Drinking and CCWing no different than drinking and driving

This forum is for discussion of general issues regarding Concealed Carry in your everyday life. This forum is not intended to be political or for discussing legislation.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Brian_Horton
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:20 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Contact:

Post by Brian_Horton »

I believe it is zero BAC for you to carry.
When the goin' gets tough, the tough go cyclic.

Happiness is a crew served weapon.
rhwiley
Posts: 517
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:32 pm
Location: Malvern, OH
Contact:

Post by rhwiley »

I'm trying to research if there is anything in the ORC about this. All I can find some far, is where I can't discharge my firearm while 'under the influence' of alcohol. That's a broad definition: 'under the influence' - stay away from mouth wash if someone wants to get real picky.

I'm just trying to find it in the ORC - does anyone have any ideas or knowledge? For me it's mostly academic, since I rarely drink. Thanks!

Bob Wiley
Cruiser
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 10911
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:41 pm
Location: Mercer County, Ohio - what is yours?

.08

Post by Cruiser »

Does this cover it?
Found it! in HB12, Influence for firearms is the same as with a vehicle.
Sec. 2923.16.
(D) No person shall knowingly transport or have a loaded
handgun in a motor vehicle if, at the time of that transportation
or possession, any of the following applies:

(1) The person is under the influence of alcohol, a drug of
abuse, or a combination of them.

(2) The person's whole blood, blood serum or plasma, breath,
or urine contains a concentration of alcohol prohibited for
persons operating a vehicle, as specified in division (A) of
section 4511.19 of the Revised Code, regardless of whether the
person at the time of the transportation or possession as
described in this division is the operator of or a passenger in
the motor vehicle
rhwiley
Posts: 517
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:32 pm
Location: Malvern, OH
Contact:

Post by rhwiley »

That works for me. So while carrying I could (not that I actually would) have one beer with friends at a beach party or somewhere (but not in a liquor-serving establishment) and not have to disarm to do so. While I still think having no alcohol while armed is the best approach, it makes things much more realistic in regular society to have some tolerance. Thanks!

Bob Wiley
User avatar
sabalo
Deceased
Deceased
Posts: 6071
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 12:32 am
Location: Thornville, Ohio
Contact:

Drinking

Post by sabalo »

If you notice my avatar you'll probably guess I'm from Pennsylvania. I was born in Pittsburgh and return there occasionally. I have gone with friends for lunch at local bars (bar food in PGH is the best !). I had a beer or two with my meal. I was carrying at the time. NOBODY DIED !

I watch the news while there, no stories of bar shootouts. We went to a local bar one night and I bet I was able to "make" at least 5 other people there who were "packin". NO GUNFIGHTS !

Folks, you can imbibe responsibly and not be a risk to your fellow citizens. This is the REAL world. People can be treated as adults with the responsibility to make rational, prudent and safe decisions regarding their own behavior.

We have lost many of our rights incrementally, this is another symptom of that thinking. Keep finding small situations and disallow gun use in those circumstances, then find another situation and disallow there too, then another and another ! Eventually the proscribed use is so limited as to be useless.

We barter away our rights for a social solution enforced by our government. Stop thinking in small increments, that's what they want you to do. We should be a zealous in guarding our rights as zealously as those who have fought to procure them.

Zero tolerance is the slogan of those who want to impose their brand of morality, prejudices, religion, etc. on you. When you stand for ideas of small losses or zero tolerance you wind up standing on the anti's side of the fence.

The way to know what your position should be is to read the original document of our rights. Look for mention of small exceptions of your rights. Look for statements of zero tolerance for any of the aforementioned rights.

The watchwords in the documents are based on tolerance. The don't remove rights, they endow them to us. It is a document based on a positive mindset, not a negative mindset of placing restraints or limits on the individual. The restraints they did impose were put in to limit the power of the GOVERNMENT.

Whenever you feel yourself leaning to agreeing to a "compromise" of your rights for the betterment of society you are allowing one more incursion of governmental control of your behavior or beliefs. You get what you deserve - less rights and more control of what you do or think.
======================================================
The beatings will continue until morale improves !

"It's bowb your buddy week."
Harry Harrison - DEATHWORLD

Let's all remember that 9 Bengals were arrested in a 9 month period !
(Source-ESPN)

Jerk Herder®
Petrovich
*** Banned ***
Posts: 4030
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:39 pm

Post by Petrovich »

Interactions between friends and associates at a bar are one thing. An uninvited interaction with a belligerant is quite another.

Alcohol lowers our inhibition, and causes us to act more impulsively. I won't pound the pulpit anymore, but I think most can see where this might lead.
Petrovich
*** Banned ***
Posts: 4030
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:39 pm

Re: .08

Post by Petrovich »

Cruiser wrote:Does this cover it?
Found it! in HB12, Influence for firearms is the same as with a vehicle.
Sec. 2923.16.
(D) No person shall knowingly transport or have a loaded
handgun in a motor vehicle if, at the time of that transportation
or possession, any of the following applies:

(1) The person is under the influence of alcohol, a drug of
abuse, or a combination of them.

