Carrying and Alcohol

[slowG]

Let me start this by saying I personally don't drink very often , if at all.

How does everyone feel about mixing carrying with drinking? Some of us may enjoy a drink or 7 at a wedding or bachelor party or because its Tuesday. Whatever the case may be, are you not suppose to be prepared for life thretening situations because you're drinking?

Obviously, your decision making is effected when drinking but I guess that's a choice you have to make.

I guess my question is do you leave it at home and do your drinking without it? I feel just because your intoxicated doesn't mean you don't have a right to protect yourself in case of an emergency. The decision you make will be one you have to live with intoxicated or not if its a wrong one.

Whays your take INGo? What do you do?

 

[lonehoosier]

All I will say is thank god I live in a state that does not have a law against it.

 

[Dead Duck]

When my gun starts drinking, he stays home.



I'm a Snoopy drunk.
The hardest beer I drink is Root.
If I were to drink alcohol, I wouldn't want to carry. Just for liability reasons if I had to use it.

 

[slowG]

When my gun starts drinking, he stays home.



I'm a Snoopy drunk.
The hardest beer I drink is Root.
If I were to drink alcohol, I wouldn't want to carry. Just for liability reasons if I had to use it.

but that's the thing if you HAD to use it.. What's worse a liability or you or god forbid a loved one are hurt or worse because of leaving it at home?

 

[One Shot One Kill]

I don't drink in public really, unless it's a family party or something similar, but when I do I never have more than 1-2 beers. While carrying it is your responsibility to be able to make decisions adequately about your weapon. In short, if you're carrying; don't get hammered!

 

[dyerwatcher]

I always carry. I am never out of control. If I chose to have a beer or two with dinner I do. I am actually more even tempered when I carry because I do not ever want to use it.

 

[slowG]

All I will say is thank god I live in a state that does not have a law against it.

But if your given a PI I wonder if your license can be revoked.

 

[Bluejeeper]

I don't drink in public really, unless it's a family party or something similar, but when I do I never have more than 1-2 beers. While carrying it is your responsibility to be able to make decisions adequately about your weapon. In short, if you're carrying; don't get hammered!

That's pretty much how I look at it. I've never been one to "get hammered" anyway, especially if I'm not at home. Now, on the fairly rare occasion that I'm home and drinking a little heavier, the carry gun goes into the bedside holster.

 

[armedindy]

But if your given a PI I wonder if your license can be revoked.

i dont think PIis a felony...so i would think not..

this is more or less a live and let live forum.....so i say, drink if you want...just dont do anything stupid....your actions are only my concern if they concern me...if you will

 

[Cameramonkey]

When I am carrying, I typically don't seek out a drink, like with dinner, etc.

However if I am doing something social where drinks are being served I might have a single beer, but never a second or more.

I try to treat drinking while carrying like driving. If I'm not sober enough to drive, I'm not sober enough to carry. Both are lethal weapons that can be devastating under control of someone under the influence.

 

[chezuki]

But if your given a PI I wonder if your license can be revoked.

It takes two of them (or similar offenses) to qualify as an "Alcohol Abuser" and therefore not a "Proper Person".

IC 35-47-1-2
"Alcohol abuser"
Sec. 2. "Alcohol abuser" means an individual who has had two (2)
or more alcohol related offenses, any one (1) of which resulted in
conviction by a court or treatment in an alcohol abuse facility within
three (3) years prior to the date of the application.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32.

