Lose LTC Quickly...update post 112

[TReischl]

Libertarian republic.

I did an internet search, could not find a definition for a "Libertarian Republic". Did find "Libertarians" and "Republicans". But evidently, there is no such thing as a "Libertarian Republic". If I am wrong, please enlighten me.

De minimis tax needed to fund a de minimus government. How about a 5% sales tax and nothing else?

You of course realize that your 5% sales tax would not even fund local schools? BTW, people that live in states with no sales tax would immediately be in disagreement with you.

The same way we did before the 16th amendment passed in 1913.

I would always agree that we spend a lot of money on programs that we should not be funding. That said, it is also not 1913, when I go to a Public Library, I would prefer NOT to use an outhouse. In my lifetime, the population has doubled, that requires a lot more in terms of infrastructure (not programs), that needs to be funded.

A small enough number that none of them have time to write tickets to generate revenue, to seize property in forfeiture cases, to enforce any laws related to possession of controlled substances or items, to license activity that should otherwise be free, to engage in random stops or searches without cause, or to put forth more deadly force than is in the hands of the general public. I want few enough that they are too busy with real crimes against people and property to bother the rest of us.

Ah, so you would like to not have traffic laws, so you could drive at any speed that pleased you, so could anyone else. 60 MPH where there are children playing in a neighborhood. Of course, since you have reduced the level of police, the chances of finding who ran the kids over would be virtually impossible. Also, in your world, since there would be no seizing of property due to forfeiture, no one would loan anyone any money. That would make it very difficult for anyone but the very wealthy to purchase large ticket items, like homes and automobiles.

I'd be willing to try "none", but I'm meeting you halfway here. As it is, I fear the police more than I fear criminals (and I don't break the law), so we've got plenty of room to cut.

What you fear is your choice. But from your answer, then you no doubt carry a weapon to protect yourself more from the police than from criminals?

No, but I am saying that the risk of armed drunks behind the wheel is less material to my life than the taxation and risk presented by government as it is.

Possibly the risks of drunks behind the wheel is less material because of active enforcement of drunk driving laws, allowing you to worry about taxation and risk posed by the government? If the roads were full of drunks, you would be a lot more concerned with that issue, I am sure, your life would be in danger everytime you got behind the wheel.

You mentioned in your first post that an "army" was out there. Strange, the only time I see anything that even resembles an "army" is when three police cars convene at the Dunkin Donuts. I have seen armies, they don't look anything like our police departments.

 

[M1911]

What about shooting while drinking? There's a place close to me that I frequent occasionally that does turkey shoots on Sundays and has a full bar about ten feet from the shotgun rack.

I believe that at one time in Germany and Austria it was common to have a small, waist-high table to the left of your shooting positions, so that you had a place to put down your beer stein when it was your turn to shoot. I don't know if that is still done.

From a political perspective here in the US, I think having a bar at a gun club can bring unwanted attention to the club. For example, a club member gets !@#!-faced at the bar, drives towards home, gets in a wreck, and the fact that he was coming from a gun club drunk makes it into the press. That doesn't look good to Mrs. Soccermom who already hates the gun club.

From a practical perspective, bars at gun clubs bring challenges. They cost a lot to run (insurance, salary and benefits for the bartender, utility cost), you have a lot of cash running through it which can prove tempting to some individuals, and you can run into situations where you get shooting and drinking factions who don't like each other.

 

[Fixxah]

What about shooting while drinking? There's a place close to me that I frequent occasionally that does turkey shoots on Sundays and has a full bar about ten feet from the shotgun rack.

You mean like, hold my beer and watch this? GMAFB, NOBODY allows this.

-tapatalk blows chunks-

 

[Terminator03]

There is a bit of a difference, IMO. Driving requires specific actions in order to keep it safe, actions which are difficult to do when impaired. In contrast, a holstered gun just needs inaction to be safe -- leave it in the holster.

No, I'm not advocating drinking and carrying. But I don't think the two issues are as equivalent as some people make them out to be.

I agree with you, except that most people who think about this (and are honest about it) will say that you are more likely to make an error in judgement which could cause you to not "leave it in the holster" when maybe you should, or would have if you were not impaired. That is why having a clear limit set as with driving makes sense. Obviously the driving limits are not completely arbitrary, and were set based on studies of the average person's ability to operate when impaired. I feel that system would be a better way to apply this law (if it needs to exist) rather than just saying you are unsuitable, or otherwise screwed just because you had your CCW on you and had a glass of wine at dinner. You're right that the 2 examples may not be equivalent, but having a baseline level to determine drunkenness seems better than the way it exists now.

