Lose LTC Quickly...update post 112

[cc88]

Im trying to understand the mentality that says "If I have 1 drink, it means I will not carry" especially when paired with "I only drink once or twice per year." So for those two nights out of the year, do you square with the possibility that it could be the night you would have needed to be armed, and weren't? and then subsequently decide that the drink is worth it?

Also, by this line of thought, would you refuse to carry if you had a cold and took a dose of robitussin? or accidentally swallowed some mouthwash or something? These things raise your blood alcohol content too. Granted, by negligible amounts, but to a big guy, one beer will only raise their BAC a negligible amount.

Just curious

 

[whacko]

Im trying to understand the mentality that says "If I have 1 drink, it means I will not carry" especially when paired with "I only drink once or twice per year." So for those two nights out of the year, do you square with the possibility that it could be the night you would have needed to be armed, and weren't? and then subsequently decide that the drink is worth it?

Also, by this line of thought, would you refuse to carry if you had a cold and took a dose of robitussin? or accidentally swallowed some mouthwash or something? These things raise your blood alcohol content too. Granted, by negligible amounts, but to a big guy, one beer will only raise their BAC a negligible amount.

Just curious

.

You are really getting in the weeds with this.........the one or two times a year I go out and have a few drinks with buddies I will chose to leave the fire arm at home. That is my choice.......I'm not pushing it on anybody. I like my LTC and plan to keep it. That's all. I also don't go through life looking for BGs around every corner......so a couple of nights a year.......I guess I'll assume the "risk".

 

[ColdDayInHell]

I'd like to think I live in a world where justice was fair and the law gave everyone a fair shake. I know better.

Well you can leave your gun at home if you think you may come into contact with someone that even looked at a drink wrong.

 

[That Guy]

Can you come up with a way to enforce restrictions on doing X while "drunk" without screwing around with my liberty? I don't drink and drive. I don't get drunk at all. But that doesn't stop the police from harassing me in a roadblock, or in a run of the mill traffic stop, or otherwise interfering with my life. The problem with imposing your desires through the coercive rule of law is that freedom across the board is sacrificed along the way. Crimes without victims result in all of us being treated like potential members of a criminal class.

You have put words in my mouth with this statement. At no point did I say that because I think you shouldn't be allowed to drink and drive or CCW then I am all for road blocks or harassing traffic stops.

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. Or I can drive my car through the middle of the city at 100mph and as long as I didn't hit anyone, shouldn't be against the law.

Personally, I don't think I need to wait for a drunk driver to have actually killed someone before they are arrested. Drunk driving is inherently dangerous and, therefor, it should be illegal. That doesn't mean I support random road blocks (I don't) or that you should be able to be stopped for no reason (I don't).

Now Mike's argument (and M1911) I can understand a little bit more because of the difference between requiring action versus inaction. However, saying that keeping a gun in a holster requires no action is not quite the whole story in the sense of the impaired judgment problems - you may be more likely to pull your gun or use it or, for that matter, just take it out and wave it around (which I have personally witnessed a drunk CCW person do on more than one occasion). It takes some action to keep it in the holster - no action required would be the gun not on your person where it can't be lost or taken out.

I'm not saying I disagree with you entirely, though - it is different than driving which is definitely inherently more dangerous. You are right there.

 

[Eric]

If someone has a LTC & gets a DUI while NOT carrying a gun at the time will they lose their LTC?

 

[M1911]

If someone has a LTC & gets a DUI while NOT carrying a gun at the time will they lose their LTC?

I assume you are talking about MA. If they are convicted, they become a federally prohibited person and can never possess a firearm again for the rest of their life. Yes, they would also lose their LTC.

If they are not convicted, their police chief could still find them unsuitable and revoke their LTC.

 

[In God We Trust]

I don't agree with this for a few reasons...

-Carrying a gun is a right

-Mike

 

[TReischl]

I am just going to toss this out there. All sorts of people carry. Big people, small people, male and females. I know a few females who have about 1.5 drinks and they are pretty well gone. I know a few guys that get a couple, as in 2,3 drinks in them and they get stupid. So, I think that is the reasoning behind no drinking, no carrying. Comparing it to driving is probably not a good choice as has been pointed out.

Before anyone decides that is what I like, not drinking and carrying, I have NOT stated my opinion, only what I think is behind the reasoning.

 

[economist]

You have put words in my mouth with this statement. At no point did I say that because I think you shouldn't be allowed to drink and drive or CCW then I am all for road blocks or harassing traffic stops.

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. Or I can drive my car through the middle of the city at 100mph and as long as I didn't hit anyone, shouldn't be against the law.

I didn't put words in your mouth. I asked how you were going to enforce these things. If you don't do random stops, roadblocks, or some other such thing, what practical difference do you achieve by making drunk driving or carrying while drinking illegal?

 

[el duderino]

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. Or I can drive my car through the middle of the city at 100mph and as long as I didn't hit anyone, shouldn't be against the law.

If hes saying that, I will agree with him.

 

[HTRN]

...behind the reasoning.

More like rationalization. Use the force of the state to limit one's liberty because alcohol and guns are icky. Oh wait, now how do we spin it?

Dont we already have laws around criminal threatening, reckless endangerment, etc...?

I think we need a law that one can't cary a firearm while fatigued. That is really dangerous.

Sent from my mobile device.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

What is more unsettling that laws regulating carrying while drinking are such laws that specifically exempt police. Police can actually pose more of a danger when intoxicated, since they are less accountable for their actions than members of the non-LEO public.

