Lose LTC Quickly...update post 112

[yanici]

Foolish young man of 22 years, will never get his LTC again. Just a reminder. If you're gonna carry, don't drink.

UPDATE POST 112

http://tewksbury.patch.com/articles/alleged-drunk-driver-was-carrying-a-gun-when-arrested

 

[MAGG]

thats what he gets ...should have used better judgement

 

[drgrant]

Foolish young man of 22 years, will never get his LTC again. Just a reminder. If your gonna carry, don't drink.

Well, there are 10 different ways to look at it, where he would not have had a problem... the driving thing is what really exposed him to all the liability here. The bar for "LE getting in your business" is 1000 times lower when you are behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. If he had called a cab or a friend to pick him up none of this would have happened.

-Mike

 

[ntomsw]

That sucks.

 

[That Guy]

Agreed, Mike. And I'll go one further and say that even if he was the same level of drunk and carrying and he somehow did have an interaction with the police, they would be a lot more inclined to not take action. Yes, there are some cops that would still jam you up, but many would not. When you start compounding your mistakes by driving, well, not much can be done to help that little fellah.

 

[BIG1PUN]

That sucks.

^^^this

 

[edhead35]

This is why we should raise the LTC age to 75

 

[bill o]

Does an issuing agency usually revoke an LTC when someone is charged with carrying while intoxicated, or does the state actually have to prove guilt? Or would they revoke it for suitability reasons?

 

[whacko]

Agreed, Mike. And I'll go one further and say that even if he was the same level of drunk and carrying and he somehow did have an interaction with the police, they would be a lot more inclined to not take action. Yes, there are some cops that would still jam you up, but many would not. When you start compounding your mistakes by driving, well, not much can be done to help that little fellah.

I think the bottom line here is to obey the law to the letter :"It is unlawful for a person with a license to carry on the person or in a vehicle a loaded handgun while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance". PERIOD

If you are carrying.....don't drink.....so even if he called a cab or walked home he was carrying illegally. I drink very rarely.......if I plan to have a social drink......I'm not carrying because it is not only the law it is common sense.

 

[glide]

I drink very rarely.......if I plan to have a social drink......I'm not carrying because it is not only the law it is common sense.

Bad things can't happen to you while drinking responsibly? Must be nice. Kind of like being at the post office or a school.

 

[Baystatesuks]

Out of curiousity, does this law apply universally? In other words, can an LEO drink while armed and that's okay? Reason I ask is here in VA it is unlawful to drink with a concealed hangun unless you are an LEO or Commonwealth's attorney. Then it is permitted by statute. Some animals are more equal than others.

 

[Danrk6]

Drunk driving aside.

Why should having a few drinks suddenly take away your right to self defense?

 

[TheQuag]

So let me play devil's advocate, I take my wife out to dinner at a great resturaunt but in an area thats a bit on the edge. I know we are going to have to walk a few blocks from a parking garage thru dark streets. I decide to carry. I have one drink. I get pulled over on the way home and the LEO finds out on his computer I have a LTC. He asks if I am I say yes. So far so good. He asks me to step out of the car and decides I might be impaired runs a breathalyzer on me I pass the legal limit but it clealy shows alcohol is in my system.

Would he charge me for carrying while impaired but let the driving go?

Anyway I think this is the more likly scenario we might get into, obviously very few us would get "drunk" while carrying.

 

[Inferno]

Why does this guy look so damn familiar??

Kind of looks like the guy I just interviewed haha

 

[In God We Trust]

I wonder what his NES screen name is?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Would he charge me for carrying while impaired but let the driving go?

The late great Cross-X told me he defended someone who was charged with carrying under the influence, but not charged with OUI even though he both carrying and driving. I believe he won that case, and told me he had fun with that cross examination.

 

[whacko]

Bad things can't happen to you while drinking responsibly? Must be nice. Kind of like being at the post office or a school.