 

[M1911]

I agree with you, except that most people who think about this (and are honest about it) will say that you are more likely to make an error in judgement which could cause you to not "leave it in the holster" when maybe you should, or would have if you were not impaired.

I guess I'm dishonest then, because my gun never came out of the holster, except to put it away. And I never pointed it at anyone or had an ND.

Some people don't turn into a**h***s when they've had a few.

 

[ochmude]

Where you and I are probably going to differ is your assertion that drunk driving is a crime without a victim. By your logic, I should be able to run outside right now and shoot my gun randomly in the air for as long as I want, but as long as no bullets ever hit a person or destroy private property, it shouldn't be against the law because there is no victim.

Where I live, that isn't against the law. In fact, like I mentioned in some other thread awhile back, our vehicles often get peppered by birdshot from dove hunters while we're patrolling during the season, and pretty much no one cares. Speaking as a fellow veteran, it's sad that you swore an oath to defend the ideals of freedom upon which this country was built, and you deployed to actively do the same, yet you really have no concept of what this freedom actually feels like. I don't mean that as an insult, but rather as a genuine expression of sympathy for your situation.

 

[gearjunky13]

One thing i believe people are missing that make this law is even worse is what if your on medication, although you fine to carry and not a danger to others or yourself, the law may see it differently since what you took may indeed have somthing in it that per say could be seen as intoxicating.

Cold medicine is somthing that could do this but would you consider not ccw if you took some? Do you not have the right to protect your self when your sick, just saying its a very large gray area here.

 

[economist]

You of course realize that your 5% sales tax would not even fund local schools? BTW, people that live in states with no sales tax would immediately be in disagreement with you.

I would always agree that we spend a lot of money on programs that we should not be funding. That said, it is also not 1913, when I go to a Public Library, I would prefer NOT to use an outhouse. In my lifetime, the population has doubled, that requires a lot more in terms of infrastructure (not programs), that needs to be funded.

As long as we have our successful public schools and you can use a nice public bathroom at the library then it is all worth it.

 

[xtry51]

I don't see why drinking should have any effect on the ability and freedom for you to protect yourself.

 

[OnTheRoad]

I agree with you, except that most people who think about this (and are honest about it) will say that you are more likely to make an error in judgement which could cause you to not "leave it in the holster" when maybe you should, or would have if you were not impaired.

Based on some of the chicks I woke up next to after a bender back in the day, I'd have to say I agree with you there.

 

[CadillacGolfer]

Having seen more than a fair share of morons with beer muscles, causing fights in bars and clubs, I don't think it's a far stretch to say those same knuckleheads would draw their weapon when they shouldn't

 

[ochmude]

Having seen more than a fair share of morons with beer muscles, causing fights in bars and clubs, I don't think it's a far stretch to say those same knuckleheads would draw their weapon when they shouldn't

Good point. I suppose it's a good thing there are laws preventing carrying while intoxicated, then, to prevent drunk knuckleheads from doing something stupid with a gun. Too bad there aren't laws against assault. That would prevent all those fights in bars and clubs.

 

[M1911]

Good point. I suppose it's a good thing there are laws preventing carrying while intoxicated, then, to prevent drunk knuckleheads from doing something stupid with a gun. Too bad there aren't laws against assault. That would prevent all those fights in bars and clubs.

Yup.

 

[davemata]

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

Seriously? Did you just ****ing type this?

Define drunk. WHY THE HELL IS IT A CRIME TO BE DRUNK WHILE ARMED? For someone on a gun forum to say "That's what he gets..."

You should feel shame. You should call your mother and apologize.

 

[Terminator03]

I guess I'm dishonest then, because my gun never came out of the holster, except to put it away. And I never pointed it at anyone or had an ND.

Some people don't turn into a**h***s when they've had a few.

I wasn't directing that statement about you personally (or myself). It was more of a general type statement because not everyone behaves well with alcohol. People who have aggressive tendencies can have that personality magnified as an example. I have personally had a glass of wine many times at dinner and never felt the need to draw my sidearm either, but as I said not everyone is the same. Some people can drive in a normal fashion after consuming a 12 pack, while others may be impaired after 2.

