CCW ?

Blaster229 · Sep 30, 2015

pilotguy299 said:
One is more baderer than the other?

One will always be seen as contributory to the use of firearm, even if it really wasn't. The other at least has a chance of being seen as almost reasonable.

In reality it is either a good shoot or it isn't. The rest is just chaff...

Well, MANY here would stand behind the castle doctrine and "anything goes" when inside their house.

3rdRcn · Sep 30, 2015

Pinecone said:
There is a different between a law and regulation.

And you have been spouting off about how you are an instructor and teach the law, and then mention the COMAR.

COMAR is NOT law. It is regulations. And if you are teaching this, you should know the difference.

SB281, as passed and signed is now LAW. From that MSP writes regulations on how to apply that law. Same with other laws and other agencies.

Regulations can be changed much easier than laws.

Actually, I was quoting what comar said and correcting some people that made an incorrect statement saying it was legal to drink while carrying a gun. Was I wrong and that is not the law? if it is not a law then why is there a penalty or a misdemeanor conviction with a jail sentence and fine attached to it in comar. Does comar not quantify a law? You still haven't answered why lawyers and judges use it if it has no bases in law as you state. Trying to understand how that works since I am obviously of inferior intellect to you.

marylandmark · Oct 1, 2015

I'm going with what Jack McCauley has to say (check out his resume). I do agree that it will cost someone a lot of money to test this theory regardless.

Jack McCauley said:
You are not prohibited from consuming alcohol while carrying with a permit. Intoxication would require proof similar to that of a DUI arrest. You would not be compelled to submit to any tests though.

Jack McCauley said:
Intoxicated is probably too strong of a term. I forget sometimes you guys on this forum analyze the very finest details. But that is a good thing. Under the influence would mean "Impairment." You can drive a vehicle legally in Maryland after consuming alcohol. However, you can be arrested if an officer develops probable cause to show you are impaired or intoxicated. The proof that is generally required for a conviction is testimony from the officer that describes what he/she observed. That testimony will require the officer to show he/she has been trained in recognizing impairment and the officer has had experience in observing impairment. This training and experience generally comes from formal training that meets the Maryland Police and Correctional Training guidelines where a class participant consumes a known amount of alcohol during a known time period. The participants' actual BAC is tested to show their level of impairment. Using the guidelines established by MD law under the Per Se rule, we know that impairment begins at .07 BAC. The number of drinks it takes to reach a .07 varies by person depending on weight, size etc. The average size man will not reach a .07 from two drinks. Next, the officer will need to testify as to the field sobriety tests that were given to help evaluate the driver's impairment level. These tests are standardized. If the officer fails to follows the proper guidelines on the administration of the tests, they are generally discarded by the court as bad evidence. Next the court relies most on the official test that is used to determine the level of BAC. The equipment used to administer this test is calibrated and examined monthly under the Office of the Medical Examiner's guidelines by Maryland law. The officer administering the test must be trained and must have maintained a certification to administer the test. If a person who is legally authorized to carry a handgun with a valid permit in the State of Maryland has alcohol in their system, there would need to be proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, before this would lead to a conviction. There are laws in Maryland that penalize a driver for refusing to take tests which will accurately determine their level of impairment. Without these tests, most DUI cases are lost unless the officer can do a very good job of articulating his/her observations. In most cases, the offender has to be very intoxicated to reveal sufficient observations. There are no penalties for a person, who is authorized to carry a handgun by permit, that refuses any tests offered by a uniformed officer. Most of the time, the permit violation is only observed when a person is arrested for DUI and they are carrying. And more often than not, the charges related to the Handgun Permit violation are dismissed as a matter of a plea agreement.

RoadDawg · Oct 1, 2015

marylandmark said:
I'm going with what Jack McCauley has to say (check out his resume). I do agree that it will cost someone a lot of money to test this theory regardless.

Eggzakkkleee

The preponderance of proof is NOT that an alcoholic beverage was consumed by the person holding the firearm. Rather that the person holding the firearm was under the influence of said alcoholic beverage. Therein lies the point of contention. And the liberty to consume an alcoholic beverage while armed PROVIDED that you do not drink to the point of being influenced by it. If you intend to drink to that point... DO NOT BE ARMED. A wise person will govern themselves accordingly.

Indiana Jones · Oct 1, 2015

RoadDawg said:
Eggzakkkleee

The preponderance of proof is NOT that an alcoholic beverage was consumed by the person holding the firearm. Rather that the person holding the firearm was under the influence of said alcoholic beverage. Therein lies the point of contention. And the liberty to consume an alcoholic beverage while armed PROVIDED that you do not drink to the point of being influenced by it. If you intend to drink to that point... DO NOT BE ARMED. A wise person will govern themselves accordingly.

