For drivers licenses, there is a specific blood alcohol amount which evidence of intoxication. There is no such limit for intoxication while carrying.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Maybe too soon for us in Boston to carry unrestricted?
- Thread starter X14478
- Start date
He might be a new record-holder then. Previously a guy was arrested on his third offense: no jail time for the first two. Seems like all these charges get plead down.
eboos
NES Member
Not necessarily. For OUI it is impaired, or a BAC of 0.08. You don't have to prove a BAC of 0.08 or above to prove impairment, but 0.08 or above is prima facia evidence of impairment. A BAC of less than 0.08 is not necessarily evidence that a defendant is not impaired. Only a BAC of 0.04 or lower (perhaps 0.06 or lower, don't remember off hand) would be an inference of lack of impairment.
For carrying while intoxicated, there must be something observable that would indicate intoxication that could be testified to in court. Merely stating "he smelled like alcohol and he had a bottle of alcohol" is not enough. Merely stating "he appeared drunk" is not enough. How did he appear drunk? Was he stumbling? Did he have slurred speech? Did he understand the officer's questions?
The late Darius Arbabi told me about a man he defended who had gone to a bar while carrying, had one drink, and was arrested for carrying while intoxicated. He wasn't intoxicated, didn't slur, didn't appear drunk. He was arrested because gunz. His LTC was suspended. I believe Arbabi got him off, but it was a fight.
I can't find the case right now but there was a man who got pulled over, cop suspected intoxication, guy refused a breathalyzer, got brought to the station on suspicion of driving and carrying under the influence. He blew something like a 0.6 - the OUI got dropped but the carrying UI stuck and he lost his LTC.
eboos
NES Member
I bet it was. The man should have known better too. The lesson to be learned - you can get away with driving near smashed, but have your gun on you and any detectable or perceptible amount of alcohol in your system and you are screwed. Why? Cuz gunz. But think of it this way: what if you had to use it? What if it was in a politically messy situation (Kenosha)? Do you want any question of your possible impairment coming into play? Smart choice: don't even have one drink if you are carrying.
I don't drink at all anymore. But I don't think people should have to give up their right to self defense because they've had a couple beers.
That said, I know the reality is that if you've been drinking and use your gun, you'll be in a world of hurt.
That said, I know the reality is that if you've been drinking and use your gun, you'll be in a world of hurt.
eboos
NES Member
I don't drink at all anymore either. I think people have a choice to make. Drink at home if that's your thing. If you want to drink in public you will be running afoul of a law at best, and risking a situation that not only would be questioned by the public, but yourself as well at worst.
they are not getting their license back lmao ...
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
C: other male was determined to be a Century Arms TP9 with nine (9) rounds. Officers were able to determine that this male had an active license to carry but was only authorized to carry for hunting and target shooting. This firearm, as well as the LTC, was seized by officers.
^^^^^ Nope no longer the case.
eboos
NES Member
In reality: "the other male" probably won't. He'll get tempted with what sounds like a great plea, something with no punishment or a short probation period. The hidden consequence is now he has a firearms related offense and he will not get his license.
Always have a sealed bottle of hard liquor with you. After the shooting, clear the firearm and start drinking, to help deal with the shock. go9ng to be hard to tell what your level was before.
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
jk
I got my LTC at 18.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,529
- Likes
- 33,560
A credible argument can be made that paying a senior 50% of face for an EBT card is elder financial abuse (also illegal).
Palladin
NES Member
They was a guy in methuen, getting off work, changing his jacket in the parking lot. Karen saw the gun, called the PD. He had one beer, cops grabbed him at the bar, took his gun and ltc and left. He complained the next day to the methuen chief. Chief gave him his gun and reprimanded the two cops
Editor
NES Member
Are you are inventing ”stuff” in the absence of facts? Can you provide a citation in law to substantiate your assertion?
eboos
NES Member
Sorry, can’t provide a citation at this time. Only speaking from experience defending clients for OUI offenses. Proof of guilt for intoxicated carrying a firearm should be similar to an OUI when a BT is not being used as evidence. However, if you have information that refutes my assertions please post up.
OUI and CUI are not at all alike under the law. I think there's even case law on it. But i know someone that got rapped with CUI and the nostrum of the bac limit wasn't even introduced. CUI is more like "cuz a cop can articulate you were intox" not based on a line in the sand defined by bac.
eboos
NES Member
The proof of under the influence is identical.
"Supposed to be but really isn't ". I could have sworn there was even "cuz guns" type case law. @Rob Boudrie or someone else posted it here once.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,529
- Likes
- 33,560
Now it's twice. Note that .07 and not guilty for OUI was not a defense against carrying under the influence, however, looking on the bright side the court did not scold the defendant for carrying a .25. It would have been better if the court said "An accidental discharge with the .25 could have been problematic if anyone noticed".
This is the appellate decision. The original district court trial is where the judge concluded that guns are more dangerous that cars, though the appellant court did not agree with that statement.
"We disagree that the same degree of intoxication invariably will establish guilt or innocence of both crimes. In accordance with well-established case law interpreting the OUI statute, the phrase "under the influence" refers to impairment, to any degree, of an individual's ability to safely perform the activity in question. Thus, "in a prosecution for [OUI], the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's consumption of alcohol diminished the defendant's ability to operate a motor vehicle safely." Commonwealth v. Connolly, 394 Mass. 169 , 173 (1985). Likewise, in a prosecution for FUI, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's consumption of alcohol diminished his ability to safely carry a loaded firearm on his person (or have one under his control in a vehicle). Despite their use of common language, however, the statutes concern different instrumentalities and activities. For that reason, a trier of fact rationally may find that a particular individual was sufficiently impaired to be guilty of one offense but not the other."
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,529
- Likes
- 33,560
The law was changed a good number of years ago to make it age 21 minimum.
One 14 year old competitive shooter in NY got his pistol permit at age 14 (this is 30+ years ago), but the judge that normally issued unrestricted added a target only restriction and told the kid to some back when was 21 (I think) to have the permit reissued without restrictions.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,529
- Likes
- 33,560
My guess is that the transit police would deny entry to the T if the search was refused, but not force the search. The is case law, however, that one cannot withdraw consent to a checkpoint search once it has been started with consent.