My point is alcohol consumption definately impairs judgement......kinda why its against the law to drive intoxicated! Applying proper site alignment and trigger squeeze on a BG in a self defense situation would be difficult enough sober........I think you get my point. Imagine what the lawyers are going to do to you if you use a fire arm in self defense.....and there is alcohol in your system. Again I'll state that I drink VERY rarely......I prefer to keep my senses sharp for the vast majority of the time. If you chose to drink while armed obviously that is your business. We are all entitled to our opinions.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

and there is alcohol in your system.

Unlike driving, there is no implied consent for a BAC because you are carrying and, under the established rules of evidence for OUI and the MA interpretation of the 5th amendment, refusal to submit to a BAC cannot be used as evidence against you, or admitted as testimony, at trial.

 

[JAYNOSE79]

My point is alcohol consumption definately impairs judgement......kinda why its against the law to drive intoxicated! Applying proper site alignment and trigger squeeze on a BG in a self defense situation would be difficult enough sober........I think you get my point. Imagine what the lawyers are going to do to you if you use a fire arm in self defense.....and there is alcohol in your system. Again I'll state that I drink VERY rarely......I prefer to keep my senses sharp for the vast majority of the time. If you chose to drink while armed obviously that is your business. We are all entitled to our opinions.

"I rather be judged by 12 then carried by 6" I love that quote.

 

[whacko]

Unlike driving, there is no implied consent for a BAC because you are carrying and, under the established rules of evidence for OUI and the MA interpretation of the 5th amendment, refusal to submit to a BAC cannot be used as evidence against you, or admitted as testimony, at trial.

Would your bar tab and / or whitnesses at the the bar that you had a few drinks be admissable as evidence at a trial after you shot someone in self defense.....

 

[ochmude]

I just did some research into how this would play out where I live. In Arizona, it's illegal to drink while carrying, just like in MA. However, you can get arrested and convicted for doing so and still keep carrying like nothing happened, because it's not a felony. Constitutional carry is awesome.

 

[MichaelJR]

Only way to can get an OUI is if you volunteer to take a breathalyzer. So, refuse breathalyzer, refuse field test because you have anxiety about it, the only thing they can do is PC you and take away your drivers license for X days. No felony, no conviction, technically you're not a disqualified person, right?

Sure, your license is gone, but you have no felony. They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Get a decent lawyer after the fact. Without a registered BAC test down, their hands are tied right?

I know cops try and talk you into it being "mandatory", but in all actuality, it's not, and without a breathalyzer and field test, their case is moot. Am I correct?

For the record, I am in no way advocating drunk driving. It's awful. I'm just trying to figure out the legalities behind it all. I don't believe you should be arrested for having a drink and carrying. A drink shouldn't mean you are legally obligated to be defenseless. I mean let's say you have a drink, carry, get pulled over. You know that you're under the limit, but an over zealous cop might take this as an opportunity. Are you better off refusing the test and taking the hit on your drivers license in order to not become federally disqualified?

I personally don't drink and carry, but I'm sure inquiring minds would be very interested to hear the advice from any law pros concerning this.

 

[gearjunky13]

True to what mike already noted is driving drunk is the hole problem, if your getting arrested for drunk driving the police have to take your firearm and document that you were drunk driving and had a gum. It's a bad idea to drive drunk.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Only way to can get an OUI is if you volunteer to take a breathalyzer. So, refuse breathalyzer, refuse field test because you have anxiety about it, the only thing they can do is PC you and take away your drivers license for X days. No felony, no conviction, technically you're not a disqualified person, right?

Sure, your license is gone, but you have no felony. They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Get a decent lawyer after the fact. Without a registered BAC test down, their hands are tied right?

I know cops try and talk you into it being "mandatory", but in all actuality, it's not, and without a breathalyzer and field test, their case is moot. Am I correct?

Sort of. People can be, and are, tried without a BAC. The chances of acquittal if the defendant can afford competent counsel is excellent, as the refusal to take the BAC may not be introduced as evidence and guilt must be proven using other available info.

First offense OUI without injury in MA generally results in a CWOF (once again, assuming competent counsel). It's a "funny" kind of CWOF as certain things (insurance, determination of subsequent offense, RMV license revocation hearings, etc.) will treat this CWOF as it if were a conviction, however, it does not result in prohibited person status.

