wine tasting

[57Coastie]

ShootingStar,

An excellent post, which says it all. I agree strongly with your bottom line as I understand it: if you are carrying a deadly weapon you should have zero percent blood alcohol level. I will rephrase it somewhat, and say that my personal opinion is "one drink is too much."

I am compelled, however, to quibble over one statement you made, and I suspect and hope that I may be reading too much into it, and it may have just been a slip of the tongue. That is: "I would never consume a drop of alcohol while carrying because of the way the law is written and it may look bad for you if you ever end up in court."

This statement suggests that one should not drink when carrying because of a possible bad result with respect to the one doing the drinking and the carrying, and it does not consider the possible bad result with respect to others.

My opinion is that just one drink affects one's judgment to some extent in such a way that he or she should not have a deadly weapon within reach. I will take this to the extreme of saying that, as a carrier of both a CHL and usually at least one concealed handgun, I would not be in the least unhappy if the law provided that a CHL would be revoked, or suspended for a lengthy period of time, if the blood alcohol test were other than zero when carrying.

I expect this could receive some fire from other quarters, and I guess it should be expected, but recognize that the writer is an old sailor who is not by any means a member of the Womens' Temperance Union. When we go to that New Year's party it is accepted by many that a designated driver should come along. If any would suggest that we become unarmed potential victims if we enjoy that party without carrying a deadly weapon then perhaps, as arguably suggested by WildBill, we should consider bringing along a designated carrier.

With respect,

Jim

[bdickens]

FWIW: Most people don't actually drink the wine, they just taste it and spit it out. Otherwise each wine would be better than the last.

[DoubleActionCHL]

57Coastie:

While I agree with you in principle, I have to question the ramifications of imposing a zero-tolerance 'anything greater than zero' blood alcohol content.

Many would argue, and some rightly so, that their judgment is unaffected by a .01 or .02 BAC. If we compare this to driving an automobile, most states have adopted the somewhat arbitrary number of .08 percent. I call it 'arbitrary' because not every individual reacts identically to alcohol in equal amounts. It can be demonstrated through statistics, however, that this number is the average minimum for which a driver might be considered too impaired to drive a motor vehicle safely. I don't believe there is any similar statistical evidence quantifying one's level of impairment related to carrying a firearm.

Here's where I'm going with this: I, like most of you, am an ardent supporter of our Second Amendment rights and cringe at anything that puts our right to carry in a bad light. I believe setting a lower BAC limit for carrying a firearm does just that. When arguing gun violence and gun death statistics, we seem to always find ourselves comparing gun deaths to deaths as a result of automobiles. As you know, automobile deaths are considerably higher than gun deaths, and we pro-gunners then concede that there are more cars on the road at any given time than guns, etc., etc. However, assigning a number, especially zero, to determine a concealed weapon carrier incapable of sound judgment bolsters the anti-gunner's argument that guns are unsafe in any hands at any time.

I, personally, don't mind the law as it stands. Taking my chances with an officer's discretion is preferable to adding fuel to the anti-gun left's belief that we are inherently unsafe, and may become murdering lunatics after a single beer. It really makes no difference to me, as I seldom ever drink while carrying; and in the unlikely event that I do, I never have more than one, and the firearm is unloaded and locked away.

Again, I agree with you in principle, but I believe that we, as licensees, should be responsible enough to behave properly without the need for a zero BAC limit.

[Liberty]

I'm going to raise a few eyebrows here. But I'm not really suggesting that anyone drink and carry,
A popular sport at local taverns is shooting darts. One of the main reasons that darts is so popular is thew fact that having a few drinks isn't particularly destructive in ones abilty to hit the target. In fact a lot of dart shooters claim that a few drinks steadies their aim. They have scores to back up their claim. I don't think skills of darts differ much more than shooting a sidearm. I would dare guess that some folks would actually improve their handgun target skills after a few drinks

I also have known drunken dart shooters to use poor usage of judgement, but the poor judgement usually resulted from more than 2 drinks and a meal. and typically women were involved.

[DoubleActionCHL]

...and typically women were involved.

You just HAD to go there...

