Guns and Alcohol.

This it why I coined the term Massprudence.

Just because your actions are lawful, does not mean that you cannot be jammed up legally.

First - there is no definition as to what "Under the influence" is WRT carrying.
Second - though the gun is unloaded and secured in a locked container, if you have the key, or combo, and unless you're so hammered that you cannot operate the lock, a Crusading DA could make the argument that you retained "control", as you can get to it.

Now....are you going to drink enough that you'll be impaired enough to attract the attention of John Law on your ride home? Unless you can answer "Hell no!".....
 
I'm not a big fan of your Massprudence theory, but in the case of booze and guns, I'm mostly driven by my own ethos. In the case posted on the last page, I'd simply meet my friend out and not drink. With rights come responsibilities.
 
I'm not a fan, either.....but then, people who are falling down the stairs are not fond of gravity...

[laugh]

And, I did not derive it as a theory, per se, but as an observation of behavior, as practiced by gun owners in the PRM. I don't make the news, I just report it....or make up a word to describe it!

[laugh]
 
I would just be extra careful when involving yourself with booze and firearms. I am not here to debate the legality or limits or anything like that. All I am saying is, why risk it and..do you really wanna be the guinea pig?
 
Responsibility will be practiced, it would just be nice if ma wasn't making vague laws to bend over citizens at every corner. Someday I won't live here..

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
 
gus310 said:
Responsibility will be practiced, it would just be nice if ma wasn't making vague laws to bend over citizens at every corner. Someday I won't live here..
Click to expand...

My new philosophy with this stuff is why even take a risk. One mistake and they can jack your rights forever however unlawful and unconstitutional it may be. Instead of moving, I feel a more worthy cause would be activism. Support Comm2a, Goal and forums like this. ( Money isnt the only way, awareness to these organizations and education help alot )

Instead of just leaving, help get the laws changed and make it better for people like my son who is growing up and will have to deal with it if we don't.
 
After the holidays and a few more rounds through my first gun I intend on making a few donations to comm2a etc. Not just hoping to escape BC of this, there's other places I'd like to go, visit, possibly live. For now friends, family, work and lack of funds keep me here, and in the meantime I'm happy here, though some changes would be nice.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
 
Although I don't think it adds anything that hasn't been said by others, I'm posting this quote because it is from a criminal defense attorney's blog:

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 269 Section 10H prohibits anyone from carrying a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The standard for "under the influence" is the same as for OUI cases. A conviction for this crime carries a potential two and one half year house of correction sentence. This crime is not often prosecuted. As a matter of fact, as of today Lexis shows that there are not reported decisions dealing with this crime.
Click to expand...
 
MaynardDad said:
Although I don't think it adds anything that hasn't been said by others, I'm posting this quote because it is from a criminal defense attorney's blog:
Click to expand...

Bad information can be found everywhere.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 269 Section 10H prohibits anyone from carrying a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
Click to expand...

To clarify, it does not prohibit anyone; rather, it only prohibits LTC holders. Further, it must be a loaded firearm.

The standard for "under the influence" is the same as for OUI cases.
Click to expand...
To the best of my knowledge, this is pure speculation and should not be stated as fact. Indeed, the author notes there are no reported decisions dealing with this crime. He does not state where he found the alleged definition of "under the influence." It may very well be correct, but it may not be either.

This crime is not often prosecuted.
Click to expand...
Over the past few years, I have seen several people charged with this crime.
 
Gidge said:
How would they know if you were sniffing glue ? [rolleyes]
Click to expand...

The hair is a dead giveaway.....

lloyd-bridges-airplane-1.jpg
 
SClaflin said:
Bad information can be found everywhere.



To clarify, it does not prohibit anyone; rather, it only prohibits LTC holders. Further, it must be a loaded firearm.


To the best of my knowledge, this is pure speculation and should not be stated as fact. Indeed, the author notes there are no reported decisions dealing with this crime. He does not state where he found the alleged definition of "under the influence." It may very well be correct, but it may not be either.


Over the past few years, I have seen several people charged with this crime.
Click to expand...

Good information, all of it.

That the statute only applies to LTC holders presents an interesting 5th amendment issue. You must produce an LTC to avoid being charged iwth carrying without a license, but in so doing you incriminate yourself on the carrying under the influence.
 
I think the point is that "Carrying under the influence" is a charge that can only be levied against a holder of a valid LTC b/c of the way "carrying" is defined in the law. Someone who is unlawfully in possession of a loaded gun while under the influence would certainly (you'd think) be hit with some combination of charges, but the one in question technically could not be among them.
 
TBalls said:
I think the point is that "Carrying under the influence" is a charge that can only be levied against a holder of a valid LTC b/c of the way "carrying" is defined in the law. Someone who is unlawfully in possession of a loaded gun while under the influence would certainly (you'd think) be hit with some combination of charges, but the one in question technically could not be among them.
Click to expand...

This law is written this way to protect cops.
 
falcon123 said:
I never put gunpowder in my drinks.
Click to expand...

[h=3]Lightning in a Wagon[/h] The first bar in Denver.
On Christmas Eve, 1858, trader and mountaineer Richens Lacy Wootton pulled eight goods-laden wagons into the burgeoning settlement at the confluence of Cherry Creek and the South Platte and unloaded two barrels of Taos Lightning—a wheat-based liquor laced with gunpowder, tobacco, and pepper, among other things. He began passing out shots of the whiskeylike concoction, better known as "bust-head," "tangle-foot," or "rot-gut."*
 
Kevlar - Thanks.

