Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MechAg94 on November 22, 2019, 08:37:35 AM
-
https://pluralist.com/ohio-gun-intoxicated/
The highest court in the state is set to hear arguments in February on whether a 45-year-old law prohibiting gun owners carrying while intoxicated applies if the gun owner is inside their own home, the Associated Press reported on Saturday.
According to court documents, Clermont County Sheriff’s Office officers responded to the home of Fredrick Weber on February 17, 2018, after his wife called police to report he was intoxicated and in possession of a gun.
https://www.toledoblade.com/local/courts/2019/09/20/cities-defend-state-law-forbidding-guns-while-drunk/stories/20190920117
Cities defend state law forbidding guns while drunk
“Their police officers are the first to respond to domestic violence incidents, interpersonal gun violence, gun suicides, and unintentional shootings, all of which are made more lethal by the combination of guns and alcohol,” it reads. “They are the ones who have to respond to domestic violence calls where the mixture of guns and alcohol often leads to women being killed and officers being assaulted.
For officer safety of course.
I don't know anything about Ohio courts. Any predictions on this?
-
I don't see how the Ohio SC could uphold this law. Their are plenty of other laws don't apply in one's home.
-
How did they PROVE he was actually drunk? There's no requirement to take a breathalyzer or other sobriety test unless you're driving, right?
-
I thought an article said the guy did a field sobriety test which I thought was stupid. Of course, I didn't know why the wife thought it was good to call the police in the first place.
-
I thought an article said the guy did a field sobriety test which I thought was stupid. Of course, I didn't know why the wife thought it was good to call the police in the first place.
Maybe she's read too many stories about police shooting people during "welfare checks", especially if they are armed, and figured this was her chance.
-
I could see a future in which anti-gunners use this approach to disarm people. Which may lead to a new kind of temperance movement. Combine that with the Left's new-found "Me Too" prudishness, and the new nadir (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadir_of_American_race_relations) of anti-white racism in the U.S., and it looks like the early 1900s all over again. Bizzaro, upside-down early 1900s, of course.
-
Ban alcohol! It's for the children.
I mean it's not like it's been tried before.
Oh wait.........
-
The statute is Revised Code 2923.15, which states that "No person, while under the influence of alcohol or any drug of abuse, shall carry or use any firearm or dangerous ordnance." My concern as a gun owner is how the court decides to define "carry or use". The court is far too conservative to include any firearm in a safe. The worry is that loaded weapon we keep stored for the emergency we all fear and prep for. Will the court expand the definition to include a weapon kept loaded and ready at hand. The Court might just be that liberal. If so, where will the line be drawn. Is my quick access safe too ready? Or, how will they define " under the influence?" Will it be a .08 BAC like the OVI statute? I'll watch this with interest...
-
If so, where will the line be drawn. Is my quick access safe too ready? Or, how will they define " under the influence?" Will it be a .08 BAC like the OVI statute? I'll watch this with interest...
Me too. This has always been a concern of mine. Idaho and some other states both allow you to enter bars with guns and also have language similar to, "prohibited from carrying while intoxicated" without ever saying how they define "intoxicated".
IMO, and I may be getting myself into trouble, I interpret it the same as I do driving while intoxicated. I will get in my car after having a burger and ONE beer. Or after waiting an appropriate amount of time (as in at least a couple of hours) after having two beers or a glass of whiskey or something. I don't see why carrying a gun should be handled differently, and I personally, don't handle it much differently other than, by my own choice, being a bit more conservative with the gun than with the car. With the gun it's generally just a burger and beer, and usually a low ABV beer. Obviously the gun is on you all the time, so an argument could be made that you should never drink more than you would if you would jump in your car immediately afterwards, i.e., the "wait till the buzz wears off" doesn't apply. Maybe the 0.04BAC that truckers have to use is more appropriate than the 0.08BAC.
It's a personal choice and personal responsibility, but I don't see why carrying should keep me from having *A* beer. Other than, for all I know, even if a breathalyzer doesn't pick up a thing, maybe a cop could arrest me if they saw me packing and having a cold one, simply because there is no definition (at least in Idaho) for "intoxicated".
-
Article 6, paragraph 2, line b as annotated in Wilbur et all. No one shall leave their house or domicile for any reason unless invited by the mayor and at least 3 councilpersons and escorted by at least 1 police officer or 2 constables. Anyone violating this order shall be summarily executed.
-
Me too. This has always been a concern of mine. Idaho and some other states both allow you to enter bars with guns and also have language similar to, "prohibited from carrying while intoxicated" without ever saying how they define "intoxicated".
IMO, and I may be getting myself into trouble, I interpret it the same as I do driving while intoxicated. I will get in my car after having a burger and ONE beer. Or after waiting an appropriate amount of time (as in at least a couple of hours) after having two beers or a glass of whiskey or something. I don't see why carrying a gun should be handled differently, and I personally, don't handle it much differently other than, by my own choice, being a bit more conservative with the gun than with the car. With the gun it's generally just a burger and beer, and usually a low ABV beer. Obviously the gun is on you all the time, so an argument could be made that you should never drink more than you would if you would jump in your car immediately afterwards, i.e., the "wait till the buzz wears off" doesn't apply. Maybe the 0.04BAC that truckers have to use is more appropriate than the 0.08BAC.
