PDA

View Full Version : CCW and one beer?


doc trock
02-23-2009, 1:29 PM
I am a Ca CCW holder and I have a question about alcohol consumption:

What rule, if any, is there with regard to carrying a firearm and drinking ANY alcohol?

I was taught ZERO alcohol....but two other people say a beer or glass of wine is OK? (They were not specific with regard to blood alcohol level)

tango-52
02-23-2009, 1:35 PM
It is on the application that you signed stating that you would follow the rules therein:

State of California, Department of Justice
Standard Application for CCW License
Section 4 – CCW License Conditions and Restrictions
The licensee is responsible for all liability for, injury to, or death of any person, or damage to any
property which may result through any act or omission of either the licensee or the agency that issued
the license. In the event any claim, suit, or action is brought against the agency that issued the license,
its chief officer or any of its employees, by reason of, or in connection with any such act or omission,
the licensee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the agency that issued the license, its chief
officer or any of its employees from such claim, suit, or action.
The licensee authorizes the licensing agency to investigate, as they deem necessary, the licensee’s
record and character to ascertain any and all information which may concern his/her qualifications and
justification to be issued a license to carry a concealed weapon and release said agency of any and all
liability arising out of such investigation.
While exercising the privileges granted to the licensee under the terms of this license, the licensee
shall not, when carrying a concealed weapon:
• Consume any alcoholic beverage.
• Be in a place having a primary purpose of dispensing alcoholic beverages for on-site
consumption.
• Be under the influence of any medication or drug, whether prescribed or not.
• Refuse to show the license or surrender the concealed weapon to any peace officer upon
demand.
• Impede any peace officer in the performance of his/her duties.
• Present himself/herself as a peace officer to any person unless he/she is, in fact, a peace
officer as defined by California law.
• Unjustifiably display a concealed weapon.
• Carry a concealed weapon not listed on the permit.
• Carry a concealed weapon at times or circumstances other than those specified in the permit.

AaronHorrocks
02-23-2009, 1:48 PM
Plus, if you had to shoot someone, and the cops get around to asking questions, and find out you've been drinking... Guess where you're going to spend the night?

CSACANNONEER
02-23-2009, 1:48 PM
It's not worth finding out!

freonr22
02-23-2009, 1:50 PM
• Be in a place having a primary purpose of dispensing alcoholic beverages for on-site
consumption.


so you could go into a bar to pickup your girlfriend?

Sutcliffe
02-23-2009, 1:51 PM
......While exercising the privileges granted to the licensee.....

GP3
02-23-2009, 1:53 PM
It is on the application that you signed stating that you would follow the rules therein:


• Consume any alcoholic beverage.


lol oops.

BONECUTTER
02-23-2009, 1:57 PM
• Be in a place having a primary purpose of dispensing alcoholic beverages for on-site
consumption.


so you could go into a bar to pickup your girlfriend?

If they find out it gives them cause to call your issuing agency and get your CCW yanked. Some officers wouldn't care if your not drinking. But the one you run into will be that "Only LEO's should be able to carry" guys and get yours yanked.

berto
02-23-2009, 2:01 PM
• Be in a place having a primary purpose of dispensing alcoholic beverages for on-site
consumption.


so you could go into a bar to pickup your girlfriend?

Going into a bar = be in a place...

doc trock
02-23-2009, 2:06 PM
It is on the application that you signed stating that you would follow the rules therein:

