While is as illegal operating a boat as a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs, there are no prohibitions I know of against mixing being under the influence of a drug and firearms. Generally, I do not like public intoxication laws unless a truly disruptive person harassing others refused to leave when told to. Accordingly, I would not like to see public intoxication charges used to target only hunters and/or CCWers. But should it be illegal to hunt while truly drunk or drugged up? I have no danger statistics to present as none could exist. Nor am I concerned with a drunk and an AR15 hunting. But somehow a drunk or really drugged up person hunting with such as an ordinary Remington 700 bolt action with a killing range over half a mile is concerning. Anyone who knows much about drunks, knows there are those people who I call "angry red eye drunks." Their eyes are extremely bloodshot, they become extremely destructive and aggressive and truly are so much out of their minds they won't even remember it the next day. Should that red eyed drunk be allowed to be in public with a firearm? Or someone out of their mind on drugs? I'm curious as to the thoughts of other members on this question.
There are laws on both guns and alcohol plus specific laws against concealed carry while drinking. I'd rather see a law to drug and alcohol test Congressmen before they vote.
So you right to keep and bare arms is only allowed when sober? You are only entitled to personal protection when sober? Where is the push to have these sorts of laws thrown out?
In Ga you can drink while.armed, but it's a felony if you use it. I have no issues with someone having a drink while armed. I have a very serious issue with someone armed while legally intoxicated. If a cops sees someone drinking heavily and can see has armed, I have no issues with the cop taking the firearm, to be picked up by a sober owner no less than 24 hours later.
As a retired police officer, I have zero Rights, if I shoot a bad guy, I better NOT have any alcohol in my system unless I want to lose my situation.
Today, a drugged out crazy man walked up while me and some freinds were barbequing, and this guy says his "Wife" is tied up in one of our homes, being held hostage, and if he finds his "Wife" in one of our homes, he would shoot us in the head ! I thought it might get bad as he said he had a gun, however I did not see a gun. People on drugs with guns are a bad combination.
Hell yes it should be illegal. I consider owning arms a human right, but drug use comes with limitations.
So if you have a few beers you are giving up your right to defend yourself with a gun? One would think a right so necessary to survive and thrive in the USA, you wouldnt be so happy to have to give it up so easily?
So what do you do if a bad guy is shooting people around you in a pub, lie down and play dead? instead of saving lives and taking him out?
I was told in my recent recert H.S. class, that if such a situation occured, and I had ANY alcohol in my system, to call 911 and not insert myself into the situation unless I wañted to be charged with a crime(s).....
As a cpl holder in Michigan, there is a zero tolerance law while carrying a weapon. You can not blow a .01 while armed in public. On hunting the dnr in practice are a little more forgiving, but being impaired and carrying a loaded long gun is against the law.
If I were armed and in a pub, I would not be drinking. If I were drinking in a pub, I would not be armed. What do they do in your country?
#1: I don't do my drinking in a pub or bar. If I go out to an alcohol establishment it's to get food, or I'm acting as a designated driver. Any alcohol consumption I do is top quality stuff, consumed in the comfort of my own home, and I allow myself one drink and one drink only. #2: If I'm in public, I have no interest in drinking. I choose to remain alert and aware of my surroundings; for obvious reasons.
No one is armed full stop, thus not in a pub. There is not this dichotomy of good guys v bad guys like a four year olds mind that some on this forum obsess over.
I certainly enjoy good beer and fine spirits, don't get me wrong. But, full disclosure here, there is alcoholism in my family history, so I inevitably choose to limit my intake religiously. I allow myself one drink, on special occasions sometimes two. After that, I cut myself off.
To me the fundamental definition of gun control is self control and self discipline. It isn't universal. During my time owning a pub, I saw plenty of folks lose self control and three times disarmed I patrons. Fortunately, there was never a shooting that occurred. My pub was heavily frequented by off duty LE, most opting to never carry in my place. Could I drink and be safe with a weapon? Yes probably, but considering a few stupid things I have done when drinking, I choose to make sure one of them isn't with a gun, not even when home alone; dropping keys or a glass is about as dangerous as it gets for me with alcohol by choice.
Punish people for what they do, not what liberals dream up they can do. A gun owner is no different from any other citizen. Gun owners get mad, they get sad, they get drunk, but are no more or dangerous than anyone else. This appears to be a move to preemptively punish gun owners because of what could happen. Intoxication is hardly a relevant factor because the penalty for shooting someone already exists, penalties for putting people in danger already exist. Just another smoke screen to limit our Constitutional rights...
I'm the same way. I never even have a single beer if I'll be driving or armed. My philosophy is that you can never run into an issue if your BAC is zero.
That's the law, and in that case the pub should have armed employees. An armed employee was the only reason the Pulse shooting wasn't worse.
You have to know that if you shoot someone in a legitimate self defense situation when drunk, that an overzealous prosecutor will try to use that against you in front of a jury.