 

[KH56010]

Only way to can get an OUI is if you volunteer to take a breathalyzer. So, refuse breathalyzer, refuse field test because you have anxiety about it, the only thing they can do is PC you and take away your drivers license for X days. No felony, no conviction, technically you're not a disqualified person, right?

Sure, your license is gone, but you have no felony. They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Get a decent lawyer after the fact. Without a registered BAC test down, their hands are tied right?

I know cops try and talk you into it being "mandatory", but in all actuality, it's not, and without a breathalyzer and field test, their case is moot. Am I correct?

I thought that they could force you to take the BAC Test once at the station? (assuming you were arrested after saying no to the breathalyzer)

 

[gzt]

Some people must learn from their own mistakes. Drinking and driving is a stupid thing to do. Carrying a gun while drunk and driving drunk is a double stupid. Somehow a natural selection makes more sense

 

[MichaelJR]

Sort of. People can be, and are, tried without a BAC. The chances of acquittal if the defendant can afford competent counsel is excellent, as the refusal to take the BAC may not be introduced as evidence and guilt must be proven using other available info.

First offense OUI without injury in MA generally results in a CWOF (once again, assuming competent counsel). It's a "funny" kind of CWOF as certain things (insurance, determination of subsequent offense, RMV license revocation hearings, etc.) will treat this CWOF as it if were a conviction, however, it does not result in prohibited person status.

So refuse breathalyzer, refuse field test, get PC'd, get a good lawyer, and you're basically going to be A-OK? At least in the eyes of the fed.

- - - Updated - - -

I thought that they could force you to take the BAC Test once at the station? (assuming you were arrested after saying no to the breathalyzer)

Not in MA. Quite a few states can actually force a blood test. MA can't do either.

 

[buketduder]

My point is alcohol consumption definately impairs judgement......kinda why its against the law to drive intoxicated! Applying proper site alignment and trigger squeeze on a BG in a self defense situation would be difficult enough sober........I think you get my point. Imagine what the lawyers are going to do to you if you use a fire arm in self defense.....and there is alcohol in your system. Again I'll state that I drink VERY rarely......I prefer to keep my senses sharp for the vast majority of the time. If you chose to drink while armed obviously that is your business. We are all entitled to our opinions.

Just curious..do you feel the same way about this if one is home ?....Lets say I am home watching some hockey on TV..i have 7-8 good beers and am pretty drunk...someone breaks into my home..what do i do??.....The limit here in CT is .10 for carrying....08 for driving

 

[stinx]

Only way to can get an OUI is if you volunteer to take a breathalyzer. So, refuse breathalyzer, refuse field test because you have anxiety about it, the only thing they can do is PC you and take away your drivers license for X days. No felony, no conviction, technically you're not a disqualified person, right?

Sure, your license is gone, but you have no felony. They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Get a decent lawyer after the fact. Without a registered BAC test down, their hands are tied right?

I know cops try and talk you into it being "mandatory", but in all actuality, it's not, and without a breathalyzer and field test, their case is moot. Am I correct?

For the record, I am in no way advocating drunk driving. It's awful. I'm just trying to figure out the legalities behind it all. I don't believe you should be arrested for having a drink and carrying. A drink shouldn't mean you are legally obligated to be defenseless. I mean let's say you have a drink, carry, get pulled over. You know that you're under the limit, but an over zealous cop might take this as an opportunity. Are you better off refusing the test and taking the hit on your drivers license in order to not become federally disqualified?

I personally don't drink and carry, but I'm sure inquiring minds would be very interested to hear the advice from any law pros concerning this.

This is not accurate, you can be arrested tried and convicted even without taking field sobriety or the breath test. The case is much harder to prove against you, but in a jury trial you never know what the jury is going to do.

 

[M1911]

So refuse breathalyzer, refuse field test, get PC'd, get a good lawyer, and you're basically going to be A-OK? At least in the eyes of the fed.

Not necessarily. If the dash-cam footage shows you falling down drunk and if they have video in the booking facility that shows the same, then I suspect a jury might well convict you.