CHL, Vehicle and Adult Beverage Question

[jmra]

My bet is that he's had a few beers while off-duty. AND I bet he did NOT disarm prior to doing so.
Comparing his drinking ON-DUTY to a CHL'er drinking at dinner is not (IMO) a comparable situation.

Myabe so - maybe he hasnt. Either way, I'm sure he'd have some questions to answer to if he were to have had a couple off duty and then shot someone.....just sayin'.[/quote]
Reminds me of all the movies I've seen where the detectives all meet after work at the cop bar. Of course they all still have their badge on their belt and gun on the hip with a jacket on. Most seem half hammered by the time they leave. Couldn't believe that was anywhere close to reality, but what do I know. Never been part of that community.

[wgoforth]

....here's another interesting perspective that my CHL Instructor course leader had to say as a DPS Trooper: "how would you, as a citizen, feel about me, an on-duty Trooper, having a couple of beers at lunch, then responding to your emergency with a gun....", or something to that affect. Never really thought it like that before he put it that way. I'm 225 lbs and seriously doubt that a couple of beers would impair my judgment enough to make a difference, but it's just too risky IMO - too many things can go wrong and it's too important of a right to give up cause I wanted a beer or two. I enjoy a few cold beers occasionally, but simply think it's a mistake to chance it and I don't do it.

My bet is that he's had a few beers while off-duty. AND I bet he did NOT disarm prior to doing so.
Comparing his drinking ON-DUTY to a CHL'er drinking at dinner is not (IMO) a comparable situation.

Actually when I spoke to him during his break, he said he did not period.....

[srothstein]

Reminds me of all the movies I've seen where the detectives all meet after work at the cop bar. Of course they all still have their badge on their belt and gun on the hip with a jacket on. Most seem half hammered by the time they leave. Couldn't believe that was anywhere close to reality, but what do I know. Never been part of that community.

Trust me, it is not far off from reality. It is not all cops and not every night, but there are enough out there to keep cop bars in business in every decently sized city. The ones I have been in have the patrolmen in plainclothes mixing with the off duty detectives, but it would not surprise me if NY had bars by precinct or by job (patrolmen at one, detectives at another, etc.).

[Keith B]

Reminds me of all the movies I've seen where the detectives all meet after work at the cop bar. Of course they all still have their badge on their belt and gun on the hip with a jacket on. Most seem half hammered by the time they leave. Couldn't believe that was anywhere close to reality, but what do I know. Never been part of that community.

Trust me, it is not far off from reality. It is not all cops and not every night, but there are enough out there to keep cop bars in business in every decently sized city. The ones I have been in have the patrolmen in plainclothes mixing with the off duty detectives, but it would not surprise me if NY had bars by precinct or by job (patrolmen at one, detectives at another, etc.).

And in reality the many beat cops in NY are of Irish descent and do open bars when they retire, or have interest in a family-owned bar.

[bizarrenormality]

....here's another interesting perspective that my CHL Instructor course leader had to say as a DPS Trooper: "how would you, as a citizen, feel about me, an on-duty Trooper, having a couple of beers at lunch, then responding to your emergency with a gun....", or something to that affect. Never really thought it like that before he put it that way. I'm 225 lbs and seriously doubt that a couple of beers would impair my judgment enough to make a difference, but it's just too risky IMO - too many things can go wrong and it's too important of a right to give up cause I wanted a beer or two. I enjoy a few cold beers occasionally, but simply think it's a mistake to chance it and I don't do it.

Until it's illegal for LEO to carry while intoxicated, with the same standards as CHL, I have absolutely zero respect for his bovine posturing. He's being disingenuous at best.

[tomjh]

In my opinion it doesn't matter how you interpret the law. It's vague for a reason. I drink, often, and when I do I leave my gun behind...well usually just leave it in the car. If you've had anything to drink and you fire your gun I'd be willing to bet that the DA is going to want to prosecute you. Even if unsuccessful, it's still going to cost you. It sucks because when I've had something to drink and I'm not at home it's usually out to dinner on a Friday or Saturday night where I feel is the time when I need to be armed the most. Tough call. I don't want to be in a life or death situation and not be armed just because I've had a glass of wine either. I was told in class that there is zero tolerance and the class was taught by two LEOs. They also stressed in that in every situation the outcome all depends on what you say and how you say it to the LEO.

