns, but possess them COMPLETELY at the pleasure of the Chief.

If he capriciously decides he doesn't want you to be able to own guns, he simply pulls your permit. And you have little to no recourse.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS with respect to firearms ownership in MA.

Which is why, for now, I keep telling people that even with the new law CT is a more firearms friendly state. Still 5h11ty, but less so.

 

[MisterHappy]

So they are going to revoke my LTC for carrying my gun. I think they would have a hard time with this.

there is a thread in the Mass Laws section, about Kid's FID. One of the posters in the thread lives in a town that refuses to accept Hunter Ed certs., even though they are specifically listed as OK for FID/LTC issuance. Why? Because they can.....and nobody can or will call them on it.

 

[SClaflin]

No MA (liberal, gun-haters all) judge will overrule a chief on "discretion" and "suitability" . . . many have tried and have nothing but lawyer bills to show for it.

That is not true. While it is certainly a steep uphill battle, I've seen several people awarded their LTC's after challenging a suitability decision in court. Heck, I believe there are even a few reported decisions where it has happened (e.g. Gemme v. Ricciardi (sp?)). (Of course, no one should construe this post to imply that it is likely you would win in court on a suitability challenge.)

 

[SClaflin]

there is a thread in the Mass Laws section, about Kid's FID. One of the posters in the thread lives in a town that refuses to accept Hunter Ed certs., even though they are specifically listed as OK for FID/LTC issuance. Why? Because they can.....and nobody can or will call them on it.

Well, they can't legally, but they can practically because it is far easier, cheaper, and quicker for an applicant to take another course than it is to file a PJR and fight the Chief's decision. Unfortunately, that is typically the case here in MA.

 

[MisterHappy]

Yes, and it's easier to jump through all the hoops that are tossed up, than to go head-to-head when you're powerless.

Apparently, some towns have decided that safety courses "go stale" after [insert given time here].

And to say that the POLICE "....can't legally, but they can practically....." FOLLOW THE LAW shows how FUBAR this place is

Just as when some towns/cities were charging more than the state-mandated $100, and the State essentially told GOAL to handle it.

 

[shipwreck]

Dont care in CT. 0.099% and good to go. Responsibility isn't negated by a beer.

 

[Cap]

This is where we disagree. This has nothing to do with the law.

If you choose to carry a tool that allows you to kill someone with the twitch of a finger at distance, then you have an ethical responsibility to be the master of that tool to the best of your ability.

If you choose to impair that ability, then you lose your right to use that tool. I'm not saying you can't defend yourself, but ethically, if your impairment is putting others at risk, then you lose your ethical justification. If you're going out drinking and want to carry a weapon, bring a knife. Its highly unlikely you'll accidentally stab the wrong guy.

Do you also believe that people should be required to have XX hours of training before they are allowed to carry a firearm?