alcohol and firearms laws?

[montemuscle1970]

I don't like requirements for that but I also think the overwhelming majority of people are too dumb to have immediate access to firearms, among other things. It's a rock and a hard place situation for me. I think just about everyone on NES has a propensity for the use of firearms, self defense, self preservation, decision making, etc. Just like most people have a propensity to drink too much. But making laws against something like that, as we know, wouldn't stop idiots from being idiots, and would only hurt people like us.

 

[dcmdon]

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

The short answer is No.

But I draw a very distinct line between the ethical issues and the legal issues.

The government should not have the authority to legislate requirements for you to carry a gun.

However, i think you are an ignorant fool if you do choose to carry without some kind of training. That doesn't necessarily mean a class. If you've been shooting all your life, then you are good to go. If you are new to guns and shooting in general, I believe you have an ethical responsibility to others to attain some level of proficiency before you carry.

But again, I don't think it should be legally required.

 

[skeetshooter]

do you carry a knife when you drink? yes. so you mean to tell me when your drunk you don't pull out your knife and start waving it around and or killing people? well no. then who says when i drink I'm going to do that with my gun?

 

[dcmdon]

do you carry a knife when you drink? yes. so you mean to tell me when your drunk you don't pull out your knife and start waving it around and or killing people? well no. then who says when i drink I'm going to do that with my gun?

Not me.

What I'm saying is that if you have to use it, you are putting others at risk by not being able to use it effectively. i.e. you might shoot an innocent accidentally.

Thats all.

But again, this is an ethical discussion. Not a legal one.

 

[TTB11B]

Under Ch90-24 of MGL OUI has to prove diminished ability from any intoxicating substance as defined under Ch94C-1. This statute only says under the influence which as stated is a much lower standard. For OUI someone with a CDL drivers license will get it suspended for .04 or more and that's because there is a higher level of skill required to operate a CDL, unfortunately even with the best lawyer pleading your case, because of how ambiguous the statute is you might be f'd if you get caught and the prosecutor wants to try and compare carrying to operating a CDL motor vehicle.

 

[Chet0729]

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.

No I believe you I was just wondering what the grounds would be if there was no way to prove I had a drink. I know this state is totally screwed up and the laws have so many gray areas it is amazing they can even be enforced or followed. The advise you give here is solid and appreciated.

 

[Chet0729]

I don't like requirements for that but I also think the overwhelming majority of people are too dumb to have immediate access to firearms, among other things. It's a rock and a hard place situation for me. I think just about everyone on NES has a propensity for the use of firearms, self defense, self preservation, decision making, etc. Just like most people have a propensity to drink too much. But making laws against something like that, as we know, wouldn't stop idiots from being idiots, and would only hurt people like us.

When I first got my LTC I learned more from the people I went shooting with than the waste of time class I took. I'm sure there are some good classes but the one I took talked more about the types of permits than actual safety.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

No mention of a BAC level:

Section 10H. Whoever, having in effect a license to carry firearms issued under section 131 or 131F of chapter 140, carries on his person, or has under his control in a vehicle, a l.....

There's an interesting point that's been missed here. You actually need to have an LTC to be convicted of this. The license is an element of the crime. Therefore, an unlicensed person may carry a firearm while intoxicated - and there are people authorized to carry firearms without a license.

There's a great theoretical 5th Amendment implication to this. Firearms possession in Massachusetts is unlawful unless someone can meet one of the exceptions in 269-10. That means that the state doesn't have to prove that someone isn't licensed before convicting them of unlawful possession of carrying a firearm. The burden is on the defendant to show that they are licensed or meet some other other exemption. (Think Delanie Humphries).

So, in offering a defense to carrying a firearm without a license, a person would actually be offing up evidence against themselves of the crime of carrying while under the influence.

The the best of my knowledge no carrying-under-the-influence case has ever gone to trial. I think there are DAs that would like to try one of these cases if only to establish a mark for being under the influence what is well below the .08 standard used for OUI. Like 95%+ of all criminal cases, carrying under the influence charges are resolved without a trial. The vagueness of the law is a serious disincentive for a defendant to go to trial because there is so much riding upon how a judge interprets the law.

 

[falcon123]

Am I doing it right?

Almost. You need a real beer to make it complete.

- - - Updated - - -

No way I'm giving up glue

or spray paint.

 

[falcon123]

Just close one eye.

Close them both and you won't have a need for a gun.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Under Ch90-24 of MGL OUI has to prove diminished ability from any intoxicating substance as defined under Ch94C-1. This statute only says under the influence which as stated is a much lower standard. For OUI someone with a CDL drivers license will get it suspended for .04 or more and that's because there is a higher level of skill required to operate a CDL, unfortunately even with the best lawyer pleading your case, because of how ambiguous the statute is you might be f'd if you get caught and the prosecutor wants to try and compare carrying to operating a CDL motor vehicle.

