Hypothetical Question- Restaurants and Carrying

[macville]

I fear that these same people will have the same lax attitude when drinking and carrying. This is why I have no problem with a "no guns in places where you must be 21 to enter" law.

The problem is you are using the same argument as the anti's are and if you think about it logically, there is no basis. IF HCP's were going to be lax about it, wouldn't they have been during the 4 months it was legal. Not to mention that if they would be willing to break the law in the future, what's stopping them from breaking the law right now? Because I haven't seen any reports EVER from someone with an HCP being caught carrying illegally in a place that serves alcohol or being caught drunk out with a gun. It hasn't happened, and I believe there is very little chance of it happening considering how few permits are revoked each year.

Matthew

[deerslayer]

The problem is you are using the same argument as the anti's are and if you think about it logically, there is no basis. IF HCP's were going to be lax about it, wouldn't they have been during the 4 months it was legal. Not to mention that if they would be willing to break the law in the future, what's stopping them from breaking the law right now? Because I haven't seen any reports EVER from someone with an HCP being caught carrying illegally in a place that serves alcohol or being caught drunk out with a gun. It hasn't happened, and I believe there is very little chance of it happening considering how few permits are revoked each year.

Matthew

During the four months that it was legal, there's not a doubt in my mind that someone drank and carried. And you're absolutely right, there's nothing to stop them from breaking the law right now. Fortunately, nothing that we know of happened.

As for it never happening, I remember Steve McNair getting a weapons violation along with a DUI three or four years ago. Why did he get a weapons violation? He had a gun while drinking. Was he legally drunk? Who cares--the damage was done. Also, you're not from Memphis, so you may not know/remember, but there was a high profile shooting at an East Memphis bar involving an off-duty cop who had been drinking. I don't know if he had a permit, but many cops do. That's beside the point. A guy who was otherwise legal to carry a gun went to a bar and should have stayed home. If he had not been a cop, we would have been crucified to no end in the media. Here's the story:

Officer charged in fatal shooting

An off-duty Shelby County sheriff's sergeant has been charged with second-degree murder in a shooting early Friday at an East Memphis lounge.

Sgt. Chris M. Jones, 39, the son of former Memphis City Council member E.C. Jones, was taken into custody at the scene.

The Windjammer restaurant was the scene of a double shooting early this morning.

Memphis police responded to the call at the Wind Jammer restaurant, 786 E. Brookhaven, at 12:50 a.m., where they found that two people had been shot.

Wind Jammer's disc jockey, Donald Munsey, 42, was taken to the Regional Medical Center at Memphis, where he was pronounced dead, police said.

A 22-year-old man remained in critical condition at The Med Friday evening. Police did not identify the second shooting victim.

Jones, who was off duty at the time of the shooting, has also been charged with attempted second-degree murder.

Police said the shootings stemmed from an argument in the parking lot between Jones and the 22-year-old man. After the pair moved into the restaurant, Munsey attempted to resolve the argument when a physical fight broke out. Jones shot both victims during the altercation, according to police investigators.

Reached Friday morning by phone, E.C. Jones said he hadn't been able to talk with his son. "I was advised he'd been involved in an altercation ... why it happened, I don't know."

"The Sheriff's Office is conducting an administrative investigation about the circumstances that led to Sgt. Jones' arrest. This has been a tragic event for the victims and their families," Shelby County Sheriff Mark H. Luttrell said in a statement.

It's against the law for an off-duty officer to carry a gun into a bar, said Sheriff's Office spokesman Steve Shular, although deputies are allowed to carry their weapons elsewhere while off-duty.

Jones, a member of the West Tennessee Drug Task Force, has been employed by the sheriff's department since 1991. He's been involved in a number of traffic stops that led to major drug busts, including one in 2007 that led to the seizure of more than a million dollars worth of marijuana.

Jones' most recent performance review, dated June 2007, indicated that he "exceeds department expectations," although he received a written reprimand on April 18 for boxing-in a car during a traffic stop without the proper training.

He was counseled to "improve supervisory effectiveness when anticipating and meeting unexpected situations."

Earlier in his career, Jones took part in an arrest involving four deputies that led to a $3.5 million settlement against the county. Deputies hog-tied Bertram Brunson after a 1991 arrest on a DUI charge, cutting off oxygen to his brain and causing him to lapse into a coma.

The deputies were suspended briefly but returned to active duty later that year. In 1992, a Shelby County grand jury declined to indict them in the incident.

The Wind Jammer is on a formerly residential street just off Poplar in the shadow of Clark Tower. A sign on on the lounge informs customers that it's open from "4 p.m. till."

- Hank Dudding: 529-2565

- Dakarai Aarons: 529-6515

Edited April 19, 2010 by deerslayer

[Oh Shoot]

...and I believe there is very little chance of it happening considering how few permits are revoked each year...

Where are you finding data re number of HCPs revoked?

- OS

[JReedEsq]

Sounds backwards to me if we want to get people to not drive home.

Just like the DUI statute that allows someone to be charged if they are "in control of the vehicle". What that means is that even if they try to sleep it off in their car they can be charged. It only gives them incentive to drive home to get off the road. I've seen people charged in that very situation.

[Guest jackdm3]

Just seems a better alternative or at least a lesser offense if they're in the back seat sleeping. Not much matter to me, cause I'd never do it. Any of it.