I'm in the habit of asking for (or providing) citations whenever a reference to law is made.

Wow. That is a very strangely written law. Some of what I can get from it is that.

1) You could lock your guns in your trunk and go have a drink. This is not necessarily a bad thing. (My gun club in CT has a bar that I'll occasionally have a beer at after shooting. ) With a FID, you are pretty safe because, well, its Shall Issue and there is nothing anyone could do about it if you got into an accident or something on the way home. With a LTC, you could get in trouble for trying to do that because if the Chief decided your actions made you unsuitable, then you would be screwed.

Is that the right amount of MA Paranoia and legal correctness?

2) If you have a LTC you could legally carry an unloaded firearm and be drunk. (Again, the suitability thing and good judgement makes this an il advised thing to do, but it would be legal)


Don

p.s. If you have a LTC with a range or hunting restriction, can you legally carry an UNloaded handgun on your person? A link to the relevant law would be much appreciated.

p.p.s. CT along with most of the states lowered the BAC threshold for DUI from .1% to .08% about 10 years ago. Whats funny is that CT law explicitly gives a BAC of .1% as being impaired with respect to carrying a loaded firearm.

So in CT, if you have a BAC of .08 or .09%, you are legal to carry a loaded firearm, but not legal to drive. Ha.
 
Last edited:
Don,

Re your PS, AFAIK there is no formal, written definition as to whether this is lawful, or not.

Massprudence indicates not doing it; if John Law talks to you by the road, the subtleties of the meaning of a "Target and Hunting" or "Sporting" restriction is not what you want to talk about.
 
dcmdon said:
Kevlar - Thanks.

I'm in the habit of asking for (or providing) citations whenever a reference to law is made.

Wow. That is a very strangely written law. Some of what I can get from it is that.

1) You could lock your guns in your trunk and go have a drink. This is not necessarily a bad thing. (My gun club in CT has a bar that I'll occasionally have a beer at after shooting. ) With a FID, you are pretty safe because, well, its Shall Issue and there is nothing anyone could do about it if you got into an accident or something on the way home. With a LTC, you could get in trouble for trying to do that because if the Chief decided your actions made you unsuitable, then you would be screwed.

Is that the right amount of MA Paranoia and legal correctness?

2) If you have a LTC you could legally carry an unloaded firearm and be drunk. (Again, the suitability thing and good judgement makes this an il advised thing to do, but it would be legal)


Don

p.s. If you have a LTC with a range or hunting restriction, can you legally carry an UNloaded handgun on your person? A link to the relevant law would be much appreciated.

p.p.s. CT along with most of the states lowered the BAC threshold for DUI from .1% to .08% about 10 years ago. Whats funny is that CT law explicitly gives a BAC of .1% as being impaired with respect to carrying a loaded firearm.

So in CT, if you have a BAC of .08 or .09%, you are legal to carry a loaded firearm, but not legal to drive. Ha.
Click to expand...

What is the legal definition in MA for "loaded" gun? What if I don't have a round in the chamber but have a full magazine? Is my semi-auto "loaded" or not in that situation?
 
I handled a case where my client was carrying one night and unexpectedly got invited to a keg party. Poor judgment lead to his getting hammered over 3 hours while still carrying his firearm. He was found nearly passed out with the firearm by his side. For some reason in his drunken stupor he decided to remove the magazine and round in the chamber. Case was dismissed at magistrates hearing. I don't think he will get his LTC back for a long time though.
 
[email protected] said:
I handled a case where my client was carrying one night and unexpectedly got invited to a keg party. Poor judgment lead to his getting hammered over 3 hours while still carrying his firearm. He was found nearly passed out with the firearm by his side. For some reason in his drunken stupor he decided to remove the magazine and round in the chamber. Case was dismissed at magistrates hearing. I don't think he will get his LTC back for a long time though.
Click to expand...

So he handled the firearm while drunk? Yeah. Dumb.

How do you think it would have gone if he had cleared the gun and stowed it in the trunk prior to drinking?

Would his LTC be gone, or would the DUI have done that on its own?

Don

Re: my above post. CT law does not define "loaded" in its alcohol statute. But they do in their statute around loaded long gun in a MV. It may still apply, but I'm not sure. Here it is:

Sec. 53-205. Loaded shotguns, rifles and muzzleloaders prohibited in vehicles and snowmobiles. (a) No person shall carry or possess in any vehicle or snowmobile any shotgun, rifle or muzzleloader of any gauge or caliber while such shotgun, rifle or muzzleloader contains in the barrel, chamber or magazine any loaded shell or cartridge capable of being discharged or when such muzzleloader has a percussion cap in place or when the powder pan of a flintlock contains powder. As used in this subsection, "muzzleloader" means a rifle or shotgun that is incapable of firing a self-contained cartridge and must be loaded at the muzzle end.

Here is alcohol statute:

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.
 
Last edited:
dcmdon said:
So he handled the firearm while drunk? Yeah. Dumb.How do you think it would have gone if he had cleared the gun and stowed it in the trunk prior to drinking? Would his LTC be gone, or would the DUI have done that on its own? .
Click to expand...
If it was in the trunk and he was outside the car more than arms reach away from the trunk then I would argue he was not carrying as defined in the statute.
 

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