Interesting perspective . . . and I agree with you that some enterprising DA may well try this . . . which fits why KD below says that everyone pleads out on these cases and never goes to trial!

No I believe you I was just wondering what the grounds would be if there was no way to prove I had a drink. I know this state is totally screwed up and the laws have so many gray areas it is amazing they can even be enforced or followed. The advise you give here is solid and appreciated.

The real problem has nothing to do with alcohol/drugs . . . it is that chiefs have 100% discretion on pulling a LTC for essentially no legitimate reason whatsoever. As long as "if challenged" in court, the chief can articulate something as an excuse for his action and it doesn't trip the "capricious and arbitrary" scale, the judge will go along with the chief.

There's an interesting point that's been missed here. You actually need to have an LTC to be convicted of this. The license is an element of the crime. Therefore, an unlicensed person may carry a firearm while intoxicated - and there are people authorized to carry firearms without a license.

There's a great theoretical 5th Amendment implication to this. Firearms possession in Massachusetts is unlawful unless someone can meet one of the exceptions in 269-10. That means that the state doesn't have to prove that someone isn't licensed before convicting them of unlawful possession of carrying a firearm. The burden is on the defendant to show that they are licensed or meet some other other exemption. (Think Delanie Humphries).

So, in offering a defense to carrying a firearm without a license, a person would actually be offing up evidence against themselves of the crime of carrying while under the influence.

The the best of my knowledge no carrying-under-the-influence case has ever gone to trial. I think there are DAs that would like to try one of these cases if only to establish a mark for being under the influence what is well below the .08 standard used for OUI. Like 95%+ of all criminal cases, carrying under the influence charges are resolved without a trial. The vagueness of the law is a serious disincentive for a defendant to go to trial because there is so much riding upon how a judge interprets the law.

Very important point here emphasized and fits with TTB11B's comments above.

 

[TTB11B]

Interesting perspective . . . and I agree with you that some enterprising DA may well try this . . . which fits why KD below says that everyone pleads out on these cases and never goes to trial!




The real problem has nothing to do with alcohol/drugs . . . it is that chiefs have 100% discretion on pulling a LTC for essentially no legitimate reason whatsoever. As long as "if challenged" in court, the chief can articulate something as an excuse for his action and it doesn't trip the "capricious and arbitrary" scale, the judge will go along with the chief.




Very important point here emphasized and fits with TTB11B's comments above.

To add to what KD said that the LTC is an element of the crime, that means that police officers who are carrying under the badge and are not in possession of an LTC can carry all they want and drink all they want and not technically violate MA's statute while still carrying a firearm legally

 

[Len-2A Training]

To add to what KD said that the LTC is an element of the crime, that means that police officers who are carrying under the badge and are not in possession of an LTC can carry all they want and drink all they want and not technically violate MA's statute while still carrying a firearm legally

Back in the day it worked well for my department!

 

[MisterHappy]

That's because of the additional training.

 

[kalash]

These discussions need to include a distinction between having a beer in your living room versus having a dozen drinks at a bar. The law may view these as one and the same but clearly they are very distinct.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Addendum to #81:

Another NES'r refreshed my memory that the reason for denial given was the applicant's preoccupation with the legalities of using deadly force exhibited by asking a lot of related questions here on NES in advance of getting his LTC.

Keep in mind no chief wants you to EVER use deadly force even if it means you or loved ones get raped or killed. They like "exclusivity" in reserving that "privilege" for themselves only. Seriously!

 

[J Foley Esq]

These discussions need to include a distinction between having a beer in your living room versus having a dozen drinks at a bar. The law may view these as one and the same but clearly they are very distinct.

You aren't even in the clear if you shoot someone in your house while having a drink. It could be argued in a criminal and civil case against you that had you not been "impaired" you wouldn't have pulled the trigger on the scumbag home invader.

 

[kalash]

You aren't even in the clear if you shoot someone in your house while having a drink. It could be argued in a criminal and civil case against you that had you not been "impaired" you wouldn't have pulled the trigger on the scumbag home invader.

Legally, yes. That said, I'll be damned if I can't responsibly enjoy a drink in my own home without having to become defenseless.

 

[J Foley Esq]

Legally, yes. That said, I'll be damned if I can't responsibly enjoy a drink in my own home without having to become defenseless.

I will drink to that.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Legally, yes. That said, I'll be damned if I can't responsibly enjoy a drink in my own home without having to become defenseless.

We are talking about MA here, you are NOT supposed to enjoy anything in MA and you are never supposed to defend yourself, that is what the police are for . . . after the chalk outline, then the judges let them free after a couple of years. That's the system . . . don't like it? Only solution is to move out of this hell-hole!


NOTE: I wish I were joking, but this is indeed how things really work in MA!

 

[J Foley Esq]

NOTE: I wish I were joking, but this is indeed how things really work in MA!

I will vouch for that.