[57Coastie]

Impressive and rational post, DoubleAction. I am pleased that someone with your obvious grasp on the realities of the issue "agree in principle," but then you go on to demonstrate that perhaps you also agree in practice, when you say, "I seldom ever drink while carrying; and in the unlikely event that I do, I never have more than one, and the firearm is unloaded and locked away." Exactly my practice, and I, like many others, like to think that through long years of experience I can hold my liquor better than most. I seriously doubt that your expressed practice betrays a suspicion that you might be a danger to yourself or others if you continue to drink while carrying a deadly weapon. Not at all -- I believe that the truth is that we are closer to each other than perhaps either of us is ready to admit.

Just last evening I joined my wife in a cocktail, at home alone, but first both carry weapons were unloaded, one went into a gun safe and the other's action was locked. I question that the widely-accepted, while not unanimous, .08 is arbitrary, but I can quickly come up with a number which is not arbitrary -- 0.00. "No tolerance" treats all the same, and does not suffer from arguably inconsistent scientific studies nor discriminatory treatment because we are all different.

Your cogently articulated comment suffers, I would submit, from one fatal flaw. It takes the "foot in the door" argument one step too far, and explicitly accepts a risk of having an impaired carrier on scene in order to avoid irrational extensions by ill-informed observers. Surely there is a better way. Might it not also be possible that we gun owners could demonstrate to the ill-informed that we recognize that RKBA can, like all privileges/rights (perhaps Heller will sort this out) can be abused, and that we are indeed responsible members of society. If you are familiar with Britain's zero tolerance as to driving and drinking I would think you would have to conclude that this draconian standard does not imply that all Britain's citizens are kooks. (Let us avoid, for the time being, their similarly draconian rules re: ownership and use of firearms. Their almost total ban takes drinking out of the picture.)

But I will say, so long as we have such as you debating the issue with me, my thesis is endangered.

Jim

[WildBill]

FWIW: Most people don't actually drink the wine, they just taste it and spit it out.

If they are working, professional tasters and winery employees spit out the wine, but winery and tasting room visitors drink the wine. Unless it's a really bad wine.

[DoubleActionCHL]

57Coastie:

I agree in practice, but again, it's my choice. It's what I believe any responsible CHL holder should do, but I don't wish to impose by statute this standard on anyone. Do we need a zero percent BAC? I think not. Assigning a number that is significantly lower than the BAC for driving simply hurts our cause in the eyes of our anti-gun opponents. It simply raises a red flag saying we're too feckless to be trusted with a gun and alcohol. Basically, my point is leave the law alone and let's all agree to be responsible and prove (to the extent possible) that gun owners, and CHL holders in particular, are a responsible group.

[apostate]

This topic may be a moot point because any discussion of drinking can usually be addressed by taking a zero tollerance attitude for blood alcohol content. I don't drink at all for a number of reasons,

Even if you never drink alcohol, you're still not allowed to carry on 51% premises with a CHL.

[KBCraig]

I'm going to raise a few eyebrows here. But I'm not really suggesting that anyone drink and carry,
A popular sport at local taverns is shooting darts. One of the main reasons that darts is so popular is thew fact that having a few drinks isn't particularly destructive in ones abilty to hit the target. In fact a lot of dart shooters claim that a few drinks steadies their aim.

True. And it's also true for the great nation of riflemen: Switzerland.

Swiss shooters typically have a glass of wine or beer before shooting (and more afterwards). Some Swiss shooting clubs have safety records of zero accidents, dating back over 300 years.

[HankB]

I'm going to raise a few eyebrows here. But I'm not really suggesting that anyone drink and carry, A popular sport at local taverns is shooting darts. One of the main reasons that darts is so popular is thew fact that having a few drinks isn't particularly destructive in ones abilty to hit the target. In fact a lot of dart shooters claim that a few drinks steadies their aim. They have scores to back up their claim . . .

Some decades ago it was not unusual for pistol shooters involved in bullseye competiton to have one drink before a match to "steady the nerves."

. . . If you're involved in a shooting, then they will ask you where you were coming from and you will have to say "a winery" where you participated in consumption of wine . . .

Which is an excellent reason to NOT indulge in a Q&A session with LEOs . . . it's MUCH harder to use what you DON'T say against you than anything you DO say.

(And my usual caveat in discussion of this sort . . . drunks should no more carry guns than they should drive.)

[ShootingStar]

57Coastie,

I do agree with you, but was taking a different angle. I think that I have a responsiblity to the public at large as well as to other CHL holders, to be in the best mental state that I can be. I personally believe that I would be putting others at risk if I drank while carrying, however, you will meet some who will never agree with that statement.

