VA carry law proves it's worth, not exactly.

Slugthrower · January 7, 2012, 07:07 AM

On the 6th of January 2012 at approximately 6:15 PM. three armed men wearing ski masks entered a small community bar. These men attempted to rob the patrons. They were having people empty their pockets and a customer. Once this occured and during the robbery another customer slipped out of the building and returned with a firearm kept in his vehicle. This person then ordered the robbers to lay down their weapons. The criminals did not comply and a shoot out commenced. When the chaos broke out the citizen shot and killed one of the perpetrators. There was an exchange of gun fire and other patrons began to resist their assailants. In the ensuing fight a regular of the sports bar was wounded in the stomach. The man wounded in the stomach was throwing pool cues at the robbers to distract them. The remaining two bad guys left the building and fled. They were last seen driving a light blue Ford Taurus.

To me this is a prime example of why it is prudent to be armed at all times and no matter the venue. Crime knows no bounds and they apparently see people who frequent a tavern as prime targets. It does make sense in that alchohol consumption at such a place is rather expensive and requires a good bit of money to engage in.

People who carry firearms cannot consume under VA law and this is absolutely the correct regulation for the armed individual. It is not clear that the customer who shot one of the bad guys was or wasn't drinking at the time. I suppose it makes no matter in that he wasn't armed at the time, but instead retrived a firearm stored in his vehicle. The point here is that he did have a weapon available if such dire circumstances arised.
In no way do I condone the consumption of intoxicants and the carrying of firearms. However, it is most fortunate for many people in that bar that this person had a firearm in his vehicle though. He is considered a hero by those people as stated by several on camera and in private. He could have just as easily left the scene and not came back. By willingly putting himself in danger he is indeed a hero.

It is a good day when the local media reports in a neutral fashion such an incident. Perhaps those that are not firearm friendly will see the merit in allowing certain people onto thier premises armed though. The more positive press we as firearms users have the better, IMO. If or when more information becomes available I will post more on it.

What are some of the thoughts the of memebers here on TFL?

icedog88 · January 7, 2012, 07:55 AM

Most of the bars I go to here in CT are Legion or VFW that require you to be a member or a guest. Locked doors with cameras at entrances, you get buzzed in or have your key. As it is, the law here says you cannot be under the influence and carry. I asked a cop if that meant I couldn't have a beer while carrying and he reiterated "under the influence". Pretty sure that meant he was covering his butt by not going into detail. I solved the problem by just not drinking while shooting pool. I also agree alcohol and firearms don't mix. That being said, I believe bartenders should be required to be armed and have training. Places and professions that have a history of being targeted for robberies would see a decline in violence if perps knew the targets are armed.

checkmyswag · January 7, 2012, 09:57 AM

Im asking not criticizing. I wasn't there so I don't know the whole story. But is it smart to start shooting when you are outnumbered? Could see some situations where it would make sense. Does it always?

**Aguila Blanca** · January 7, 2012, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by icedog88

As it is, the law here says you cannot be under the influence and carry.

As is my custom: What's the statutory citation for this? I'm familiar with the Virginia law so I won't ask for a cite on that, but I've never heard about a Connecticut law addressing carrying under the influence.

Back to the original story: If I were in this situation, I wonder if I would have bothered ordering the perps to lay down their weapons. There is no legal requirement to do so, and the story illustrates the potential downside of doing so. Didn't one of the famous old western gunfighters once say something about if you're in a fair fight you did something wrong?

Slugthrower · January 7, 2012, 10:25 AM

I agree Icedog88, it is a good idea to have some sort of contengency and the tender having the option of a shotgun would be but one. The locked doors and a check at that door is an even better measure as well.

Checkmyswag, it may not be the best idea to fight when outnumbered, in this case the man who returned had the drop on the man he shot. The others reacted in panic and on the first sign of resistance fled the scene. In general most people who commit a robbery expect little or no resistance. The people in the bar were not resisting at first as the element of surprise was in the criminals favor. I suppose that they let their guard down and that is when the pther acted. It ws a risk he took and worked out in his and most of the others favor.

Would it be something to repeat, who knows? In his situation it is what he saw fit to do. To my way of thinking it is a similar situation where a person is attempting to abduct a person and possibly murder them. If a person wants you to get into a vehicle and holds a gun on you. Do you comply? I wouldn't in such a case. If I do they could take me to a more secluded location to make sure there are no witnesses and most likely do me in. I would rather take the chance there on the spot as opposed to allowing the bad guy time to gain advantage.