It's a personal choice and personal responsibility, but I don't see why carrying should keep me from having *A* beer. Other than, for all I know, even if a breathalyzer doesn't pick up a thing, maybe a cop could arrest me if they saw me packing and having a cold one, simply because there is no definition (at least in Idaho) for "intoxicated".
[devil's advocate]
How drunk should you be before you loose the right to self defense. Would you apply this to punching someone who is mugging you while you walk home from a bar? That could kill them, and you are too impaired to make choices. How about a women after 3 Appletinis? Is she no longer capable of making the call she is being attacked and needs to defend herself? She must submit to anything that happens because she's too drunk to defend herself?
After all if you are too drunk to even possess a firearm you are way too drunk to make the much more layered judgments needed to appropriately use force of any kind to defend yourself.
[/devil's advocate]
Obviously, the above goes a little extreme, but it is highlights a point, and there do exist people on the other side that would draw lines that far. Why do we accept that there is any BAC that makes it appropriate to ban mere possession of a firearm? Was the subject in question doing anything with it? Waving it around? Acting reckless? I believe we have laws for that.
To go back to the car analogy (which I hate for a couple of reasons, but is still useful) No one sane would argue that you have to lock the keys to your vehicle up in a safe to drink in your home. Indeed you can have a couple beers (or more) in a bar with the keys in your pocket. It's when you try and use the vehicle that there's an issue.
But guns are so effectively "scary"-ized that here we are. I would also mention that unlike cars there is a USSC decision affirming the fundamental right to own and bear a firearm in the home. I'm not sure that "unless you have had two beers" will pass scrutiny on that one.
-
I agree with you, dogmsuh.
I think an individual's rights stay intact even if he is drunk or stoned.
-
[devil's advocate]
But guns are so effectively "scary"-ized that here we are. I would also mention that unlike cars there is a USSC decision affirming the fundamental right to own and bear a firearm in the home. I'm not sure that "unless you have had two beers" will pass scrutiny on that one.
I snipped, but totally agree with all your points above. I don't want the law telling me what my personal responsibility is. While that means I have to put up with jackasses that drive after downing a fifth of Jack Daniels and killing someone, or jackasses that down a fifth of Jack Daniels and then go Homer Simpson with their gun, there are laws to prosecute murder and mayhem. I, personally, don't want to carry a gun when I'm inebriated. Personal choice. I might lock it in the car in public, more so from fear of the police than fear of me doing something stupid. At home, I won't lock it up - as you say, I have a right to defend myself when drunk.
I should have that right in public too, but as I mentioned, there are state laws and they are ambiguous. I - though I hate doing so - have to weigh the probabilities of some SJW weirdo calling the cops if they see me with a gun on in a Boise hipster bar vs the probability of having to use the gun there or on my way back to my vehicle. Then I have to hope the cops who show up are reasonable, because the ambiguous nature of the law might mean an anti gun cop could arrest me for having had just one sip of beer. If they're going to have a law I don't approve of*, I'd prefer it to have some solid metric so I know when I'm breaking it.
My "one or two beers" rule is my way -personal choice - of walking that tightrope. Also my own line of where I feel I'm still good with a gun and can still go to condition yellow versus being stuck in condition white. Subject to change without notice. :)
*On the other hand, many states, even those where you might not expect it (Wyoming is a glaring example) won't let you carry a gun into any establishment where alcohol is served, let alone have a beer with a gun on. I suppose that makes the law easy to interpret, but my right to defend myself shouldn't be taken away simply because there are bottles of alcohol minding their own business within 100 feet of me. So while ambiguous, at leat Idaho's law gives me more freedom for personal defense.
-
If they're going to have a law I don't approve of*, I'd prefer it to have some solid metric so I know when I'm breaking it.
Ambiguous, open to interpretation laws are a feature, not a bug.
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
Ayn Rand
-
Ambiguous, open to interpretation laws are a feature, not a bug.
While I generally agree with "The Law is an ass" in the, "spirit of the law vs letter of the law" way, I still worry about the cop/judge that doesn't like me.
-
i bet ohio will decide its unlawful to be in your own home/drunk/W a gun.
NV, it used to be .10 for to drunk to carry, but they changed it to .08 recently.
if i had my way, you should only be arrested if you're obviously a danger.
I never got a DUI because i trained my self to obey every traffic law like a robot - never even rolling thru a deserted stop sign without a car for miles.
always always always doing the speed limit and using turn signals.
that's why I have no dui's ... i was plenty drunk and would have blown over .10 easily ...
I am now the same way with gun safety rules as i am sure most of us are.
I have has an N.D one or two times, but it was always in a safe direction .
I wish "we" could all see it ben's way, but "we" are now to far left as a country for common sense.
ohio will more than likely decide for an increased police state. imo
-
As far as I've heard, in Illinois if you are involved in an accident and have any indication of having consumed alcohol you can be charged with DUI.
I wonder if this gun law will be interpreted the same way. Defend yourself with your gun while you have any indication of alcohol and boom, gotchya!