I think it's pretty clear, based upon the verbage I received from the DPS in an instructors newsletter, that the only legal conclusion you can come to is that you must have a zero BAC when carrying. It's easy to argue whether a drink will impare You, but not another because that's opinion. I once knew a guy who had a 6-pack of bud with him everytime I saw him drive. (no, I'm not exagerating). He said that he thought it made him drive better. His opinion...

By definition, you can be considered intoxicated if you take in any substance that impares your metal or physical faculties. How about one drink and some over the counter cold medicine? Maybe some LEOs can comment on what Can be determined and is admissible in court with respect to a sobriety test.....

ShootingStar,
I am compelled, however, to quibble over one statement you made, and I suspect and hope that I may be reading too much into it, and it may have just been a slip of the tongue. That is: "I would never consume a drop of alcohol while carrying because of the way the law is written and it may look bad for you if you ever end up in court."

This statement suggests that one should not drink when carrying because of a possible bad result with respect to the one doing the drinking and the carrying, and it does not consider the possible bad result with respect to others.

My opinion is that just one drink affects one's judgment to some extent in such a way that he or she should not have a deadly weapon within reach. I will take this to the extreme of saying that, as a carrier of both a CHL and usually at least one concealed handgun, I would not be in the least unhappy if the law provided that a CHL would be revoked, or suspended for a lengthy period of time, if the blood alcohol test were other than zero when carrying.
Jim

At the least, carrying with a BAC > 0 is venturing into a gray area where you might get burned bad and most won't do that when it comes to carrying under other gray areas. An example might be if the entire City hall is posted off limits because there is a traffic court in the building, but also has other places that should not be off limits. We've discussed gray areas before and most seem to say they would avoid them so they're not the test case.

This has been an excellent thread because of the respectful way it was discussed as there are bound to be different opinions on this. Many thanks to all involved.

I wonder if CHAS can give his opinion how likely it would be that "coming from a winery" would come out in court if you were involved in a self-defense shooting situation. I would think this would make things more difficult for your lawyer.

-ss

[57Coastie]

Shooting Star says, "This has been an excellent thread because of the respectful way it was discussed as there are bound to be different opinions on this."
Absolutely, ss. I can cite this as a definite example of how responsible persons, like yourself, can have a little difference of opinion on this web site yet debate responsibly without ever once mentioning the 2d Amendment, much less saying that RKBA is so absolutely absolute that a stumbling-down drunk should be able to carry a deadly weapon anywhere, anyplace.

BTW, should Chas miss your request that he weigh in on the winery question, I will venture my personal opinion that if a DA gets the fact before a jury that one was drinking before causing injury or death to another with a firearm, no matter where the drinking was done, the shooter's lawyer will have a hard row to hoe. This is not so say that there are no legal arguments to keep this evidence out of the jury's ears when it was a tiny communion cup, but in the case of a sixpack...?

Jim

[XDguy]

I do think the law should be more clear in regards to BAC and CC. If a .08 BAC is a good limit for a car then it seems like it would be a good limit for a gun. I would be in favor of a zero bac while carrying if they did away with the stupid 51% rule. If the person who is carrying has not been drinking then what does it matter how much aclohol an establishment sells. Rules are Rules though.

IMHO of course.

[WildBill]

Here's my take on the "coming from a winery" scenario. I think if you have a good shoot, it's going to be good whether or not you have had a drink.

The issue of possible intoxication could come up if your shooting was not lawful and you were charged. If you are charged, the DA's job is to convict you. He will do anything legal to do so. If the DA thinks that your drinking affected your judgement as to the illegal shooting he would bring try to bring it into evidence. As HankB says, that is one reason not to have Q&A sessions with LEOs where you could make incriminating statements before you consult with your lawyer. Of course it could be used against you in a civil suit if you injured an innocent, but the question was about DAs, not a civil trial.

After reading this thread I am starting to see why so many people are so reluctant to defend themselves again criminals. Constantly hearing statements like "every bullet has a lawyer attached to it" they get so afraid that they will arrested or sued that they think it's better to "take their chances" with the criminals.

My opinion is that just one drink affects one's judgment to some extent in such a way that he or she should not have a deadly weapon within reach.

What if you were at home drinking the bottle of wine that you bought at the winery and somebody with a gun broke down your door. Are you going to do nothing because you're drinking or are you going to defend yourself? What is the difference if you are outside your house or inside if somebody attacks you with deadly force? In both situations you have a legal right to use deadly force.

By the way, I don't drink when I am carrying.