Not that such is the case here, but in the military they teach soldiers to charge a machinegun. Even in the worst case senario, an ambush, you charge the gunner. Why is this? It is because if you run away all it does is make you an easy target for the MG gunner as he can continue to press the attack without fear for himself. He has less time and abilty to defeat your unit if you engage as opposed to breaking contact.
In most cases in an ambush the attacker will have superior firepower. In order to break contact and begin a retreat you must have superior firepower. This is why SEALS and other Spec Ops guys carry so much firepower. It isn't so much for an attack as it is to make the enemy believe he is facing an much larger a powerful element and therefore hesitant to persue. In the case where you don't have that superiorty a counter attack the method the way. It is only in the counter attack the one being abushed has any chance to survive. Althought your chances may be slim to none, it is better than accepting the the compromise of no chance.

For us in the civilian world retreat would be my first choice. So in short no it isn't always a go idea to go back into harms way. THis young man was a regular and many in the bar were his friends. I am pretty sure he couldn't just abandon them in good conscience. So he did what he did. As they say. there is a thin line between bravery and stupidity. In this case he was very lucky and brave indeed.

Slugthrower · January 7, 2012, 10:33 AM

Agree on that, Aguila Blanca. The element of surprise is your best asset. He would have been better off just sending them to their makers. Still comes down to us not being there and knowing what he was facing.

icedog88 · January 7, 2012, 11:18 AM

Aguila

Sec. 53-206d. Carrying a firearm while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drug prohibited. Hunting while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drug or while impaired by the consumption of intoxicating liquor prohibited. (a)(1) No person shall carry a pistol, revolver, machine gun, shotgun, rifle or other firearm, which is loaded and from which a shot may be discharged, upon his person (A) while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, or both, or (B) while the ratio of alcohol in the blood of such person is ten-hundredths of one per cent or more of alcohol, by weight.

(2) Any person who violates any provision of this subsection shall be guilty of a class B misdemeanor.

This is the only thing I can find pertaining to liquor. There is is no statue that I can find relating to carrying in a bar at this time.

dev_null · January 7, 2012, 11:20 AM

While I understand the idea of not mixing firearms and impaired judgment/reflexes, I don't like the idea that if I have a drink I cannot legally defend myself against a criminal. (And even if I beat the criminal charge, there's always the civil suit: "He was liquored up and shot my defendant's son, a former choirboy who wouldn't hurt a fly, never mind the yard-long rap sheet...")

bumnote · January 7, 2012, 12:31 PM

If it happened this way, the guy who went back into the bar made a huge mistake, IMO. First off, he's not a cop...so why did he go back inside? Just turning over wallets and the night's bar tabs aren't a good enough reason, IMO, for Joe Citizen to play cop...unless the robber were already shooting the patrons or had made it clear they were going to. Was his reappearance in the bar the catalyst for the shooting? If so, his actions led to another patron being shot and wounded. Would they have just left if he hadn't gone back in there? Should he waited outside on the phone and only gone back in if he'd heard shots? That's what I would have done. He also took on multiple assailants, not a smart thing to do, and obviously the robbers knew they had him outgunned. He might have also been the closest armed person standing near the door...not a good place to be if the cops show up, for them or him.
IMO this situation and it's aftermath is more about when and where you should intervene and when you shouldn't other than being able to carry after you've had a beer. If the events happened this way and there nothing more to the story, and there might be, this guy shouldn't have intervened. But that's just the way I see it.

Don H · January 7, 2012, 12:37 PM

Here, the impairment standard is the same as for driving a vehicle. If you're too impaired to drive, you're too impaired to carry legally. Seems to go hand in hand.

Brian Pfleuger · January 7, 2012, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bumnote

If it happened this way, the guy who went back into the bar made a huge mistake, IMO....

IMHO also. Your analysis is spot-on.

icedog88 · January 7, 2012, 01:02 PM

Too much info left out of the description for me to make that determination.

brickeyee · January 7, 2012, 01:42 PM

Quote:

if I have a drink I cannot legally defend myself against a criminal.

There is no law that says you cannot defend yourself.

The law says you cannot carry concealed handgun into a place serving alcohol by the drink in Virgina and also drink.