IC 35-47-1-7
"Proper person"
Sec. 7. "Proper person" means a person who:
(1) does not have a conviction for resisting law enforcement
under IC 35-44.1-3-1 within five (5) years before the person
applies for a license or permit under this chapter;
(2) does not have a conviction for a crime for which the person
could have been sentenced for more than one (1) year;
(3) does not have a conviction for a crime of domestic violence
(as defined in IC 35-31.5-2-78), unless a court has restored the
person's right to possess a firearm under IC 35-47-4-7;
(4) is not prohibited by a court order from possessing a
handgun;
(5) does not have a record of being an alcohol or drug abuser as
defined in this chapter;
(6) does not have documented evidence which would give rise
to a reasonable belief that the person has a propensity for
violent or emotionally unstable conduct;
(7) does not make a false statement of material fact on the
person's application;
(8) does not have a conviction for any crime involving an
inability to safely handle a handgun;
(9) does not have a conviction for violation of the provisions of
this article within five (5) years of the person's application;
(10) does not have an adjudication as a delinquent child for an
act that would be a felony if committed by an adult, if the
person applying for a license or permit under this chapter is less
than twenty-three (23) years of age;
(11) has not been involuntarily committed, other than a
temporary commitment for observation or evaluation, to a
mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other
lawful authority;
(12) has not been the subject of a:
(A) ninety (90) day commitment as a result of proceeding
under IC 12-26-6; or
(B) regular commitment under IC 12-26-7; or
(13) has not been found by a court to be mentally incompetent,
including being found:
(A) not guilty by reason of insanity;
(B) guilty but mentally ill; or
(C) incompetent to stand trial.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.191-1984,
SEC.1; P.L.148-1987, SEC.3; P.L.269-1995, SEC.5; P.L.49-2005,
SEC.1; P.L.118-2007, SEC.34; P.L.127-2011, SEC.3; P.L.114-2012,
SEC.139; P.L.126-2012, SEC.57.

 

[snafu21]

I don't drink at all so to me it doesn't now nor will it happen in the future.

 

[ModernGunner]

Whether you choose to get 'hammered', or are a tea-totaler, you're still responsible for every shot discharged from the firearm you carry.

As noted earlier, the positive is that we (in Indiana) live in a State where that decision is YOUR decision, and not one made for you by some scu... er, uh, politician.

There's another take on this subject. If one is of the mindset that they 'need' or 'must' leave their firearm behind because they might be out of control or be incapable of using good judgement when they decide to drink, one must really question whether this same person is actually 'in control' or using sound judgment when they're not drinking?

Alcohol is not a 'changer', it's an 'amplifier'. Therefore, if that person has the personality type that loses control, that personality type remains, whether or not that person imbibes. It is only suppressed, hidden, covered up when not drinking. If it's not alcohol that, then 'sets them off' to a course of poor judgment, it's just a matter of what will, because the basic personality type doesn't change.

If someone isn't to be trusted when they've had a few because they might 'pull out their gun and start waving it around', then they can't be trusted with it when their stone-cold sober, either. JMO.

THEY even know this, because they already know to leave their firearm at home when they elect to drink. They just hide that 'little detail' when they're not drinking. THEY might trust themselves when they're not drinking, and sober, but that sure as hell doesn't mean others should.

 

[EyeCarry]

When I am carrying, I typically don't seek out a drink, like with dinner, etc.

However if I am doing something social where drinks are being served I might have a single beer, but never a second or more.

I try to treat drinking while carrying like driving. If I'm not sober enough to drive, I'm not sober enough to carry. Both are lethal weapons that can be devastating under control of someone under the influence.

+1 on that AND chezuki's post

 

[BiscuitNaBasket]

Every person is different. Tolerances vary as well. Personally I don't mind having a beer or two, but I've never abused drinking by trying to get drunk. I know my limit and I know when I can be safe and still drink.

I also don't go to bars. I'm just not a bar person. I'd rather drink in the comfort of my home.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It is a question of specific intent.

You and the boys going to "drink" (especially if 25 and under), just leave the guns home.

Having a drink with dinner, no big deal.

To be completely safe, have a no booze when carrying policy.

 

[MadMan66]

Whether you choose to get 'hammered', or are a tea-totaler, you're still responsible for every shot discharged from the firearm you carry.

As noted earlier, the positive is that we (in Indiana) live in a State where that decision is YOUR decision, and not one made for you by some scu... er, uh, politician.

There's another take on this subject. If one is of the mindset that they 'need' or 'must' leave their firearm behind because they might be out of control or be incapable of using good judgement when they decide to drink, one must really question whether this same person is actually 'in control' or using sound judgment when they're not drinking?

Alcohol is not a 'changer', it's an 'amplifier'. Therefore, if that person has the personality type that loses control, that personality type remains, whether or not that person imbibes. It is only suppressed, hidden, covered up when not drinking. If it's not alcohol that, then 'sets them off' to a course of poor judgment, it's just a matter of what will, because the basic personality type doesn't change.

If someone isn't to be trusted when they've had a few because they might 'pull out their gun and start waving it around', then they can't be trusted with it when their stone-cold sober, either. JMO.