 

[center442]

I don't see why drinking should have any effect on the ability and freedom for you to protect yourself.

This, x 1000. If you're stupid enough to let the alcohol override common sense, there are ample laws to deal with that. The type of person that would engage in that behavior isn't going to be stopped by an additional law that says you can't carry when you've had a drink. To lose a basic right because you've had a drink or two is wrong. I see no logical connection between the two.

Perhaps we should have sobriety checks before people exercise some of their other basic rights, like voting or conceiving children.

 

[yanici]

Update on original post. From Lowell Sun. http://www.lowellsun.com/local/ci_21766032/tewksbury-firearm-suspect-released

In Lowell District Court Thursday, Charles Waitt, of 3 Butterworth Road, was released on personal recognizance after pleading not guilty to operating under the influence, being a licensed gun owner carrying a firearm while intoxicated, and speeding.

Tewksbury police say that while conducting a building check at Trahan Elementary School on Salem Street at 2:02 a.m., an officer spotted a car going 45-50 mph in the 30-mph zone.

When the officer pulled over the 2013 Chevrolet Camaro, the

Police seized this gun as evidence in the charges against Charles Waitt of Wilmington. Courtesy photo

Sun staff photos can be ordered by visiting our MyCapture site. officer saw Waitt in the driver's seat and a male passenger in the car. Waitt was so intoxicated he was having trouble speaking. The officer noted a strong odor of alcohol coming from Waitt.
The officer asked Waitt if he had any weapons on him. Waitt allegedly acknowledged that in the front pocket of his sweatshirt he had a loaded handgun, which he was licensed to carry.

Police say Waitt failed a series of field-sobriety tests and registered .18 in a portable Breathalyzer test, more than double the legal limit of .08.

When police asked whether carrying a firearm while drinking was wise, Waitt allegedly responded that he always carries it no matter what he does or where he goes. His next court date is Dec. 13 for a pretrial

 

[ChevyGuy91]

This entire thread...

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to economist again.

On point, as always.

Speaking as a fellow veteran, it's sad that you swore an oath to defend the ideals of freedom upon which this country was built, and you deployed to actively do the same, yet you really have no concept of what this freedom actually feels like. I don't mean that as an insult, but rather as a genuine expression of sympathy for your situation.

Great post! Unfortunately, this is far to common.

Holy. ****ing. Shit.

srsly

 

[Terminator03]

This, x 1000. If you're stupid enough to let the alcohol override common sense, there are ample laws to deal with that. The type of person that would engage in that behavior isn't going to be stopped by an additional law that says you can't carry when you've had a drink. To lose a basic right because you've had a drink or two is wrong. I see no logical connection between the two.

Perhaps we should have sobriety checks before people exercise some of their other basic rights, like voting or conceiving children.

No one was saying that more laws should be added, only clarification such as a limit similar to drunk driving so that someone doesn't get jammed up just because they happen to be carrying and stop for a beer. The way the law exists now there is zero tolerance which is silly.

 

[Terminator03]

Update on original post. From Lowell Sun. http://www.lowellsun.com/local/ci_21766032/tewksbury-firearm-suspect-released

Well, I guess based on the .18 BAC there is no denying he was drunk, and even if an officer would be inclined to cut the guy some slack, there is no way they would (or could) at that level. Sad, but the guy did the crime, now he has to do the time.

 

[yanici]

Well, I guess based on the .18 BAC there is no denying he was drunk, and even if an officer would be inclined to cut the guy some slack, there is no way they would (or could) at that level. Sad, but the guy did the crime, now he has to do the time.

Could have been the booze talking but he claimed he did it willfully.

 

[economist]

Well, I guess based on the .18 BAC there is no denying he was drunk, and even if an officer would be inclined to cut the guy some slack, there is no way they would (or could) at that level. Sad, but the guy did the crime, now he has to do the time.

But why? Some laws shouldn't exist (hell, most shouldn't exist). This is why anyone serving on a jury should be willing to ignore bad law and why we should speak out against bad law when we see it. The law is a meaningless and arbitrary outcome produced by majority rule. It has no moral significance. When I see bad law being applied I don't think "well, he broke the law, so too bad for him". Rather, I hope the victim of bad law gets off somehow (jury nullification, flaw in prosecution, whatever). Why acquiesce to a system you oppose?

