TN Open Container Law

[DaveTN]

In my 10 years of policing, I can't think of any incident where the open container law made any difference in the driver's decision to drink and drive.

In your years of Policing can you think of an incident where you pulled a car over because you saw someone tip up a can of beer or a whiskey bottle and took a DUI off the street? I can; I’ve done it several times.

[strickj]

If I'm not mistaken, there's already a law against drinking and driving.

Or perhaps your straw man knows something I don't?

There's a law against driving above .08.

OC law is a law against drinking and driving.

[G27]

There's a law against driving above .08.

OC law is a law against drinking and driving.

Changes nothing wrt to your straw man argument.

[East_TN_Patriot]

In your years of Policing can you think of an incident where you pulled a car over because you saw someone tip up a can of beer or a whiskey bottle and took a DUI off the street? I can; I’ve done it several times.

Yes, but it was the driver, not the passenger. The law already prohibits the driver being in possession of an open alcoholic beverage. If I suspected someone was DUI, I did the proper investigation: observed the driving, made the stop if there was probable cause the driver was under the influence or committed a traffic violation, and then did the proper roadside sobriety tests. I still don't see how prohibiting passengers from drinking in the vehicle makes any difference at all in this debate. Once again, nobody here is saying we should allow drivers to consume alcoholic beverages. Nobody here is saying we should allow underage people to consume alcoholic beverages.

[strickj]

Changes nothing wrt to your straw man argument.

Elaborate.

Seems your straw man argument is simply not needing any laws whatsoever.

[G27]

Elaborate.

I have.

A low prohibiting a passenger from drinking is nanny-state, reactionary legislation. It's, at the core, restricting behavior because the citizen 'can't be trusted'.

Seems your straw man argument is simply not needing any laws whatsoever.

I don't think you know what a straw man argument is. I recommend google.

[strickj]

I have.

A low prohibiting a passenger from drinking is nanny-state, reactionary legislation. It's, at the core, restricting behavior because the citizen 'can't be trusted'.

.

...and there we are.

Yes, it is a 'reactionary legislation'. It's reacting to the problem of drunk driving. Having an open beer in the car leads to DUI crashes.

In a fantasy world we would not have to worry about it. But in reality we do have to worry about it and we have to have laws about it.

[G27]

Yes, it is a 'reactionary legislation'. It's reacting to the problem of drunk driving. Having an open beer in the car leads to DUI crashes.

Please provide proof that passengers drinking lead to DUI crashes, thanks.

[56FordGuy]

Having an open beer in the car leads to DUI crashes.

Got a reference? I'd like to see where the actions of the passenger can cause the driver to become intoxicated.

Crimson posted while I was typing...

[strickj]

Please provide proof that passengers drinking lead to DUI crashes, thanks.

I'm not sure if I can find a news article saying that a driver only started drinking because his buddies were.

But I can reference Davetn's experience along with many other cops experiences on this board that support oc laws.

I'm sure many of their crash scene investigations never made front page news either.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

Yes, it is a 'reactionary legislation'. It's reacting to the problem of drunk driving. Having an open beer in the car leads to DUI crashes.

Please. By all means. Post up some proof.

In a fantasy world we would not have to worry about it. But in reality we do have to worry about it and we have to have laws about it.

Did you know that requiring me to have a permit to carry a pistol will prevent unlicensed thugs from doing the same? That's why we have laws about it and stuff! 'Cause, see............uh.............well......Just 'cause!

[strickj]

Did you know that requiring me to have a permit to carry a pistol will prevent unlicensed thugs from doing the same? That's why we have laws about it and stuff! 'Cause, see............uh.............well......Just 'cause!

No, but it does allow cops to lock up those thugs that are caught carrying....

[strickj]

No, but it does allow cops to lock up those thugs that are caught carrying....

To add to that, having laws against murder isn't going to stop a thug from killing someone either.

But it does allow for cops to arrest those that chose to do it...