Really well said RD. There are people who think it is horrendous to camp and drink some beers with guns nearby. It all comes down to not being an idiot.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

3rdRcn · Oct 2, 2015

RoadDawg said:
Eggzakkkleee

The preponderance of proof is NOT that an alcoholic beverage was consumed by the person holding the firearm. Rather that the person holding the firearm was under the influence of said alcoholic beverage. Therein lies the point of contention. And the liberty to consume an alcoholic beverage while armed PROVIDED that you do not drink to the point of being influenced by it. If you intend to drink to that point... DO NOT BE ARMED. A wise person will govern themselves accordingly.

Indiana Jones said:
Really well said RD. There are people who think it is horrendous to camp and drink some beers with guns nearby. It all comes down to not being an idiot.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would agree with both of you and that was very well articulated from Capt. Jack. Unfortunately, the State Police can do what they want when they want in this state and as I stated previously, you better have the money to win against the odds of having a very liberal judge, which is a majority of the judges in this state. I would think the very least is you are going to lose your permit, no thanks, I value my ability to be armed way more than my ability to drink alcohol legally.

Indiana Jones · Oct 2, 2015

3rdRcn said:
I would agree with both of you and that was very well articulated from Capt. Jack. Unfortunately, the State Police can do what they want when they want in this state and as I stated previously, you better have the money to win against the odds of having a very liberal judge, which is a majority of the judges in this state. I would think the very least is you are going to lose your permit, no thanks, I value my ability to be armed way more than my ability to drink alcohol legally.

I personally don't drink and carry. But I absolutely drink when I camp, and there is ALWAYS a gun on my hip and or in my tent.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RoadDawg · Oct 2, 2015

3rdRcn said:
I would agree with both of you and that was very well articulated from Capt. Jack. Unfortunately, the State Police can do what they want when they want in this state and as I stated previously, you better have the money to win against the odds of having a very liberal judge, which is a majority of the judges in this state. I would think the very least is you are going to lose your permit, no thanks, I value my ability to be armed way more than my ability to drink alcohol legally.

You keep saying "the State Police"... Yet you are talking about information you received from one or two members of "the State Police". I have been involved with LE and worked with LE in this state for the better part of thirty years. During that period I have at times had daily contact with various members of the State Police. I also have family in the State Police. Those folks have a much different outlook on the issue. Exactly NONE of those who I know or have worked with will be locking anyone up for being "under the influence of alcohol" if in fact they are NOT at that time showing signs of actually being under the influence of alcohol.

As I said before... Wisdom is the key... DON'T get drunk while carrying a firearm. But one normal drink (beer, wine or shot) is not going to cause that to happen now is it?

The fact is that I would rather a person keep their CCW on their side while they drink one beer than to lock it up in a vehicle where it can wind up stolen, because they believe that they will be locked up for one sip.

3rdRcn · Oct 3, 2015

RoadDawg said:
You keep saying "the State Police"... Yet you are talking about information you received from one or two members of "the State Police". I have been involved with LE and worked with LE in this state for the better part of thirty years. During that period I have at times had daily contact with various members of the State Police. I also have family in the State Police. Those folks have a much different outlook on the issue. Exactly NONE of those who I know or have worked with will be locking anyone up for being "under the influence of alcohol" if in fact they are NOT at that time showing signs of actually being under the influence of alcohol.

As I said before... Wisdom is the key... DON'T get drunk while carrying a firearm. But one normal drink (beer, wine or shot) is not going to cause that to happen now is it?

The fact is that I would rather a person keep their CCW on their side while they drink one beer than to lock it up in a vehicle where it can wind up stolen, because they believe that they will be locked up for one sip.

I believe you are in law enforcement and have been for quite some time. You don't really know what us civilians have to deal with that carry a firearm on a daily basis because you are exempt from most of the carry laws out there.

I've said it numerous times now, I agree with what you are saying but unfortunately for us folks without a badge strapped to their sides that is not the reality of the situation, it only takes one prick to make our life miserable.

Blaster229 · Oct 3, 2015

3rdRcn said:
I believe you are retired law enforcement and have been for quite some time.

Corrected

redeemed.man · Oct 3, 2015

Blaster229 said:
Just throwing this in here for the pot

So, what is the difference between carrying and drinking at a bar/restaurant or being at home and drinking if it came down to a shooting?

In Maryland no difference IMO despite the Castle Doctrine. You will face severe scrutiny at home or out and about if involved in a self defense shooting. This applies whether drinking/sipping or not.

In free states you may have a prosecutor come out within days of the shooting to announce no charges as it was clear cut self defense.

In places like New Jersey the media would be calling for the death penalty for you if you shot someone in self defense whether you were drinking or not.

Point is: I guess it varies by political climate.

redeemed.man · Oct 3, 2015

Blaster229 said:
Well, MANY here would stand behind the castle doctrine and "anything goes" when inside their house.

