We need drunk carry laws just like we need drunk driving laws. I'm as pro concealed carry as you can get, but I don't even like it when a drunk has a butterknife.
States are all over the map on this. For some example, as I recall, mine (Missouri) outlaws it while Pennsylvania doesn't care .
That said, there's a big difference between piloting one or more tons of steel etc. where we know from harsh experience that not much degradation of preformance can be allowed vs. someone being somewhat intoxicated and having a holstered gun.
E.g. if they don't take it out of the holster, there isn't even an issue here.
That said, I view being intoxicated in public as a big mistake to begin with; if you care about self-defense i.e. you're legally carrying, why are you significantly (beyond, say, one drink) decreasing your ability to defend yourself?
"Guns and alcohol don’t mix" has long been the rule for hunters (I grew up in that part of the gun culture), although Phil Bredesen's invocation of that about a law that doesn't allow drinking while carrying is self-evidently bogus. Also, the use of "guns in bars" tells you where someone is coming from: guns in restaurants that serve alcohol is the really big issue, affecting vastly more people.
Bottom line: every time this has happened (an expansion of gun rights outside the home) starting with the 1987 Florida shall issue law the press and other usual suspects predicts blood in the streets, but somehow it never happens. Which might in part explain the continued success of passing these laws. Nowadays it's easier to count the 9 may issue (formally) and 2 no issue states than it is to count the shall issue ones (formal or in practice, with Iowa joining the list this January).
>if they don't take it out of the holster, there isn't even an issue here.
Somewhat true. But if you're not prepared to take it out of the holster, why even bring it? And the reason I say "somewhat true" is because somebody can take that gun out of a drunk's holster. I don't think that it's unreasonable to require that people be somewhat sober when holding a gun in public simply because it may diminish their capacity to _defend_ that gun.
Good point: you do have a strong duty to retain your weapons, and while they're concealed, being intoxicated will make it harder to maintain the concealment and much harder to fight off a grab for one of them.
5 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 12.1 ms ] threadAnyone else have the same bit of song run through their head while reading the title? (I can't read the story since it's behind a wall.)
That said, there's a big difference between piloting one or more tons of steel etc. where we know from harsh experience that not much degradation of preformance can be allowed vs. someone being somewhat intoxicated and having a holstered gun.
E.g. if they don't take it out of the holster, there isn't even an issue here.
That said, I view being intoxicated in public as a big mistake to begin with; if you care about self-defense i.e. you're legally carrying, why are you significantly (beyond, say, one drink) decreasing your ability to defend yourself?
"Guns and alcohol don’t mix" has long been the rule for hunters (I grew up in that part of the gun culture), although Phil Bredesen's invocation of that about a law that doesn't allow drinking while carrying is self-evidently bogus. Also, the use of "guns in bars" tells you where someone is coming from: guns in restaurants that serve alcohol is the really big issue, affecting vastly more people.
Bottom line: every time this has happened (an expansion of gun rights outside the home) starting with the 1987 Florida shall issue law the press and other usual suspects predicts blood in the streets, but somehow it never happens. Which might in part explain the continued success of passing these laws. Nowadays it's easier to count the 9 may issue (formally) and 2 no issue states than it is to count the shall issue ones (formal or in practice, with Iowa joining the list this January).
Somewhat true. But if you're not prepared to take it out of the holster, why even bring it? And the reason I say "somewhat true" is because somebody can take that gun out of a drunk's holster. I don't think that it's unreasonable to require that people be somewhat sober when holding a gun in public simply because it may diminish their capacity to _defend_ that gun.