If you mean that you think the law is just here ignore the above. I would disagree, and I think being capable of self defense in any state is a natural right.

 

[Garys]

Obviously a persons self defense is their own business. I personally do not carry when I know I will be having a cocktail. I have been carrying and was offered a drink while at a relatives house and declined for that reason. I would say that I am whipped by Mass laws and the moonbattery but it is difficult enough to get a license in this state that i will not risk it. I am also 1000% more likely to have my wife drive after I have had more than one drink. If you do one you have to think of the other.......

This.

 

[MtRiverCharlie]

I did an internet search, could not find a definition for a "Libertarian Republic". Did find "Libertarians" and "Republicans". But evidently, there is no such thing as a "Libertarian Republic". If I am wrong, please enlighten me.

Wow.

1. You don't know the difference between Republican and Republic

2. You needed to use the internet for this information.

3. You're obviously too fraking stupid to even use the internet since you couldn't find the right answer.

Do us all a favor. Stop voting.

 

[Terminator03]

But why? Some laws shouldn't exist (hell, most shouldn't exist). This is why anyone serving on a jury should be willing to ignore bad law and why we should speak out against bad law when we see it. The law is a meaningless and arbitrary outcome produced by majority rule. It has no moral significance. When I see bad law being applied I don't think "well, he broke the law, so too bad for him". Rather, I hope the victim of bad law gets off somehow (jury nullification, flaw in prosecution, whatever). Why acquiesce to a system you oppose?

If you mean that you think the law is just here ignore the above. I would disagree, and I think being capable of self defense in any state is a natural right.

I get what you are saying, but these are laws that DO exist already, and are not likely to go away anytime soon, so we are forced to abide by them whether we feel they are right, or not. The fact that the guy was obviously plowed was enough by itself to nail him with the DUI, but then carrying a firearm was just another charge they were more than happy to pile on because state law allows for that. In this case the old saying "PSGWSP" really fits because he obviously knew the consequences and made the choice to drive anyway. Whether the law is just, or not is really irrelevant when it is already in place.

 

[Cerfur]

I am someone who was recently hit buy a drunk driver and it has caused a good deal of pain and alot of inconvenience.. I am also someone who can no longer drink any more then about half a beer for medical reasons.. The fact that someone cannot carry while drinking to me is absolutely silly.. We at least the fact that they don't out line a limit... And if they did have a limit should be far high then .08. But there are no laws that i know of that say i cant carry a knife whlie drinking... so i see no reason to say we cant carry.
I see it this way alot of violence stabbings, shootings, severe life threating beatings happen inside and outside bars... Also drunk iddiots are often known for involving normal folks into fights they don't want anything to do with... I would think in genral the likely hood of you needing to defend yourself goes up drastically in a establishment where alcohol is being served.... So the fact that you could be charged and lose you ltc currently for drinking a beer is silly..

 

[center442]

I get what you are saying, but these are laws that DO exist already, and are not likely to go away anytime soon, so we are forced to abide by them whether we feel they are right, or not. The fact that the guy was obviously plowed was enough by itself to nail him with the DUI, but then carrying a firearm was just another charge they were more than happy to pile on because state law allows for that. In this case the old saying "PSGWSP" really fits because he obviously knew the consequences and made the choice to drive anyway. Whether the law is just, or not is really irrelevant when it is already in place.

I can understand the guy being charged with OUI. His actions were bad enough that they caught the attention of the police, and he'll have to answer for his behavior. For the most part, I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the fact that he'll basically lose his right to self-defense for doing something stupid that had nothing to do with the gun on his hip.

If he was waving the gun around, firing randomly etc., hold him accountable for that. Nothing that he did directly involved his gun, yet he's going to lose a basic human right by administrative action, that of his licensing officer.

Is it a law? Yes. Is it a fair or just law? No way.

 

[MassMark]

It's hard for me to be amazed anymore. I used to almost physically recoil as I read posts by people claiming to understand liberty, freedom and the Constitution - only to sully that claim by their inherent lack of understanding those very concepts. Now I just skim through and think: "great - there's another one"... This thread is no exception....

 

[MassMark]

Friendly fire, isn't.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Make_MA_2A_Compliant again.

 

[bob king]

I had an old friend who was a cop give me some good advice. He said when you go to the bar to drink leave your guns at home. I've found that to be good advice.