You are free to use fists, a baseball bat, or an unconcealed gun.

dev_null · January 7, 2012, 02:25 PM

brickeyee, my understanding is that in TX (where I've moved to from VA), you cannot CCW while under the influence. I could be wrong on this.

Crazy88Fingers · January 7, 2012, 06:15 PM

Florida's laws are interesting and convenient. I can go into a restaurant (that isn't strictly a bar) that serves alcohol, carry a concealed weapon, and drink myself stupid; as long as I don't sit in the "bar" area. It only becomes illegal if I "use" the weapon under the influence, which is defined as having a loaded gun in my hand. And there is an exception for using the gun in self-defense. Of course you should always drink and carry responsibly, and I abide by that unwritten law.

In response to the OP: it's always great to see people stand up to the bad guys. It certainly could have gone better, but that's usually the case. Even the SEALs that busted Bin Laden had their share of mishaps, with all their planning and intel. There's one less bad guy, and a few more scared ones.

Standing Wolf · January 7, 2012, 09:52 PM

Quote:

People who carry firearms cannot consume under VA law and this is absolutely the correct regulation for the armed individual.

I have to disagree. The way we do it in Colorado is a little simpler: it's legal to drink and carry as long as you're not "under the influence," meaning your blood alcohol content remains below .08%, the same level used to determine whether you're good to drive. That's the way it's done in several other states, and makes sense to me.

Most people don't drink to excess and drive. I have to believe at least that same proportion of people who keep and bear arms on a daily basis wouldn't drink to excess and carry.

SamNavy · January 7, 2012, 10:37 PM

In most states, it's illegal to carry a firearm into an establishment with a CLASS-X liquor license (whatever "X" is in that state) that basically makes the establishment a bar. Restaurants that also happen to serve alcohol are not the same as bars as far as CCW laws go in most states.

The "Restaurant Carry" laws are usually a very hot topic of discussion. Here in Louisiana, there are several contradicting laws on the books that have resulted in most agencies basically saying "Don't carry in restaurants just to be safe" even if the place doesn't have a CLASS-X (ie, "bar") liquor license.

But a lot of retaurants have an attached bar, or an actual bar (with bartender, displayed beverages, beer-taps, etc...) inside the main eating area or perhaps only separated by a very basic divider. This is where you need to be very clear on what the laws are in your state.

If you plan on driving to a bar, consuming alcohol, and leaving the pistol in your car, only to then get back in your car after drinking, and drive with the weapon in your possession, then you're an idiot because you're probably drunk, or at least over the limit? "Well, I'm only going to have 1 beer"... why bother? It's just something you need to think about before you leave the house enroute to someplace where you plan to drink and you have your firearm with you.

**Frank Ettin** · January 7, 2012, 10:55 PM

I know that in Arizona, with a permit I can carry concealed into a place the serves alcohol (if not properly posted), but I can't drink. In Nevada, I believe the legal BAC when carrying is 0.10.

But consider that if you need to use your gun and if there's any question about justification, any alcohol in your system will probably not be helpful in your efforts to get things sorted out in your favor.

Onward Allusion · January 7, 2012, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Slugthrower
VA carry law proves it's worth, not exactly.

Alcohol and ...you pick 'em...
- cars
- guns
- gambling
- heavy machinery...

Don't mix...

BUT...

It should be left to the individual to decide. I personally don't drink anymore, but I don't see anything wrong with having a glass of wine with dinner while carrying. Just like the DUI laws Carrying While Intoxicated should be enforced. There's a big difference between going to a bar for a single drink while CC'ing and going to a bar to get plastered while CC'ing.

egor20 · January 7, 2012, 11:32 PM

With my wife and I its easy, whom ever is the designated driver is also the designated CCWer. We switch off every other time we go out. Even though my wife only has a glass of wine and I only have a glass of bourbon, there's no reason to take a chance on a DUI or losing a permit.

Slugthrower · January 8, 2012, 08:10 AM

After talking to a few people that know alittle more on this subject. The man that went outside and retrived a firearm was in fact a bouncer and not under the influence of alchohol. So this changes a good bit of the perspective here, as he was employed for security it makes some sense as to why he would return to the scene.