State of California, Department of Justice
Standard Application for CCW License
Section 4 – CCW License Conditions and Restrictions
The licensee is responsible for all liability for, injury to, or death of any person, or damage to any
property which may result through any act or omission of either the licensee or the agency that issued
the license. In the event any claim, suit, or action is brought against the agency that issued the license,
its chief officer or any of its employees, by reason of, or in connection with any such act or omission,
the licensee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the agency that issued the license, its chief
officer or any of its employees from such claim, suit, or action.
The licensee authorizes the licensing agency to investigate, as they deem necessary, the licensee’s
record and character to ascertain any and all information which may concern his/her qualifications and
justification to be issued a license to carry a concealed weapon and release said agency of any and all
liability arising out of such investigation.
While exercising the privileges granted to the licensee under the terms of this license, the licensee
shall not, when carrying a concealed weapon:
• Consume any alcoholic beverage.
• Be in a place having a primary purpose of dispensing alcoholic beverages for on-site
consumption.
• Be under the influence of any medication or drug, whether prescribed or not.
• Refuse to show the license or surrender the concealed weapon to any peace officer upon
demand.
• Impede any peace officer in the performance of his/her duties.
• Present himself/herself as a peace officer to any person unless he/she is, in fact, a peace
officer as defined by California law.
• Unjustifiably display a concealed weapon.
• Carry a concealed weapon not listed on the permit.
• Carry a concealed weapon at times or circumstances other than those specified in the permit.

thanks! That was what I thought all along...but I have two buddies who are cops...who carry all the time, and who said it's ok to have a beer!

Maybe it is for the noblemen, but not for us peasants. I'll gladly forgo alcohol.

tango-52
02-23-2009, 2:12 PM
thanks! That was what I thought all along...but I have two buddies who are cops...who carry all the time, and who said it's ok to have a beer!

Maybe it is for the noblemen, but not for us peasants. I'll gladly forgo alcohol.

It may be fine with their agency. They didn't have to sign the CCW application binding them to those conditions.

DDT
02-23-2009, 3:54 PM
Doesn't that application contradict CPC 12050(c)? Doesn't the law supercede regulation?

tango-52
02-23-2009, 4:05 PM
Doesn't that application contradict CPC 12050(c)? Doesn't the law supercede regulation?

I believe that subsection (b) allows the issuing authority the right to add additional restrictions above the standard that are in the application:

(b) A license may include any reasonable restrictions or conditions which the issuing authority deems warranted, including restrictions as to the time, place, manner, and circumstances under which the person may carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(c) Any restrictions imposed pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be indicated on any license issued.

The application is a contract you are signing, agreeing to abide by the rules listed therein, and any additional ones your Sheriff or Chief can dream up. So there are the restrictions inherent to the application, which are not listed but all CCWers are subject to, and then there are the local restrictions, which have to be added specifically to your license.

Decoligny
02-23-2009, 4:27 PM
I believe that subsection (b) allows the issuing authority the right to add additional restrictions above the standard that are in the application:

(b) A license may include any reasonable restrictions or conditions which the issuing authority deems warranted, including restrictions as to the time, place, manner, and circumstances under which the person may carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(c) Any restrictions imposed pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be indicated on any license issued.

The application is a contract you are signing, agreeing to abide by the rules listed therein, and any additional ones your Sheriff or Chief can dream up. So there are the restrictions inherent to the application, which are not listed but all CCWers are subject to, and then there are the local restrictions, which have to be added specifically to your license.

By law, any restrictions must be listed on the license. So, it is not illegal to conceal carry into a bar, and it is not illegal to conceal carry and drink a beer.

Legality aside, if some situation occurs that brings the attention of the Sheriff to your being in a bar, or having consumed alcohol while concealed carrying, then the Sheriff MAY revoke your license. He will however, NOT have grounds for arrest just because you had a beer while carrying.

Ten Rounder
02-23-2009, 4:41 PM
On my permit printed in red

Invalid if licensee has been consuming alcohol or drugs

Had a discussion a while back with a CCW instructor about carrying while I was a designated driver. I doubt that are any test cases on what a primary place can really be defined. especially when food is served.

Gray areas, pool halls, race tracks, baseball and football games, card rooms, sports bars that sell food. Just because it has a beer tap does not mean it is off limits. And this can be perceived differently from county to county as this is more the sheriffs domain first before it is the DA's.