THEY even know this, because they already know to leave their firearm at home when they elect to drink. They just hide that 'little detail' when they're not drinking. THEY might trust themselves when they're not drinking, and sober, but that sure as hell doesn't mean others should.

I'd elaborate more on this, but need to get back to studying for finals (I really shouldn't be on here to begin with). I agree with you for the most part. I carry everywhere, at all times, that I'm not on the clock at work. So if I choose to have a drink or two, I'll be carrying. Drinking while carrying isn't the same as drinking and driving. Operating your firearm is more like driving, not just having it on you. Now going shooting at the range while drinking is a more fair comparison in my opinion. Say you are a few drinks in and a horrible situation arrises where you're the only one home and you need to get away, and quick. Do you not get behind the wheel to get to safety? (Talking a mile up the road, not across town)

Under no circumstance, other than a life threatening situation, would I touch my holstered firearm while/after drinking. It's a frame of mind that doesn't change with any amount of drinks, just like I would never cheat on my wife, no matter how intoxicated I was. I've been to the point of passing out drunk (those days are long over, and I never had a firearm on me back then), but at no point did I not know what I was doing. I knew I'd have to deal with consequences when I sobered up.

I know there are a million and a half scenarios about how bad aim would be if you needed to use it, and the possibility of injuring innocent people, ect. Those are all good points. And I don't think getting anywhere past a few beers while carrying is a good idea, just to make that clear.

Oops, I ended up rambling too much... now back to pathophysiology.

 

[chezuki]

Every person is different. Tolerances vary as well.

This. I don't drink at all now, but when I did, I still carried. There are some who get hot-headed and pick fights even after only a beer or two. Those kind of people should definitely not drink while carrying (and some would argue that with such little self-control, they shouldn't be carrying at all).

 

[bwframe]

Whether you choose to get 'hammered', or are a tea-totaler, you're still responsible for every shot discharged from the firearm you carry.

As noted earlier, the positive is that we (in Indiana) live in a State where that decision is YOUR decision, and not one made for you by some scu... er, uh, politician.

There's another take on this subject. If one is of the mindset that they 'need' or 'must' leave their firearm behind because they might be out of control or be incapable of using good judgement when they decide to drink, one must really question whether this same person is actually 'in control' or using sound judgment when they're not drinking?

Alcohol is not a 'changer', it's an 'amplifier'. Therefore, if that person has the personality type that loses control, that personality type remains, whether or not that person imbibes. It is only suppressed, hidden, covered up when not drinking. If it's not alcohol that, then 'sets them off' to a course of poor judgment, it's just a matter of what will, because the basic personality type doesn't change.

If someone isn't to be trusted when they've had a few because they might 'pull out their gun and start waving it around', then they can't be trusted with it when their stone-cold sober, either. JMO.

THEY even know this, because they already know to leave their firearm at home when they elect to drink. They just hide that 'little detail' when they're not drinking. THEY might trust themselves when they're not drinking, and sober, but that sure as hell doesn't mean others should.

Stupid people make stupid drunks.

 

[chipbennett]

From a legal standpoint, my opinion of how things *should* be is that the use of the gun should be judged on the circumstances of its use, and whether that use is statutorily justified. The level of impairment of the person who uses the gun should not matter. Use of deadly force in self-defense is justified based on a Reasonable Man standard - i.e. would a reasonable person, under the same circumstances, with the same knowledge, skills, and experience, consider the threat or risk to constitute a need to use deadly force. That alcohol may present a risk of the gun user acting outside of the Reasonable Man standard should be a matter to be considered by the gun user. If the assessed threat/risk would be reasonable under the Reasonable Man standard, then the defensive gun use is justified whether the gun user is impaired or not. (And the opposite is true, as well.)

I doubt that would fly in many/most cases, though.

As for me personally: I choose not to be impaired, in public or in private. I may have a (single) drink with a meal, or after a meal playing cards, etc. If I'm out, I almost never drink anything. But if I chose to have a drink, I would not disarm first, because I know that my self-imposed limits are nowhere near what would cause impairment. I also home carry, and would not disarm if having a drink with dinner, or even a couple drinks over a card game. If I thought there was any chance I would drink more than that, I would disarm. But the last time I did even that much was... over a decade ago, at least? I'm just not much of a drinker.