[walton6467]

This makes my head hurt. I'm getting a beer.

[DaveTN]

So this is just basically one of those gray areas that most would avoid, I think I will do the same. Thanks for everyone's input. I'm waiting on my HCP and just trying to get all my facts straight!

I don’t see a grey area in this at all.

If a cop thinks you are intoxicated and you are armed, but not driving; it is up to him if he wants to arrest you or not.

If you are driving and he thinks you are intoxicated you are probably getting arrested for DUI; it’s up to him if he wants to tack on the weapons charges.

I like to drink…. a lot. However, I do not drink and drive at all, not even one beer. So if I’m going out I don’t take a gun. If I did have a gun and had a DD, I would transport the gun the same as if I didn’t have a permit.

[Fallguy]

I don’t see a grey area in this at all.

If a cop thinks you are intoxicated and you are armed, but not driving; it is up to him if he wants to arrest you or not.

If you are driving and he thinks you are intoxicated you are probably getting arrested for DUI; it’s up to him if he wants to tack on the weapons charges.

I like to drink…. a lot. However, I do not drink and drive at all, not even one beer. So if I’m going out I don’t take a gun. If I did have a gun and had a DD, I would transport the gun the same as if I didn’t have a permit.

I think when most say it is "grey" they mean each LEOs idea of what "under the influence" means/is will more than likely be different, not necessarily that the law itself is grey.

Some may not think you're under the influence unless there is a noticeable affect on your speech and/or balance.

Some may think you are under the influence if you admit to a single drink 2 hours ago, even if you don't exhibit any outward signs of intoxication.

So the grey area is not the law, but how an officer will come to the determination of whether you are under the influence or not.

[aquaman67]

Let's say after having a "few" instead of getting pulled over, something happens along the way home and you end up using your weapon in self defense.

You don't kill the guy, but he's paralyzed from the chest down.

You tell the cop at the scene what happened and he smells alcohol on your breath. You've only had two so you agree to test and you blow .02. You don't get arrested, but it's in the report that you blew a .02.

The guy sues you.

This is not a criminal trial but a civil one.

People have asked what is "under the unfluence"?

It's what the other guy's lawyer convinces the jury it is.

Any good lawyer can turn "drinking a few" into "drunk with a gun".

You'll be paying his medical bills for life now.

[Guest Gene83]

Let's say after having a "few" instead of getting pulled over, something happens along the way home and you end up using your weapon in self defense.

You don't kill the guy, but he's paralyzed from the chest down.

You tell the cop at the scene what happened and he smells alcohol on your breath. You've only had two so you agree to test and you blow .02. You don't get arrested, but it's in the report that you blew a .02.

The guy sues you.

This is not a criminal trial but a civil one.

People have asked what is "under the unfluence"?

It's what the other guy's lawyer convinces the jury it is.

Any good lawyer can turn "drinking a few" into "drunk with a gun".

You'll be paying his medical bills for life now.

My advice on this for what it's worth.

1. Don't ever agree to a blood alcohol test.

2. Aim just a bit higher.

[wileecoyote]

The issue seems complex at first glance but it is actually a simple choice between two scenarios based on risk, impact, and probability:

Scenario 1:

You carry a firearm/ammunition or store them within your control while you are drinking or taking any substance which might potentially impact your behavior. Regardless of where they are located, loaded or not, you have access to them and could potentially obtain and use them while there is still some alcohol or substance in your system. In this scenario the risk is that you might do something irresponsible or illegal, or you might have an accident. The impact of this risk occurring would be a fine, legal fees, loss of rights, jail time, serious injury, and/or death.

Scenario 2:

You remove the firearm/ammunition from your control by not taking them with you or having them secured or disabled in a way that you are no longer able to access or use them. You proceed to drink or take any substance which might potentially impact your behavior. In this scenario the risk is that you or your loved ones might become crime victims; suffering loss of property, serious injury, or death.

The probability of the first scenario occurring is probably lower than the second scenario for most responsible law-abiding adults. The impact is serious in both cases but you have little or no control over the probability and impact in the second scenario, thus it is generally viewed as being worse. We tend to trust ourselves more than we trust strangers or criminals, or murhpy's law.

So most people would probably choose the first scenario due to the reduced probability of occurrence and higher degree of control over the impact. But if you are irresponsible, criminal, immature, or you can't control yourself while drinking or taking certain substances then your risk is higher and your control is lower, thus you should avoid the second scenario at all costs.

Edited April 23, 2010 by wileecoyote

[deerslayer]

Let's say after having a "few" instead of getting pulled over, something happens along the way home and you end up using your weapon in self defense.

You don't kill the guy, but he's paralyzed from the chest down.

You tell the cop at the scene what happened and he smells alcohol on your breath. You've only had two so you agree to test and you blow .02. You don't get arrested, but it's in the report that you blew a .02.

The guy sues you.

This is not a criminal trial but a civil one.

People have asked what is "under the unfluence"?

It's what the other guy's lawyer convinces the jury it is.

Any good lawyer can turn "drinking a few" into "drunk with a gun".

You'll be paying his medical bills for life now.

Two drinks will easily get most people well over .02 BAC.

[aquaman67]

Two drinks will easily get most people well over .02 BAC.

Let's say this was an hour after the last of the two drinks, or whatever.

.02, .03 is not the point...