.

Decoligny
02-23-2009, 4:48 PM
On my permit printed in red

Invalid if licensee has been consuming alcohol or drugs

Had a discussion a while back with a CCW instructor about carrying while I was a designated driver. I doubt that are any test cases on what a primary place can really be defined. especially when food is served.

Gray areas, pool halls, race tracks, baseball and football games, card rooms, sports bars that sell food. Just because it has a beer tap does not mean it is off limits. And this can be perceived differently from county to county as this is more the sheriffs domain first before it is the DA's.

.

So, in your situation, you could get arrested and prosecuted as it would indeed be a 12025 violation to conceal carry if you have had even a single beer, as it would invalidate your license to conceal.

Rad'04
02-23-2009, 5:14 PM
I personally would think of it this way.

If you drink even half a can of beer, and you happen to be involved in a shooting with your CCW. Having your CCW revoked is the least of your worries.

If in court and the lawyers ask, "Did you drink ANY alchohol that day..."

You better hope your answer is "NO".

Ten Rounder
02-23-2009, 5:20 PM
All depends on what actually goes down. Remember that I already have a permit, and only would violate a condition, much less volatile that a pure 12025 on the street. I 'll have some groveling to do and some probation period to revalue myself. I have herd of only one that this has happened to and he eventually got his back so the sheriff remarked.

It is real hard to hold a steady bead when you have been drinking.


.

Meplat
02-23-2009, 5:33 PM
according to my CCW, yes. And you can order a glass of wine with dinner. You just can't be under the influance. You tell me?:confused:



• Be in a place having a primary purpose of dispensing alcoholic beverages for on-site
consumption.


so you could go into a bar to pickup your girlfriend?

nrainstructor
02-23-2009, 5:53 PM
did your bud's grant you a permit?

Liberty1
02-23-2009, 8:40 PM
By law, any restrictions must be listed on the license. So, it is not illegal to conceal carry into a bar, and it is not illegal to conceal carry and drink a beer.

Legality aside, if some situation occurs that brings the attention of the Sheriff to your being in a bar, or having consumed alcohol while concealed carrying, then the Sheriff MAY revoke your license. He will however, NOT have grounds for arrest just because you had a beer while carrying.

.+1

CCWFacts
02-23-2009, 8:52 PM
I think it's a big mistake to mix guns and alcohol, period. Even if the law allows it. Cops do sometimes drink and have problems. There seems to be a story about some terrible incident like that every few months, where someone gets shot at a cop party. I hope that police culture (and department policies) will reform and start getting strict about guns and alcohol never mixing. Like it or not, CCWers are subjected to even more suspicion and scrutiny than cops, so we have to set an even better example.

Liberty1
02-23-2009, 8:55 PM
I think it is a big mistake to be unarmed, ever. :p Beer has graced my armed belly on many occasions with no negative results;).

dirtykoala
02-23-2009, 9:27 PM
do any of these rules apply to open carry?

paul0660
02-23-2009, 9:45 PM
I wouldn't have any problem drinking and carrying, if I could pick my own jury.

natedogg1777
02-24-2009, 7:21 AM
It seems like we are getting mixed messages on this thread about what is legal and what is not.

If I'm reading correctly, the general consensus is:

CCW in a bar and/or while consuming alcohol is not illegal as per the penal code, but it does essentially violate the agreement you entered into to get your CCW permit and could possibly get your license revoked by the issuing agency.

Is that correct?

tango-52
02-24-2009, 7:42 AM
It seems like we are getting mixed messages on this thread about what is legal and what is not.

If I'm reading correctly, the general consensus is:

CCW in a bar and/or while consuming alcohol is not illegal as per the penal code, but it does essentially violate the agreement you entered into to get your CCW permit and could possibly get your license revoked by the issuing agency.

Is that correct?


That is my understanding of it.

