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

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:
"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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
That might be true in one sense, but plenty of places squeak by the food % lunch and supper, and at night time...they are typical bars, standing room only sardine-packed like any other state's straight up juke-joint, rock and roll dive, or men's club that might employ a bouncer.

The VA laws regarding carry vs places serving food/alcohol might paint a picture of quiet sit down restaurants only, but that isn't a given just because of a place's restaurant status.
 
That's why I never supported this law in VA. Any law that does not set the same standard for driking and CC as there is for driving is a dishonest law somewhere. I don't stop carrying if I'm going to have 2 beers for dinner, never have, won't start now.
 
Hey, Dev Nul ... Texas law states that you can't carry in an establishment which gets more than half its revenue from the sale of liquor, IE, a bar; if it's a restaurant which serves drinks, you're good to go ... I believe it also uses the DUI standard of .08 as intoxicated for CHL holders, tho you can be arrested at any level if the officer thinks you're impaired ... however ... the guy in the OP sty was totally wrong, IMHO ... did he call 911 after escaping from the bar? I'm thinking that returning to the bar with a gun from his car would in most cases be cause for his arrest, at least here ... you have no reason to trigger a gunfight in this situation. I'm also thinking the patron who was shot could sue Wyatt Earp, since nobody was shooting until he returned and opened fire ...
 
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308

J1. Any person permitted to carry a concealed handgun, who is under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs while carrying such handgun in a public place, shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Conviction of any of the following offenses shall be prima facie evidence, subject to rebuttal, that the person is "under the influence" for purposes of this section: manslaughter in violation of § 18.2-36.1, maiming in violation of § 18.2-51.4, driving while intoxicated in violation of § 18.2-266, public intoxication in violation of § 18.2-388, or driving while intoxicated in violation of § 46.2-341.24. Upon such conviction that court shall revoke the person's permit for a concealed handgun and promptly notify the issuing circuit court. A person convicted of a violation of this subsection shall be ineligible to apply for a concealed handgun permit for a period of five years.

Still looking for anything that prohibits open carry and drinking, but I doubt there is any such law since in Virginia open carry is allowed because it is NOT prohibited.

This does not make it a good idea, just not illegal on its face.

A policeman can carry concealed and drink just fine since they does not fall under 18.2-308.

Once again, some animals are more equal than others.
 
Quite right, brickeyee,

One may carry concealed into a licensed establishment, with a CHL, but one so armed may not consume alcohol.

One may carry openly into a licensed establishment, with or without a CHL, and knock back a cold one.

One may not be doing either while intoxicated, and as the quoted statutory language says, a CHL-holder who does so loses his permit.

It would be a rare sight, but open carrying while imbibing is perfectly legal in Virginia.

In addition to police officers, Commonwealth's Attorneys may carry concealed and drink.
 
It really isn't a good idea to be openly armed and drinking to be sure. SA is no doubt out the window and really important in such as case.

What seems to be an irony is that people are not equal under the law. That little thing about " all men are created equal " is referring to people under the law. Just seems to me to be a slippery slope in the end run.

It is reasonable to believe those in law enforcement and such should be armed at all times as they are at risk from people they may have helped convict at some time. On the other hand concealed carry before the "shall issue" period, they used the same excuse, the government, to deny the average citizen the ability to carry concealed. In thier eyes you had no good reason to be armed in such a manner. It seems to me that it is distrust of the average citizen that leads to this. Yes most people shouldn't be drinking and armed. Question is do all people deserve to be thought of as incompetent or untrustworthy untill they prove themselves to be so? It really is a dillema.

I'm no lawyer, yet common law is for the common man to understand. So why is it we are creating a privledeged class of people that are exceptions to the laws? I know it is the way that it is, it still doesn't make it right. IMO.

How can people be responsible when they are not trusted? It is the same kind of thing that over protective parents engage in. Yes it is a fine line and today we as adults seem to be more and more irresponsible on the whole. Still makes me wonder why such is the case. Freedom is frought with peril isn't it? We all want to be free as possible, yet we do have to limit this to a certain extent. Sometimes it is confusing as to what politicians and people in service to the state see as just and unjust or right and wrong.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top