I carry and do not drink anymore. Without doubt being intoxicated and armed is a bad combination. It has been many years ago that I was a drinker now. Funny how being armed regularly changes your habits. Those that still consume are wise to have a contengency for their activity. I am fairly sure that in a dire situation you may have to still consider the "what if". Elimination of that variable is the best course, but having been a rather heavy drinker I can understand the desire to continue. It just complicates the issue IMO.

For the most part I am sure we can all agree man has the right to self defense. It is the fine line that can get blurred when intoxicated and where the law seeks to minimize the potential problem in such a case. VA law is case law and they will treat each case on an indiviual basis. At sometime somewhere there has to have been a person who was drinking and not making trouble but trouble found them and it required them to defend themselves. Makes me wonder about it.

For the most part bars can be trouble themselves and it is better to avoid them. However for some this isn't what they decide for themselves. It just begs the question. If you drink do you forfeit your human right to self defense?

johnbt · January 8, 2012, 04:49 PM

"People who carry firearms cannot consume under VA law and this is absolutely the correct regulation for the armed individual."

It's the law here, but I disagree that it's correct.

dev_null · January 8, 2012, 05:09 PM

Quote:

If you drink do you forfeit your human right to self defense?

"Is that not what I just said?" - Lt. Cdr. Data

hermannr · January 8, 2012, 05:28 PM

Gentlemen: Think about this. No law has ever stopped anyone from doing anything they wanted to do bad enough, good, bad or ugly, that is just the way it is.

This means, it is illegal to drink and drive. Does it stop the activity?

It is Illegal to drive and text an a cell phone. Does it stop anyone?

The big problem with all of these extranous laws is they only restrict those that would abide the law, not those that will not.

I just see a lot of the anti 2A excusses parroted here...there are two things missing in this discussion. The first is the concept of personal responsiblity and personal freedom. The second is, what part of "shall not be infringed" to you control types not understand.

A weapon in it's holster at 0.10 is a lot less dangerous than one out of the holster at 0.00. There are already rules of conduct that say if, and when, a gun may/should leave it's holster...it makes absolutely no difference if the person had something to drink or not.

Hopefully, the person removing the gun from the holster knows the laws, as he/she should be held responsible for his/her actions at that point.

Yes, people do stupid things when they have had too much to drink, but then people do stupid things sober too. I am not for trying to control anyone's personal actions, unless they negatively affect someone else.

jsimmons · January 8, 2012, 05:57 PM

Well, a call to 911 stating that there is an armed robbery in progress would probably have gotten the desired response from the local LEOs. While on the phone, you could retrieve your weapon from your car for self defense purposes.

Even if the bad guys had gotten away before the cops got there, the caller would have been able to provide a good description of the getaway vehicle. Chances are nobody would have gotten hurt as a result.

Of course, hind-sight is 20-20.

January 7, 2012, 07:07 AM	#1
Slugthrower Senior Member Join Date: October 22, 2006 Posts: 823	VA carry law proves it's worth, not exactly. On the 6th of January 2012 at approximately 6:15 PM. three armed men wearing ski masks entered a small community bar. These men attempted to rob the patrons. They were having people empty their pockets and a customer. Once this occured and during the robbery another customer slipped out of the building and returned with a firearm kept in his vehicle. This person then ordered the robbers to lay down their weapons. The criminals did not comply and a shoot out commenced. When the chaos broke out the citizen shot and killed one of the perpetrators. There was an exchange of gun fire and other patrons began to resist their assailants. In the ensuing fight a regular of the sports bar was wounded in the stomach. The man wounded in the stomach was throwing pool cues at the robbers to distract them. The remaining two bad guys left the building and fled. They were last seen driving a light blue Ford Taurus. To me this is a prime example of why it is prudent to be armed at all times and no matter the venue. Crime knows no bounds and they apparently see people who frequent a tavern as prime targets. It does make sense in that alchohol consumption at such a place is rather expensive and requires a good bit of money to engage in. People who carry firearms cannot consume under VA law and this is absolutely the correct regulation for the armed individual. It is not clear that the customer who shot one of the bad guys was or wasn't drinking at the time. I suppose it makes no matter in that he wasn't armed at the time, but instead retrived a firearm stored in his vehicle. The point here is that he did have a weapon available if such dire circumstances arised. In no way do I condone the consumption of intoxicants and the carrying of firearms. However, it is most fortunate for many people in that bar that this person had a firearm in his vehicle though. He is considered a hero by those people as stated by several on camera and in private. He could have just as easily left the scene and not came back. By willingly putting himself in danger he is indeed a hero. It is a good day when the local media reports in a neutral fashion such an incident. Perhaps those that are not firearm friendly will see the merit in allowing certain people onto thier premises armed though. The more positive press we as firearms users have the better, IMO. If or when more information becomes available I will post more on it. What are some of the thoughts the of memebers here on TFL?