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

No, but it does allow cops to lock up those thugs that are caught carrying....

It also allows the cops to lock up perfectly law-abiding citizens who carry a pistol without getting paperwork from the government. What you seem to fail to see is that thugs could be locked up without messing with the law-abiding folks.

Just like drunk drivers can be locked up without forbidding non-drivers from drinking in a vehicle.

To add to that, having laws against murder isn't going to stop a thug from killing someone either.

But it does allow for cops to arrest those that chose to do it...

It doesn't surprise me that you don't see the huge chasm between crimes that actually offend the private property of another, and "crimes" that are simply invented by the government. That you would compare a passenger in a motor vehicle drinking alcohol to murder speaks volumes about you and the values system that fails to guide you.

[strickj]

It also allows the cops to lock up perfectly law-abiding citizens who carry a pistol without getting paperwork from the government. What you seem to fail to see is that thugs could be locked up without messing with the law-abiding folks.

Just like drunk drivers can be locked up without forbidding non-drivers from drinking in a vehicle.

.

How could a thug be locked up for carrying a gun without anyother laws being broken?

The personal responsibly of each law abiding person wanting to carry a gun is to obtain a permit.

It doesn't surprise me that you don't see the huge chasm between crimes that actually offend the private property of another, and "crimes" that are simply invented by the government. That you would compare a passenger in a motor vehicle drinking alcohol to murder speaks volumes about you and the values system that fails to guide you

Excuse me? You have absolutely NO insight on my values. I'll ask you not to make faceless assertions about my person.

You compared OC laws to HCP laws not stopping thugs from carrying.

I compared murder laws from not stopping thugs from killing.

There is no hidden meanings behind that comparison. I could have also compared oc laws to any other law.

Edited October 17, 2010 by strickj

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

How could a thug be locked up for carrying a gun without anyother laws being broken?

If he or she isn't a felon, drug/alcohol abuser, spouse abuser, etc, then he or she isn't a "thug." Do you really just plain NOT understand how we could have carry in this state without a licensing system? Do you just really NOT understand how me having a permit does NOT stop a thug from carrying?

The personal responsibly of each law abiding person wanting to carry a gun is to obtain a permit.

Only because the state requires it, man.

Excuse me?

No.

You have absolutely NO insight on my values. I'll ask you not to make faceless accretions about my person again.

Horsecrap!

What you say here is exactly what constitutes your values system. Seriously. Give it up. This is no defense of yourself. Everyone reading this thread sees that, too.

You compared OC laws to HCP laws not stopping thugs from carrying.

NO.

I compared laws requiring me to obtain a permit to carrying to no such laws at all. I further compared the absence of such laws to the presence of such laws. I even did it again in this very post.

You fail to make a cogent point.

I compared murder laws from not stopping thugs from killing.

There is no hidden meanings behind that comparison. I could have also compared oc laws to any other law.

Oh boy.

What you compared were laws against a passenger in a vehicle possessing an open container, and laws against murder. I think you're just too simple to conceive of the difference between two very disparate examples of law-breaking. Why don't you contemplate laws against rape as compared to laws against walking on the grass in certain areas?

Edited October 17, 2010 by Abominable_Hillbilly

[56FordGuy]

I compared murder laws from not stopping thugs from killing.

There is no hidden meanings behind that comparison. I could have also compared oc laws to any other law.

When a person murders another person, there is obvious harm done.

When a non driving passenger has a beer, who is harmed?

[Garufa]

[Fallguy]

LOL...did take of a bit more than I thought it would after I moved it to it's own thread....

[strickj]

Only because the state requires it, man.

The state also requires us not to do drugs or steal.

Horsecrap!

What you say here is exactly what constitutes your values system. Seriously. Give it up. This is no defense of yourself. Everyone reading this thread sees that, too.

Do you know me? Do you know my upbringing? or do you want to keep saying that I have no values simply because I don't want people driving around with open booze in their cars?

There is absolutely nothing to give you insight to my values for not wanting that.