I have seen posts similar to this and I believe at least some of the guys saying it mean it but they also understand they would likely face prosecution. When facing a home invasion being prosecuted doesn't seem so bad in comparison.

5.56blaster · Oct 3, 2015

Booze and guns should never mix.

Indiana Jones · Oct 3, 2015

5.56blaster said:
Booze and guns should never mix.

Thats the BGOS type stuff I'm talking about. Have you ever gone camping outside of of MD and had a firearm nearby, and had a beer? People who let alcohol affect them shouldn't drink at ALL. Everyone automatically thinks an adult beverage near a firearm is an instant recipe for a mass shooting. These dopes who get drunk and they go popping off rounds are a different, and completely retarded story.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

montoya32 · Oct 3, 2015

Blaster229 said:
Just throwing this in here for the pot

So, what is the difference between carrying and drinking at a bar/restaurant or being at home and drinking if it came down to a shooting?

I am not saying it makes a difference, but there is no need for a permit at home. You are not under the guidelines of a permit while carrying on owned property. How this would pan out, I have a guess, but do not know for sure.

What happens if you have a party at your home, you are drinking and someone attempts to enter and you retrieve a firearm to defend your home?

I don't think drinking negates the right to defend yourself.

Blaster229 · Oct 3, 2015

montoya32 said:
I am not saying it makes a difference, but there is no need for a permit at home. You are not under the guidelines of a permit while carrying on owned property. How this would pan out, I have a guess, but do not know for sure.

What happens if you have a party at your home, you are drinking and someone attempts to enter and you retrieve a firearm to defend your home?

I don't think drinking negates the right to defend yourself.

No. It sure doesn't. I would and not have a worry about it. Honestly, I'm pretty sure the responding cops won't make a homeowner blow a portable breathalyzer test upon arrival.

montoya32 · Oct 3, 2015

Blaster229 said:
No. It sure doesn't. I would and not have a worry about it. Honestly, I'm pretty sure the responding cops won't make a homeowner blow a portable breathalyzer test upon arrival.

Let's not assume. You just lobbed up a new idea. :sad20:

Blaster229 · Oct 3, 2015

montoya32 said:
Let's not assume. You just lobbed up a new idea.

I'd welcome that lawsuit. :thumbup:

RoadDawg · Oct 3, 2015

3rdRcn said:
I believe you are in law enforcement and have been for quite some time. You don't really know what us civilians have to deal with that carry a firearm on a daily basis because you are exempt from most of the carry laws out there.

I've said it numerous times now, I agree with what you are saying but unfortunately for us folks without a badge strapped to their sides that is not the reality of the situation, it only takes one prick to make our life miserable.

I am retired... And I am also well aware of what the civilian goes through every day. Don't try to paint me as some elitist who "...cannot understand..." It is a silly argument.

As for any pricks... They exist in life... And they are found in ALL walks of life. I could just as easily say that you have no idea about LE and the pricks we have to deal with on a daily basis. But that is also not conducive to good debate or exchange of ideas. Therefore I will not present that as any part of my position in the debate. I did not present my points in any confrontational manner and I would appreciate it if the same respect were returned.

How about if we just agree that we are on the same side of the 2A debate and work together instead of this "Us Vs. Them" BS.

When you stated that one sip of alcohol while armed was against the law...
You took a position that is not taken up by anyone who I know of in LE. And I presented the factual matters as it pertains to LE and the Civilian CCW holder. The evidence MUST be present to support the charge. One sip of alcohol is NOT evidence sufficient to sustain a charge of "under the influence".

You go ahead and put the fear of the PoPo in the hearts of all of your students... Tell them that it is against the law and they will be locked up for taking a sip of alcohol while armed... And when they find out that it is not true... What else did you tell them that they will now doubt is true. You see, teaching folks anything that is not correct, causes them to doubt everything else you say.

Advise them NOT to drink all you wish... Tell them that drinking to the point which they are under the influence can get them locked up. THAT much IS true.
But, the "one sip" thing is just asking for problems. And I would say so to the Trooper who told you that as well. I would also say it to any one of the many Police Officers that I trained and supervised before my retirement. When a LEO locks a person up... evidence to support the charge MUST be present to sustain the charge in court. If it is not there, the charge will not stand...

Blaster229 said:
Corrected

As if it really matters for the purpose of this thread... :shrug:

But... Thank you for pointing that out for us.

3rdRcn · Oct 3, 2015

I wasn't trying to be confrontational road dawg, my apologies if the post seemed i was. I will most definitely be changing my lesson plan based in the discussion in this theead though.

CCW ?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

God loves you, I don't.

RIP

Ultimate Member

Nos nostraque Deo

Wolverine

RIP

Wolverine

Nos nostraque Deo

RIP

God loves you, I don't.

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Wolverine

Ultimate Member

God loves you, I don't.

Ultimate Member

God loves you, I don't.

Nos nostraque Deo

RIP

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics