Guns and Alcohol.

i dont know the laws actually...i just know i never drink when i carry, which is 98% of the time. If I know im having a beer I leave the gun in the safe
 
Here are the statutes. FYI, "under the influence" is undefined.

MGL 269-10H said:
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 loaded firearm, as defined in section 121 of said chapter 140, while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or marijuana, narcotic drugs, depressants or stimulant substances, all as defined in section 1 of chapter 94C, or the vapors of glue shall be punished by a fine of not more than $5,000 or by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than two and one-half years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
Click to expand...

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter269/Section10H

MGL 131-62 said:
Section 62. A person, while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or of drugs shall not hunt or carry a firearm, bow and arrow or other weapon while engaged in hunting or target shooting.
Click to expand...

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIX/Chapter131/Section62
 
Don, take my seminar and we discuss it. It's late and I just got in (NES Natick get-together) so I'm not going to look it up for you now. I cover just about everything that you've asked in the forums and have cites available for those that want it (but don't bore the students with cites unless asked).
 
Thanks Len.

Kevlar and Len - is "under the influence" defined anywhere? In CT, its interestingly .1% for guns and .08% for cars.

So, from a legal perspective, you could blow a .08 or .09 and be illegal to drive, but perfectly legal to carry a loaded gun. Ha.
 
dcmdon said:
Thanks Len.

Kevlar and Len - is "under the influence" defined anywhere? In CT, its interestingly .1% for guns and .08% for cars.

So, from a legal perspective, you could blow a .08 or .09 and be illegal to drive, but perfectly legal to carry a loaded gun. Ha.
Click to expand...

Not defined in MA wrt gun laws and that is what we discuss. Only defined wrt MV law.
 
LenS said:
Not defined in MA wrt gun laws and that is what we discuss. Only defined wrt MV law.
Click to expand...

What is the number per MA MV law?

I'm guessing .08% since thats what the feds coerced all the states into lowering their BAC to a few years ago.
Most states were .1%, but the feds threatened to withhold highway funds if they didn't lower it to .08%.
 
dcmdon said:
Thanks. I find it funny that MA has laws regulating the altitude at which aircraft can fly. They have no legal authority there. I guess its just another example of MA Government run amok.

Don

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter90/Section46
Click to expand...

As he says, that law is not enforceable.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title49/USCODE-2011-title49-subtitleVII-partA-subparti-chap401-sec40103/content-detail.html

§ 40103. Sovereignty and use of airspace
(a) SOVEREIGNTY AND PUBLIC RIGHT OF TRANSIT.—(1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.

Spells it out pretty clearly. I'm a pilot and this crap happens all the time. Cities and states pass ordinances and laws that are useless. There's was a big thing in CA a while ago that caused a big stir. I think it was Santa Monica airport or something.

Reading that sections of crap MA law, I'm really not sure what is says anyway - other than maybe you should use common sense. It really has no substance and says very little. Unless they just want to add state criminal charges when you violate FAA regulations. Screwed up as usual. There's not real penalties specified or anything, so it's another useless section of MA law.

This is even better:
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter90/Section47

The CAA became the FAA in 1967. Again, no penalties, jail time specified, etc.
 
Last edited:
mlaboss said:
For 21 and over, .08%. Under 21, .02%

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter90/Section24
Click to expand...

In MA, one can actually be arrested at .06



waltherlover said:
dcmdon said:
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter90/Section46
Click to expand...
There's not real penalties specified or anything, so it's another useless section of MA law.

This is even better:
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter90/Section47

The CAA became the FAA in 1967. Again, no penalties, jail time specified, etc.
Click to expand...

See MGL 90-44 for penalties.

Also, the Clerk-Magistrate must report a conviction to the "MA Aeronautics Commission" (now the MassDOT Aeronautics Division).
 
Last edited:
Interesting that I can fly an airplane drunk and it's a misdemeanor (two years max), but drive a car drunk and it's a felony. I can do a lot more damage with a plane than a car. The FAA would have a field day with my pilots license...
 
Well, part of the problem is that there's no MADP (Mothers Against Drunk Pilots) to make it an issue. Laws are created by politics, not by "reason".

Cry that there's a threat, make the threat personal (the drunk pilot will crash into your house!), and you get legislation. That's what you have Melanie's Law (OUI) and Nicole's Law (CO Detectors)

If you look at the Medicinal Marijuana law stuff, the people that are against it say, "If this passes, weed will be in your town!" Again, personalizing the danger. (Like there's no Mary Jane in your area, already)

It's the same with guns, too.....that's why when a bad guy does a bad thing, it's a causus belli for the Antis to cry for more laws "to protect the innocent".

[rolleyes]


So....who's for cracking down on all those tipsy crop-dusters, like I saw in the documentary, "Independence Day"?
 
Also, even better, even being in a place that serves alcohol is a reasonable suspicion. Basically, if a leo knows you are carrying and you are sitting at a bar you may be in trouble... I found it to be rather odd because you have not signed away your 4th rights with the ltc as far as I can tell... but irregardless, the alcohol level is undefined and hence - zero tolerance
 
Last edited:
temchik said:
During a class our instructor mentioned that there is no .08 rule wrt firearms, even a .01 is a violation.
Click to expand...

and that would NEVER hold up in a court of law, the naturally occurring level of alcohol in the human body approaches that number, even the Federal DOT understands that and sets the presumption level for OUI CDL at .02 and prima facia is .04
 
Glockaholic said:
and that would NEVER hold up in a court of law, the naturally occurring level of alcohol in the human body approaches that number, even the Federal DOT understands that and sets the presumption level for OUI CDL at .02 and prima facia is .04
Click to expand...

That may be so but judging by what a LEO instructor said you may still be arrested. Try to explain this to your chief when he pulls your ltc.

Don't drink and carry, don't carry in a place that serves alcohol and if you do, don't sit at the bar. MA paranoia in full swing, I know......
 
temchik said:
That may be so but judging by what a LEO instructor said you may still be arrested. Try to explain this to your chief when he pulls your ltc.

Don't drink and carry, don't carry in a place that serves alcohol and if you do, don't sit at the bar. MA paranoia in full swing, I know......
Click to expand...

Yup and don't take Robitussin (or any other med with alcohol in it . . . in fact don't use mouthwash with alcohol either) if you are going to carry either. [tinfoil]
 
temchik said:
Also, even better, even being in a place that serves alcohol is a reasonable suspicion. Basically, if a leo knows you are carrying and you are sitting at a bar you may be in trouble... I found it to be rather odd because you have not signed away your 4th rights with the ltc as far as I can tell... but irregardless, the alcohol level is undefined and hence - zero tolerance
Click to expand...

That is completely wrong.

Whoever told you that is exhibiting typical MA beaten down dog syndrome. Afraid to exercise his rights under and WITHIN the law. If you feel differently, please cite the law that prohibits you from carrying into a place that serves alcohol. WRONG. WRONG WRONG.

If you can't cite a law, because there isn't one, please reference on example where someone was ever arrested for carrying at a bar. Thanks.

TO ALL YOU NEW SHOOTERS. CARRY TO A BAR IF YOU WANT. JUST DON'T DRINK.
 
temchik said:
Of course it's wrong, nobody said there was a law, but the lunacy does not stop with laws...
Click to expand...


No, but it begins with acting as though there are laws that don't exist.

This is why I made up the word Massprudence - exceeding the requirements of law, to avoid complications WRT gun laws.

That being said, if one self-limits where one carries, fine. But saying "Don't carry in a place that serves alcohol," while it may be Massprudent, is not a Law....and a new-to-the-game person reading your post may think that your opinion derives from legal authority, and pass along bad info.

I'm not slamming you, but pointing out that there are enough confusing laws and bass-ackwards interpretations thereof that more are not needed.

.
 
temchik said:
Of course it's wrong, nobody said there was a law, but the lunacy does not stop with laws...
Click to expand...

Lunacy is when people who are lawfully licensed to carry into a bar stop doing so (provided they don't drink, but thats just my sense of ethics) stop doing so because some
guy on a forum told them they could be arrested for doing so.

So again, I ask for one example of someone who was acting lawfully, who was harassed/arrested for carrying into a bar, in full compliance with MA laws.

One. Lets see one example.
 
So again, I ask for one example of someone who was acting lawfully, who was harassed/arrested for carrying into a bar, in full compliance with MA laws.

One. Lets see one example.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the lack of an example is a tribute to the responsibility with which the vast majority of LTC holders carry themselves.

The real answer is "it depends". The only real danger is the "suitability" issue, not a legal one, for the non-drinker in bars - and that is a real YMMV situation depending on the licensing officer and the totality situation. There is a huge difference (in perception, not legality) between going to a bar that serves food for lunch and going to a crowded hip-hop bar known as a trouble spot armed at 1AM.
 
Last edited:
Also as if there are no examples of people being harassed while in full compliance with the law. Laws are so confusing and vague that LEOs interpret them differently, so... try open carrying and see where full compliance with the law leads you
 
dcmdon said:
Lunacy is when people who are lawfully licensed to carry into a bar stop doing so (provided they don't drink, but thats just my sense of ethics) stop doing so because some
guy on a forum told them they could be arrested for doing so.

So again, I ask for one example of someone who was acting lawfully, who was harassed/arrested for carrying into a bar, in full compliance with MA laws.

One. Lets see one example.
Click to expand...



Well, this is not specifically about carry.....

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...7-Brother-got-pulled-over-leaving-a-bar/page8
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Perhaps the lack of an example is a tribute to the responsibility with which the vast majority of LTC holders carry themselves.

The real answer is "it depends". The only real danger is the "suitability" issue, not a legal one, for the non-drinker in bars - and that is a real YMMV situation depending on the licensing officer and the totality situation. There is a huge difference (in perception, not legality) between going to a bar that serves food for lunch and going to a crowded hip-hop bar known as a trouble spot armed at 1AM.
Click to expand...

For it to even come into play, it would somehow have to be revealed that I was carrying. Which would most likely involve a defensive situation. Or maybe I could have a heart attack while eating out.

But either way, its a risk:reward assessment.

Generally speaking, I always carry at night when my wife and I go out, including restaurants and bars. For my personal sense of whats right and wrong, the only satisfactory BAC for me is 0.00. So I don't drink. If I'm going somewhere and plan to drink, I leave my gun at home. I'm talking ethics here, not massprudence or even the actual law. Just my personal ethics.
 

Similar threads

Treatment for alcohol
Replies
22
Views
747
whacko
whacko
C&R and Mass. FFL (but not Mass. dealer)
Replies
6
Views
228
milktree
milktree
When are you a "gunsmith"?
Replies
16
Views
283
LakeTrout
L
Personal transfer of pre-Healy MA compliant AR and/or lowers
Replies
4
Views
294
Mesatchornug
Mesatchornug
HD.4607 and Gun Trusts
Replies
0
Views
250
Tuck
T
Back
Top Bottom