(2) The person's whole blood, blood serum or plasma, breath,
or urine contains a concentration of alcohol prohibited for
persons operating a vehicle, as specified in division (A) of
section 4511.19 of the Revised Code, regardless of whether the
person at the time of the transportation or possession as
described in this division is the operator of or a passenger in
the motor vehicle
The charge of mishandling a firearm can be applied to a variety of actions. I was shooting at night (safely) and the neighbors called the sheriff's department complaining. The deputy was very polite and respectful, but he did inform me that shooting at night could be construed as 'mishandling a firearm'. I suppose, just for good measure, he also informed me that if I was drinking (I wasn't) that also could bring a charge of mishandling a firearm. He asked me nicely to cease firing, which I did of course.
RonS
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 5:38 pm

Post by RonS »

Political philosophy ahead, may cause irritation or other side effects.

It's funny how many laws there have to be to detail every single stupid thing a person might be able to do that might hurt someone else or themself. Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just say "Thou Shalt Not... Oh, wait a minute, that's been done, and it's inadmissable.

Seriously, why have so many laws about what people might do and so little concern for what they actually do? Like that pervert in Idaho, rape a kid at gun point on a school yard, have your bail set at less than half the cost of a new pickup truck, move on the the next victims.

Why have a thousand laws that say some variation of "You can't have a gun in a bar because you might get blotto and hurt somebody." Why not have a law that says "If you hurt somebody for no good reason, rent "Dead Man Walking" for a preview of your new life, and by the way, there is no such thing as diminished capacity, you are responsible for what you do, drunk, sober, angry or frightened."

A single generation to weed out the really stupid ones, and we could have a much safer and more civil America.
Petrovich
*** Banned ***
Posts: 4030
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:39 pm

Post by Petrovich »

RonS wrote:Political philosophy ahead, may cause irritation or other side effects.

It's funny how many laws there have to be to detail every single stupid thing a person might be able to do that might hurt someone else or themself. Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just say "Thou Shalt Not... Oh, wait a minute, that's been done, and it's inadmissable.

Seriously, why have so many laws about what people might do and so little concern for what they actually do? Like that pervert in Idaho, rape a kid at gun point on a school yard, have your bail set at less than half the cost of a new pickup truck, move on the the next victims.

Why have a thousand laws that say some variation of "You can't have a gun in a bar because you might get blotto and hurt somebody." Why not have a law that says "If you hurt somebody for no good reason, rent "Dead Man Walking" for a preview of your new life, and by the way, there is no such thing as diminished capacity, you are responsible for what you do, drunk, sober, angry or frightened."

A single generation to weed out the really stupid ones, and we could have a much safer and more civil America.
Well, get to weedin' then.

Until it's legal to take a scumbag like the idaho dude out behind the courthouse and shoot the son-of-a-dog; we're gonna hafta deal with laws "about what people might do and so little concern for what they actually do?"

It's not about what's right. Forget the notion.
User avatar
jgarvas
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
Posts: 3163
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 10:35 pm
Location: Northern Summit County
Contact:

Post by jgarvas »

rhwiley wrote:That works for me. So while carrying I could (not that I actually would) have one beer with friends at a beach party or somewhere (but not in a liquor-serving establishment) and not have to disarm to do so. While I still think having no alcohol while armed is the best approach, it makes things much more realistic in regular society to have some tolerance. Thanks!

Bob Wiley
While I agree that you could probably "get away" with having a beer and not need to worry about carrying your firearm there are a few things to consider. You don't know when you'll reach .08 BAC, which is when Ohio law considers you "under the influence", and I believe this is a posession disability if I recall correctly. (The minute you score that you can't be in posession, and if its in your car, you may be in posession due to case law. I'm fairly certain this was pre-HB12 law.)

Secondly, lets assume you're never caught but instead you are involved in a 100% legitimate self-defense shooting. The fact that you consumed alcohol that evening and scored a .06 will most definately be brought up in your trial and used to impeach your judgement, your ability to realize your obligation to flee, etc. I'm sure the follow up responses will be "But you're better off than dead" and that might be true. Just something to consider when you're convincing yourself that its not that bad to break this one itty bitty firearm safety rule.

(I don't drink that much at all so its not a big deal to me.)

-Jeff
Jeff Garvas, President
Ohioans For Concealed Carry

Contrary to a popular belief when I brag about OFCC accomplishments I'm not looking for your thank you or personal recognition. I'd much prefer you send me an email telling me when you are going to get involved in doing what I've been doing since 1999. We are only as effective as we make ourselves. We need the next generation of OFCC to step to the plate.

Is that you?

To Contact Me: Use This Form and pick my name.
Petrovich
*** Banned ***
Posts: 4030
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:39 pm

Post by Petrovich »

jgarvas wrote: "But you're better off than dead" and that might be true. Just something to consider when you're convincing yourself that its not that bad to break this one itty bitty firearm safety rule.