January 8, 2012, 08:10 AM	#21
Slugthrower Senior Member Join Date: October 22, 2006 Posts: 823	After talking to a few people that know alittle more on this subject. The man that went outside and retrived a firearm was in fact a bouncer and not under the influence of alchohol. So this changes a good bit of the perspective here, as he was employed for security it makes some sense as to why he would return to the scene. I carry and do not drink anymore. Without doubt being intoxicated and armed is a bad combination. It has been many years ago that I was a drinker now. Funny how being armed regularly changes your habits. Those that still consume are wise to have a contengency for their activity. I am fairly sure that in a dire situation you may have to still consider the "what if". Elimination of that variable is the best course, but having been a rather heavy drinker I can understand the desire to continue. It just complicates the issue IMO. For the most part I am sure we can all agree man has the right to self defense. It is the fine line that can get blurred when intoxicated and where the law seeks to minimize the potential problem in such a case. VA law is case law and they will treat each case on an indiviual basis. At sometime somewhere there has to have been a person who was drinking and not making trouble but trouble found them and it required them to defend themselves. Makes me wonder about it. For the most part bars can be trouble themselves and it is better to avoid them. However for some this isn't what they decide for themselves. It just begs the question. If you drink do you forfeit your human right to self defense? Last edited by Slugthrower; January 8, 2012 at 08:30 AM.

January 7, 2012, 07:55 AM	#2
icedog88 Senior Member Join Date: April 16, 2011 Location: norwich ct Posts: 737	Most of the bars I go to here in CT are Legion or VFW that require you to be a member or a guest. Locked doors with cameras at entrances, you get buzzed in or have your key. As it is, the law here says you cannot be under the influence and carry. I asked a cop if that meant I couldn't have a beer while carrying and he reiterated "under the influence". Pretty sure that meant he was covering his butt by not going into detail. I solved the problem by just not drinking while shooting pool. I also agree alcohol and firearms don't mix. That being said, I believe bartenders should be required to be armed and have training. Places and professions that have a history of being targeted for robberies would see a decline in violence if perps knew the targets are armed.

January 7, 2012, 09:57 AM	#3
checkmyswag Senior Member Join Date: January 29, 2011 Location: Texas Posts: 1,328	Im asking not criticizing. I wasn't there so I don't know the whole story. But is it smart to start shooting when you are outnumbered? Could see some situations where it would make sense. Does it always?

January 7, 2012, 10:25 AM	#5
Slugthrower Senior Member Join Date: October 22, 2006 Posts: 823	I agree Icedog88, it is a good idea to have some sort of contengency and the tender having the option of a shotgun would be but one. The locked doors and a check at that door is an even better measure as well. Checkmyswag, it may not be the best idea to fight when outnumbered, in this case the man who returned had the drop on the man he shot. The others reacted in panic and on the first sign of resistance fled the scene. In general most people who commit a robbery expect little or no resistance. The people in the bar were not resisting at first as the element of surprise was in the criminals favor. I suppose that they let their guard down and that is when the pther acted. It ws a risk he took and worked out in his and most of the others favor. Would it be something to repeat, who knows? In his situation it is what he saw fit to do. To my way of thinking it is a similar situation where a person is attempting to abduct a person and possibly murder them. If a person wants you to get into a vehicle and holds a gun on you. Do you comply? I wouldn't in such a case. If I do they could take me to a more secluded location to make sure there are no witnesses and most likely do me in. I would rather take the chance there on the spot as opposed to allowing the bad guy time to gain advantage. Not that such is the case here, but in the military they teach soldiers to charge a machinegun. Even in the worst case senario, an ambush, you charge the gunner. Why is this? It is because if you run away all it does is make you an easy target for the MG gunner as he can continue to press the attack without fear for himself. He has less time and abilty to defeat your unit if you engage as opposed to breaking contact. In most cases in an ambush the attacker will have superior firepower. In order to break contact and begin a retreat you must have superior firepower. This is why SEALS and other Spec Ops guys carry so much firepower. It isn't so much for an attack as it is to make the enemy believe he is facing an much larger a powerful element and therefore hesitant to persue. In the case where you don't have that superiorty a counter attack the method the way. It is only in the counter attack the one being abushed has any chance to survive. Althought your chances may be slim to none, it is better than accepting the the compromise of no chance. For us in the civilian world retreat would be my first choice. So in short no it isn't always a go idea to go back into harms way. THis young man was a regular and many in the bar were his friends. I am pretty sure he couldn't just abandon them in good conscience. So he did what he did. As they say. there is a thin line between bravery and stupidity. In this case he was very lucky and brave indeed.

