Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 55 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,315 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,020 Posts
I read stuff and shake my head, but it’s real.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,936 Posts
Considering laws against firearm usage while drinking I don't find it rediculous. Matter of fact I asked about drinking and home defense here.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
16,358 Posts
My take is a law like that goes too far in trying to control one’s life, while I personally disagree with carrying and drinking but what one does in their own home is none of the governments business. The only time I drink is at home or if traveling only in the motel room but that is my choice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34,547 Posts
Certainly not a problem in Florida. No such law against drinking while carrying.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,500 Posts
What about stairs?


Cooking?


Lock up the knives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OldChap and OD*

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,069 Posts
Red Flag Laws at their finest.

But Judge...I saw him passed out on the couch! He owns GUNS!
He's a threat!


Eventually, our kids will hear it enough that they'll consider it normal behavior to sieze firearms because someone got drunk.

Watch and see.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
964 Posts
I am familiar w/ this law. It says that no one shall use or carry a firearm if intoxicated.

Here's a thought: If you are intoxicated in your home, don't play w/ guns. Pretty simple.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
915 Posts
In Illinois I'm told you have to be careful if you carry and are taking certain medications. I've no idea how open ended that is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,296 Posts
I am familiar w/ this law. It says that no one shall possess a firearm if intoxicated. "Owning" is not "possessing".

Here's a thought: If you are intoxicated in your home, don't play w/ guns. Pretty simple.

Here's a Better thought, what one does in the privacy of their own home (barring injury to others) is no one's business, especially that of the government.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
964 Posts
Here's a Better thought, what one does in the privacy of their own home (barring injury to others) is no one's business, especially that of the government.
Let's apply some common-sense here. No one is going to know or care what one does in one's home (e.g. being drunk and playing w/ guns) unless they cause a problem to others that requires a government response to deal with the problem.

So here is a real-life example of what I am talking about: Drunken (i.e. staggering drunk) homeowner gets into physical fight w/ adult son who also lives in the home. Son calls the Sheriff's Office to report the Assault. Deputies respond to the house and are invited inside. Drunken homeowner/assaulter then argues w/ the Deputies and picks-up a handgun. Should the Deputies be forced to stand there and await the drunk's impaired thought-processes to determine what he wants to do w/ that gun? His judgment is obviously impaired, and should not at that point be handling a firearm or operating motor vehicles.

In this scenario (which happened to me), no one is saying the drunk does not have a Constitutional right to this or that. What the law says is that you may not be intoxicated and handle a firearm because of the dumb-a** things you might do w/ it, as an excessive alcohol intake WILL cause you do stupid, dangerous things you might not otherwise do that might endanger others. If you are dumb enough to put yourself in a situation where you have forced the police to come into your house, you do not have the sound judgment at that point to be playing w/ a firearm. This is nothing more than an extension of the DUI law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: M1911A1

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,372 Posts
In your situation though, KevinRohrer, it went beyond a point of no ones business, to someone needing outside assistance calling it in. There are laws that already address that situation. The homeowner would be arrested. What charges would be filed, would be up to the final decision of the DA, and the child that called the police. At the very least charges for assault or attempting to assault an officer could be made regardless of the child's wishes. Unless more socialist laws are passed preventing those charges from being filed that is.

This new potential law violates the basic premise the nation was founded to stop. The government is meant to stay out of our homes unless, like in your scenario, we do something that truly warrants intrusion. That's why the 4th Amendment exists. This laws goes well beyond the definition of reasonable.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
964 Posts
Here's a Better thought, what one does in the privacy of their own home (barring injury to others) is no one's business, especially that of the government.
I absolutely agree with you. It is not the gov'mint's business what one does in his own home. However, no Constitutional right is absolute; there have to be a few common sense limitations. And one of those is when someone is intoxicated in his home w/ a firearm resulting in impaired judgment and he is engaging in behavior that puts others at immediate risk.

Here is a real-life example that if it had occurred in the idiot's house, would have been just as wrong:

Larry decides to get drunk and sit in a lawn chair in his front yard w/ a .270 Winchester randomly firing at nothing in particular; his home being located along a reasonably busy State Highway. As Larry was located in the country, he was not (except for being intoxicated w/ a firearm) doing anything wrong. Should I have waited at his property line until he perforated a neighbor's house, car, or person driving past? If Larry had been sober, he would not have acted in this manner; but his excessive alcohol intake had impaired his judgement.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
964 Posts
In your situation though, KevinRohrer, it went beyond a point of no ones business, to someone needing outside assistance calling it in. There are laws that already address that situation. The homeowner would be arrested. What charges would be filed, would be up to the final decision of the DA, and the child that called the police. At the very least charges for assault or attempting to assault an officer could be made regardless of the child's wishes. Unless more socialist laws are passed preventing those charges from being filed that is.

Don't read anything into the situation that was not there. I didn't know who started the fight, and the drunk was not necessarily less injured than the other person. There was no arrest for assaulting an officer as he did not do that. As for the DA determining what to charge, only for Felonies, not Misdemeanors.

This is not a "new law"; provided the case deals w/ Ohio's Firearm While Intoxicated as it has been on the books for decades. The article cited was purposely vague, but am confident it deals with this law and not any new Red Flag law. As you can see, it has nothing to do w/ owning or possessing, just using or carrying it:

2923.15 Using weapons while intoxicated.
(A) No person, while under the influence of alcohol or any drug of abuse, shall carry or use any firearm or dangerous ordnance.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of using weapons while intoxicated, a misdemeanor of the first degree.
Effective Date: 01-01-1974.

This is an excellent tool for preventing someone from doing something stupid that they would later regret and would not do if not intoxicated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: M1911A1
1 - 20 of 55 Posts
Top