NO.I compared laws requiring me to obtain a permit to carrying to no such laws at all. I further compared the absence of such laws to the presence of such laws. I even did it again in this very post.

You fail to make a cogent point.

This is what you said:

Did you know that requiring me to have a permit to carry a pistol will prevent unlicensed thugs from doing the same? That's why we have laws about it and stuff! 'Cause, see............uh.............well......Just 'cause!

You made a comparison. I did to.

True, no laws will stop someone intent on doing X from doing it.

A law against murder will not stop killings. A law against stealing will not stop theft. A law against OC will not stop DUI.

But it will allow the arrest afterwards.

Oh boy.

What you compared were laws against a passenger in a vehicle possessing an open container, and laws against murder. I think you're just too simple to conceive of the difference between two very disparate examples of law-breaking. Why don't you contemplate laws against rape as compared to laws against walking on the grass in certain areas?

Call me simple minded again. If you want to debate that's fine.

Again, there are no hidden meanings in my comparison.

Edited October 17, 2010 by strickj

[Fallguy]

The state also requires us not to do drugs or steal.

True, but there is supposed to be a right to keep and bear arms. One should not have to get permission from the state to exercise a right, the state should have to prove you unfit in some manner, not you prove you are.

[Guest Sgt. Joe]

LOL...did take of a bit more than I thought it would after I moved it to it's own thread....

Yup, and a good move it was:)

For the record I can remember when it was fully legal to drink and drive so long as one was not over the limit, at least in FL anyway. It has been a long time since then though and times have certainly changed.

For sake of this discussion I do not think a passenger should be prevented from enjoying a drink if they so chose.

:popcorn:

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

The state also requires us not to do drugs or steal.

So, you're comparing a law-abiding citizen carrying without a permit to stealing or doing dope?

Great.

Do you know me? Do you know my upbringing? or do you want to keep saying that I have no values simply because I don't want people driving around with open booze in their cars?

There is absolutely nothing to give you insight to my values for not wanting that.

Please stop wasting our time. Your words here plainly reveal your values. If you believe they don't, then you believe that you're being false when you post. This is a silly little point for you to not yield. You're plainly wrong to argue this.

This is what you said:

You made a comparison. I did to.

True, no laws will stop someone intent on doing X from doing it.

A law against murder will not stop killings. A law against stealing will not stop theft. A law against OC will not stop DUI.

But it will allow the arrest afterwards.

Right. And a law against felons and drug abusers carrying will allow for their arrest afterward. And decent folks like us won't be bothered with onerous regulation. Jeez. How hard is this for you to understand?

Call me simple minded again. If you want to debate that's fine.

Again, there are no hidden meanings in my comparison.

I'd like to debate with someone who isn't simple. In fact, that's what I think I'll do. Later.

[strickj]

True, but there is supposed to be a right to keep and bear arms. One should not have to get permission from the state to exercise a right, the state should have to prove you unfit in some manner, not you prove you are.

I agree that's the way that it should be. But I'm also one of the few here that has no problems with a permit because it does allow easier incarceration of those that can not carry. I do have a problem with it being 'taxed' though.

Yup, and a good move it was:)

For the record I can remember when it was fully legal to drink and drive so long as one was not over the limit, at least in FL anyway. It has been a long time since then though and times have certainly changed.

For sake of this discussion I do not think a passenger should be prevented from enjoying a drink if they so chose.

:popcorn:

My dad and I were talking about the way things once were just the other day and DUI came into the conversation.

"Back in the day" one could get pulled over for DUI and the cop would simply follow you home to make sure you got there in one piece.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

For the record I can remember when it was fully legal to drink and drive so long as one was not over the limit, at least in FL anyway. It has been a long time since then though and times have certainly changed.

It technically still is legal to drink and drive so long as you aren't over the arbitrary, baseless limit. It's just that our courts have so eroded our Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth amendment rights that the police can seriously ruin your day based on little of nothing.