January 7, 2012, 10:33 AM	#6
Slugthrower Senior Member Join Date: October 22, 2006 Posts: 823	Agree on that, Aguila Blanca. The element of surprise is your best asset. He would have been better off just sending them to their makers. Still comes down to us not being there and knowing what he was facing.

January 7, 2012, 11:18 AM	#7
icedog88 Senior Member Join Date: April 16, 2011 Location: norwich ct Posts: 737	Aguila Sec. 53-206d. Carrying a firearm while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drug prohibited. Hunting while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drug or while impaired by the consumption of intoxicating liquor prohibited. (a)(1) No person shall carry a pistol, revolver, machine gun, shotgun, rifle or other firearm, which is loaded and from which a shot may be discharged, upon his person (A) while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, or both, or (B) while the ratio of alcohol in the blood of such person is ten-hundredths of one per cent or more of alcohol, by weight. (2) Any person who violates any provision of this subsection shall be guilty of a class B misdemeanor. This is the only thing I can find pertaining to liquor. There is is no statue that I can find relating to carrying in a bar at this time.

January 7, 2012, 11:20 AM	#8
dev_null Senior Member Join Date: June 23, 2002 Location: Austin TX Posts: 615	While I understand the idea of not mixing firearms and impaired judgment/reflexes, I don't like the idea that if I have a drink I cannot legally defend myself against a criminal. (And even if I beat the criminal charge, there's always the civil suit: "He was liquored up and shot my defendant's son, a former choirboy who wouldn't hurt a fly, never mind the yard-long rap sheet...")

January 7, 2012, 12:31 PM	#9
bumnote Senior Member Join Date: October 13, 2008 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 407	If it happened this way, the guy who went back into the bar made a huge mistake, IMO. First off, he's not a cop...so why did he go back inside? Just turning over wallets and the night's bar tabs aren't a good enough reason, IMO, for Joe Citizen to play cop...unless the robber were already shooting the patrons or had made it clear they were going to. Was his reappearance in the bar the catalyst for the shooting? If so, his actions led to another patron being shot and wounded. Would they have just left if he hadn't gone back in there? Should he waited outside on the phone and only gone back in if he'd heard shots? That's what I would have done. He also took on multiple assailants, not a smart thing to do, and obviously the robbers knew they had him outgunned. He might have also been the closest armed person standing near the door...not a good place to be if the cops show up, for them or him. IMO this situation and it's aftermath is more about when and where you should intervene and when you shouldn't other than being able to carry after you've had a beer. If the events happened this way and there nothing more to the story, and there might be, this guy shouldn't have intervened. But that's just the way I see it.

January 7, 2012, 12:37 PM	#10
Don H Senior Member Join Date: May 9, 2000 Location: SLC,Utah Posts: 2,704	Here, the impairment standard is the same as for driving a vehicle. If you're too impaired to drive, you're too impaired to carry legally. Seems to go hand in hand.

January 7, 2012, 01:02 PM	#12
icedog88 Senior Member Join Date: April 16, 2011 Location: norwich ct Posts: 737	Too much info left out of the description for me to make that determination.

January 7, 2012, 02:25 PM	#14
dev_null Senior Member Join Date: June 23, 2002 Location: Austin TX Posts: 615	brickeyee, my understanding is that in TX (where I've moved to from VA), you cannot CCW while under the influence. I could be wrong on this.

January 7, 2012, 06:15 PM	#15
Crazy88Fingers Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2010 Location: WesTex Posts: 958	Florida's laws are interesting and convenient. I can go into a restaurant (that isn't strictly a bar) that serves alcohol, carry a concealed weapon, and drink myself stupid; as long as I don't sit in the "bar" area. It only becomes illegal if I "use" the weapon under the influence, which is defined as having a loaded gun in my hand. And there is an exception for using the gun in self-defense. Of course you should always drink and carry responsibly, and I abide by that unwritten law. In response to the OP: it's always great to see people stand up to the bad guys. It certainly could have gone better, but that's usually the case. Even the SEALs that busted Bin Laden had their share of mishaps, with all their planning and intel. There's one less bad guy, and a few more scared ones.