 

[ColdDayInHell]

What is more unsettling that laws regulating carrying while drinking are such laws that specifically exempt police. Police can actually pose more of a danger when intoxicated, since they are less accountable for their actions than members of the non-LEO public.

+1

 

[TReischl]

More like rationalization. Use the force of the state to limit one's liberty because alcohol and guns are icky. Oh wait, now how do we spin it?

Dont we already have laws around criminal threatening, reckless endangerment, etc...?

I think we need a law that one can't cary a firearm while fatigued. That is really dangerous.

Sent from my mobile device.

Fine, rationalization. I did not write the laws.

 

[economist]

More like rationalization. Use the force of the state to limit one's liberty because alcohol and guns are icky. Oh wait, now how do we spin it?

Dont we already have laws around criminal threatening, reckless endangerment, etc...?

I think we need a law that one can't cary a firearm while fatigued. That is really dangerous.

Sent from my mobile device.

The biggest risk to me -- the most dangerous thing in my life -- is local, state and federal government that takes about half of what I earn and has a standing army of police, agencies, and regulators all empowered to take my freedom or my life at their whim. That should be illegal. Hell, I'd rather every driver out there was drunk* than accept the government we have right now.

ETA: *and armed.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The biggest risk to me -- the most dangerous thing in my life -- is a government that takes about half of what I earn and has a standing army of police, agencies, and regulators all empowered to take my freedom or my life at their whim. That should be illegal. Hell, I'd rather every driver out there was drunk than accept the government we have right now.

Either way, it's an intoxication problem. The govt is drunk with power.

 

[HTRN]

The biggest risk to me -- the most dangerous thing in my life -- is local, state and federal government that takes about half of what I earn and has a standing army of police, agencies, and regulators all empowered to take my freedom or my life at their whim. That should be illegal. Hell, I'd rather every driver out there was drunk* than accept the government we have right now.

ETA: *and armed.

Well said.

Sent from my mobile device.

 

[el duderino]

What is more unsettling that laws regulating carrying while drinking are such laws that specifically exempt police. Police can actually pose more of a danger when intoxicated, since they are less accountable for their actions than members of the non-LEO public.

+1 The only time ive ever had a gun pulled on me was by an aquaintance who is a LEO and was off duty and hammered at the time.

 

[TReischl]

The biggest risk to me -- the most dangerous thing in my life -- is local, state and federal government that takes about half of what I earn and has a standing army of police, agencies, and regulators all empowered to take my freedom or my life at their whim. That should be illegal. Hell, I'd rather every driver out there was drunk* than accept the government we have right now.

ETA: *and armed.

So, exactly what kind of government do you have in mind anyhow?

You are obviously unhappy with your level of taxation, should there be any taxation at all?

If not, how do you propose to provide for things like roads, schools, etc?

You do not like a "standing army" of police, so how many police should there be, if any?

If there are none, how does society handle those who victimize people who cannot protect themselves?

I am assuming you would rather NOT drive around on roads full of armed, drunken drivers.

 

[TReischl]

Dinner time, bbl to see how this turns out.

 

[KH56010]

For the legal minded: A lot of posts have said to refuse the BAC tests, refuse sobriety tests and refuse the test at the station. Another follow up post mentioned the "dash cam and camera audio at the station" I don't drink and drive (I live way to far from any decent jobs that I could walk to) but like to know these things. If you're hammered and as your being arrested, would you pull the "I'm having chest pains" line to get to the ER instead of the station? Also, once at the ER will they test your BAC without you being able to deny it (doctors orders) Which would've left you better off being on camera at the station?

 

[BrianK]

So, exactly what kind of government do you have in mind anyhow?

You are obviously unhappy with your level of taxation, should there be any taxation at all?

If not, how do you propose to provide for things like roads, schools, etc?

You do not like a "standing army" of police, so how many police should there be, if any?

If there are none, how does society handle those who victimize people who cannot protect themselves?

I am assuming you would rather NOT drive around on roads full of armed, drunken drivers.

Bring back feudalism, baby! My liege lord will protect me.

 

[economist]

So, exactly what kind of government do you have in mind anyhow?

Libertarian republic.

You are obviously unhappy with your level of taxation, should there be any taxation at all?

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

If not, how do you propose to provide for things like roads, schools, etc?

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

You do not like a "standing army" of police, so how many police should there be, if any?

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.

If there are none, how does society handle those who victimize people who cannot protect themselves?

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.

I am assuming you would rather NOT drive around on roads full of armed, drunken drivers.

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.

 

[AngelKing]

I don't drink that often. I love the occasional Manhattan or dry Martini with my steak and its pretty rare that I tie one on.

If I know I'm drinking, the firearm stays home. Not that I don't trust myself, I just think it invites problems I don't need. I can't say that I feel any sympathy for this guy - he brought this on himself through willful retardation.

 

[joeendris]

...

 

[Fixxah]

I bet it was his first time. Certainly his last, legally.

-tapatalk blows chunks-

 

[MichaelJR]

Libertarian republic.



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



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



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.



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.



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.

All of this.


"Send it" like chinalfr from my can attached to a string from another can in the lair of the dark lord kramdar.

 

[jgeebs413]

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.

 

[el duderino]

Libertarian republic.



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



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



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.



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.



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.

This.

 

[william_munny]

To paraphrase Pulp Fiction, "drinking & driving" and "drinking & carrying" are not in the same ball park. They're not in the same league. They're not even the same ****ing sport.

It sounds like the kid in this story was being irresponsible with his car, but responsible with his firearm. Yet he loses his right to operate both. That ain't right.