[speedsix]

....here's another interesting perspective that my CHL Instructor course leader had to say as a DPS Trooper: "how would you, as a citizen, feel about me, an on-duty Trooper, having a couple of beers at lunch, then responding to your emergency with a gun....", or something to that affect. Never really thought it like that before he put it that way. I'm 225 lbs and seriously doubt that a couple of beers would impair my judgment enough to make a difference, but it's just too risky IMO - too many things can go wrong and it's too important of a right to give up cause I wanted a beer or two. I enjoy a few cold beers occasionally, but simply think it's a mistake to chance it and I don't do it.

...excellent point...neither while speeding to our aid, nor while making decisions , much less using a gun, do I want any officer to have ANY alcohol in his blood...I want him 100%...or not at all...

[smoothoperator]

How many people are killed by drunk drivers each year?

"Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel."

[tomjh]

How many people are killed by drunk drivers each year?

"Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel."

What is your point?

[jerry_r60]

I have a question about another comment in the original post.

If I were to be stopped for a traffic violation, .... I would notify the LEO that I have a CHL, but that I'm not carrying at the moment. But I wouldn't lie to the officer and say there's not a handgun in the truck, either.

I want to validate my assumption. If I had my pistol locked in the trunk or locked in the glove box and was stopped, do I need to inform that I have a gun? I know i need to show my card but do I need to say i have a gun in the car? Assuming I don't say it up front and he then asks, I can assume the question may come in differetn forms, like, "are you carrying", "do you have a weapon in the vehicle".

I know it's just simple, right up front, to give my card and say my pistol is locked in my glove box but I'm just curious what I have to do vs what's easy.

[Crossfire]

If the handgun is within your reach, then you are presumed to be carrying under authority of your CHL, and you should notify the officer. "In the glove box" would be within reach in most situations.

If it is in the trunk, then you are not "carrying" it. You are only "transporting" it, and I don't see any reason to notify. Unless there is probable cause to conduct a search, it should not come up. And if there is, you can tell them about it then.

[sjfcontrol]

If the handgun is within your reach, then you are presumed to be carrying under authority of your CHL, and you should notify the officer. "In the glove box" would be within reach in most situations.

If it is in the trunk, then you are not "carrying" it. You are only "transporting" it, and I don't see any reason to notify. Unless there is probable cause to conduct a search, it should not come up. And if there is, you can tell them about it then.

Crossfire -- consider the argument that while carrying in your car, you are not carrying under your CHL, but are carrying under the MPA. (I presume you're familiar with that argument, and yes, you still need to give the officer your CHL even though you're not carrying under it.)

Is someone carrying under the MPA required to declare their firearm if asked?

[speedsix]

TAM explained it here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=49130&p=602951&hilit=carrying+under+mpa#p602951
...this may help... viewtopic.php?f=7&t=48320&hilit=mpa&start=60

[Keith B]

If the handgun is within your reach, then you are presumed to be carrying under authority of your CHL, and you should notify the officer. "In the glove box" would be within reach in most situations.

If it is in the trunk, then you are not "carrying" it. You are only "transporting" it, and I don't see any reason to notify. Unless there is probable cause to conduct a search, it should not come up. And if there is, you can tell them about it then.

Crossfire -- consider the argument that while carrying in your car, you are not carrying under your CHL, but are carrying under the MPA. (I presume you're familiar with that argument, and yes, you still need to give the officer your CHL even though you're not carrying under it.)

Is someone carrying under the MPA required to declare their firearm if asked?

I'm gonna jump in with my .02¢.

I know there is no case law, and many will argue differently, but I believe if you have a CHL it overrides MPA and when the handgun is 'on or about your person', then you are always carrying under the authority of CHL. If you do NOT have a CHL, then you get MPA, but do not gain the other aspects of the CHL privileges.

[sjfcontrol]

If the handgun is within your reach, then you are presumed to be carrying under authority of your CHL, and you should notify the officer. "In the glove box" would be within reach in most situations.

If it is in the trunk, then you are not "carrying" it. You are only "transporting" it, and I don't see any reason to notify. Unless there is probable cause to conduct a search, it should not come up. And if there is, you can tell them about it then.

Crossfire -- consider the argument that while carrying in your car, you are not carrying under your CHL, but are carrying under the MPA. (I presume you're familiar with that argument, and yes, you still need to give the officer your CHL even though you're not carrying under it.)

Is someone carrying under the MPA required to declare their firearm if asked?

I'm gonna jump in with my .02¢.

I know there is no case law, and many will argue differently, but I believe if you have a CHL it overrides MPA and when the handgun is 'on or about your person', then you are always carrying under the authority of CHL. If you do NOT have a CHL, then you get MPA, but do not gain the other aspects of the CHL privileges.

OK, Keith -- IF you are "always" carrying under your CHL, do you conceal while at home? Carrying under your CHL requires concealment.