January 7, 2012, 10:37 PM	#17
SamNavy Senior Member Join Date: August 28, 2011 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 435	In most states, it's illegal to carry a firearm into an establishment with a CLASS-X liquor license (whatever "X" is in that state) that basically makes the establishment a bar. Restaurants that also happen to serve alcohol are not the same as bars as far as CCW laws go in most states. The "Restaurant Carry" laws are usually a very hot topic of discussion. Here in Louisiana, there are several contradicting laws on the books that have resulted in most agencies basically saying "Don't carry in restaurants just to be safe" even if the place doesn't have a CLASS-X (ie, "bar") liquor license. But a lot of retaurants have an attached bar, or an actual bar (with bartender, displayed beverages, beer-taps, etc...) inside the main eating area or perhaps only separated by a very basic divider. This is where you need to be very clear on what the laws are in your state. If you plan on driving to a bar, consuming alcohol, and leaving the pistol in your car, only to then get back in your car after drinking, and drive with the weapon in your possession, then you're an idiot because you're probably drunk, or at least over the limit? "Well, I'm only going to have 1 beer"... why bother? It's just something you need to think about before you leave the house enroute to someplace where you plan to drink and you have your firearm with you.

January 7, 2012, 10:55 PM	#18
Frank Ettin Staff Join Date: November 23, 2005 Location: California - San Francisco Posts: 9,475	I know that in Arizona, with a permit I can carry concealed into a place the serves alcohol (if not properly posted), but I can't drink. In Nevada, I believe the legal BAC when carrying is 0.10. But consider that if you need to use your gun and if there's any question about justification, any alcohol in your system will probably not be helpful in your efforts to get things sorted out in your favor.

January 7, 2012, 11:32 PM	#20
egor20 Senior Member Join Date: November 14, 2010 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 1,824	With my wife and I its easy, whom ever is the designated driver is also the designated CCWer. We switch off every other time we go out. Even though my wife only has a glass of wine and I only have a glass of bourbon, there's no reason to take a chance on a DUI or losing a permit.

January 8, 2012, 04:49 PM	#22
johnbt Senior Member Join Date: December 6, 1999 Location: Richmond, Virginia USA Posts: 6,004	"People who carry firearms cannot consume under VA law and this is absolutely the correct regulation for the armed individual." It's the law here, but I disagree that it's correct.

January 8, 2012, 05:28 PM	#24
hermannr Senior Member Join Date: March 24, 2011 Posts: 730	Gentlemen: Think about this. No law has ever stopped anyone from doing anything they wanted to do bad enough, good, bad or ugly, that is just the way it is. This means, it is illegal to drink and drive. Does it stop the activity? It is Illegal to drive and text an a cell phone. Does it stop anyone? The big problem with all of these extranous laws is they only restrict those that would abide the law, not those that will not. I just see a lot of the anti 2A excusses parroted here...there are two things missing in this discussion. The first is the concept of personal responsiblity and personal freedom. The second is, what part of "shall not be infringed" to you control types not understand. A weapon in it's holster at 0.10 is a lot less dangerous than one out of the holster at 0.00. There are already rules of conduct that say if, and when, a gun may/should leave it's holster...it makes absolutely no difference if the person had something to drink or not. Hopefully, the person removing the gun from the holster knows the laws, as he/she should be held responsible for his/her actions at that point. Yes, people do stupid things when they have had too much to drink, but then people do stupid things sober too. I am not for trying to control anyone's personal actions, unless they negatively affect someone else.

January 8, 2012, 05:57 PM	#25
jsimmons Senior Member Join Date: February 17, 2008 Posts: 226	Well, a call to 911 stating that there is an armed robbery in progress would probably have gotten the desired response from the local LEOs. While on the phone, you could retrieve your weapon from your car for self defense purposes. Even if the bad guys had gotten away before the cops got there, the caller would have been able to provide a good description of the getaway vehicle. Chances are nobody would have gotten hurt as a result. Of course, hind-sight is 20-20.