(I don't drink that much at all so its not a big deal to me.)

-Jeff
Better off than dead is a matter of opinion, Jeff.

Frankly, without my freedom, I'd just as soon be dead.

I'm guessing a freedom lover like yourself agrees.
cincydave
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:25 pm
Location: Cincinnati

Reaction time

Post by cincydave »

What everybody on this post so far seems to be ignoring is the physical response that is typical from the adrenaline rush during an armed encounter. Tunnel vision, severe loss of manual dexterity, hearing loss, and time contraction. Add a little alcohol to that and what would you end up with? We were taught at TDI that the reason that you want to practice so much is that you will operate at a MUCH lower level of efficiency during an armed encounter. My personal belief is that even small amounts of alcohol will bring this efficiency down even farther. And just as when you operate a vehicle you impact (no pun intended) other innocents, operating a handgun can have similar consequences. ANY amount of alcohol should be avoided while carrying, despite how immune you think you are from these physical effects. My 0.02.
Petrovich
*** Banned ***
Posts: 4030
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:39 pm

Re: Reaction time

Post by Petrovich »

cincydave wrote:What everybody on this post so far seems to be ignoring is the physical response that is typical from the adrenaline rush during an armed encounter. Tunnel vision, severe loss of manual dexterity, hearing loss, and time contraction. Add a little alcohol to that and what would you end up with? We were taught at TDI that the reason that you want to practice so much is that you will operate at a MUCH lower level of efficiency during an armed encounter. My personal belief is that even small amounts of alcohol will bring this efficiency down even farther. And just as when you operate a vehicle you impact (no pun intended) other innocents, operating a handgun can have similar consequences. ANY amount of alcohol should be avoided while carrying, despite how immune you think you are from these physical effects. My 0.02.
A lot of people are in prison because of something they did with a firearm when they were drunk.

Concerning your description of the physiologic response to an armed encounter. I've never been in one, but your description correlates with others I've read.

I have been under acutely stressful situations (haven't we all?) and I noticed that my performance was actually enhanced.

For example, as a RN I have been involved in numerous code blues. So many things became automatic that I was amazed at what I had done in retrospect.

Of course, I think this is a reflection of training. My point in bringing this up is that I think most CC folks would probably be doing themselves a big favor by getting some defensive pistol training.
Kacer
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 5:09 pm
Location: Central Ohio
Contact:

Post by Kacer »

jgarvas wrote: While I agree that you could probably "get away" with having a beer and not need to worry about carrying your firearm there are a few things to consider. You don't know when you'll reach .08 BAC, which is when Ohio law considers you "under the influence", and I believe this is a posession disability if I recall correctly. (The minute you score that you can't be in posession, and if its in your car, you may be in posession due to case law. I'm fairly certain this was pre-HB12 law.)

Secondly, lets assume you're never caught but instead you are involved in a 100% legitimate self-defense shooting. The fact that you consumed alcohol that evening and scored a .06 will most definately be brought up in your trial and used to impeach your judgement, your ability to realize your obligation to flee, etc. I'm sure the follow up responses will be "But you're better off than dead" and that might be true. Just something to consider when you're convincing yourself that its not that bad to break this one itty bitty firearm safety rule.

(I don't drink that much at all so its not a big deal to me.)

-Jeff
I don't really drink either, so it's "academic" - but, if you have it handy, might you post some refrence to the "The minute you score that you can't be in posession, and if its in your car, you may be in posession due to case law. I'm fairly certain this was pre-HB12 law." And how might that differ from having a firearm in THE HOUSE when you are "legally" drunk?

I mean.... THAT seems pretty outrageous to me. And I don't even DRINK (unless you count Coors Non-Alcoholic beer) and I'm pretty "rabid" when it comes to "drunk driving" ... and it STILL seems outrageous. I mean in order to "get blotto" you must sell all your firearms??? (I'm NOT saying you said this, I'm just taking what you DID say to a "logical" (so to speak) conclusion. I mean one IS "in possession" of their home, hence their firearms.........

Also, would "relinquishing" one's KEYS to the vehicle be sufficient to absolve one of that particular "offence" (to your knowledge/understanding). I'm more lookimg for REASONABLE "outs" for folks who DO drink socially on occasion.... (I have friends who DO drink - since I don't... would them giving me their keys until the next morning/later when they are VERY much sober (instead of "mostly okay" work w/staying legal?).
Willy P
Posts: 842
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 12:44 pm
Location: Madison Co.

Post by Willy P »

Personally any alcohol in me would worry me about any civil suit, you can come out of the criminal trial clean and get creamed in the wallet for life! Alive BUT paying some degenerate's family for life while your family goes without is not a real big win IMHO. IMO and lots of others OJ was guilty but he made it out of the criminal end of things ok, the civil end tried to bite him but he is doing a good bob and weave, unfortunately :( Just my thoughts on it.
Post Reply