Doheny
02-24-2009, 7:44 AM
CCW in a bar and/or while consuming alcohol is not illegal as per the penal code, but it does essentially violate the agreement you entered into to get your CCW permit and could possibly get your license revoked by the issuing agency.

Is that correct?

Correct. Drinking while CCW invalidates the permit which means you're carrying a gun illegally.

natedogg1777
02-24-2009, 7:55 AM
Correct. Drinking while CCW invalidates the permit which means you're carrying a gun illegally.

Clarification please...

Does it invalidate the permit right then and there, on the spot? Or is it valid until if/when it is formally revoked?

Knauga
02-24-2009, 8:01 AM
Clarification please...

Does it invalidate the permit right then and there, on the spot? Or is it valid until if/when it is formally revoked?

For the license to be valid you must follow all of the terms of the license. Part of the terms are what you agreed to in the application process. If you fail to follow any of the terms of the license it is void, and you are unlawfully carrying a concealed firearm.

That is my understanding anyway, take it or leave it ;)

ZirconJohn
02-24-2009, 8:37 AM
Alcohol and firearms DO NOT mix, any deviation from this proven fact is sublime unadulterated density.

natedogg1777
02-24-2009, 8:49 AM
Well, nothing I need to worry about. I live in Sac County and the chance of me ever being able to get a CCW permit here is slim. I have, however, met people that live in counties nearby and they were told by their instructors the exact opposite of what is being said in this thread.

proudamerican831
02-24-2009, 9:22 AM
deleted

Knauga
02-24-2009, 10:03 AM
Alcohol and firearms DO NOT mix, any deviation from this proven fact is sublime unadulterated density.

Getting drunk and firearms do not mix. Drinking one or two beers is not getting drunk.

Decoligny
02-24-2009, 10:13 AM
do any of these rules apply to open carry?

No they don't.

Since you don't have a license to Open Carry, there is no "contract" to violate if you do have a beer.

And with no license, there is no place to type a restriction. :D

ZirconJohn
02-24-2009, 10:19 AM
Getting drunk and firearms do not mix. Drinking one or two beers is not getting drunk.

Sure man, drink all you want... one, two... three, four.

Far be it for me to tell you what to do; you are the master of your own destiny..., so, have att-er!

Alcohol and Guns DO NOT mix, any amount, any time... deviation from this is dense!

Glock22Fan
02-24-2009, 10:30 AM
Sure man, drink all you want... one, two... three, four.

Far be it for me to tell you what to do; you are the master of your own destiny..., so, have att-er!

Alcohol and Guns DO NOT mix, any amount, any time... deviation from this is dense!

A number of states, I know of Utah and Texas for sure, regard drinking and carrying in the same light as they do drinking and driving. If you are above the BAH level to handle the lethal tool of a motor vehicle, you should not be carrying. Personally, this makes sense to me. If one beer, or even two (if your body mass is enough) makes you unfit to drive, then you shouldn't have a weapon. However, most adults don't lose rationality over one or two beers. If you do, then you are perfectly correct not to carry.

tyrist
02-24-2009, 10:45 AM
I think it's a big mistake to mix guns and alcohol, period. Even if the law allows it. Cops do sometimes drink and have problems. There seems to be a story about some terrible incident like that every few months, where someone gets shot at a cop party. I hope that police culture (and department policies) will reform and start getting strict about guns and alcohol never mixing. Like it or not, CCWers are subjected to even more suspicion and scrutiny than cops, so we have to set an even better example.

It's a bad idea to get "drunk" and carry a weapon for sure. However, it would be rather difficult to do vice checks of ABC locations without having a few drinks. So as far as a law being passed it's unlikely. The department could issue an administrative order but they don't pay us while we are off duty anyway. You cannot legislate stupidity away...getting drunk and messing with your firearm is just pure stupidity and no number of orders or laws is going to prevent stupidity.

ZirconJohn
02-24-2009, 10:48 AM
A number of states, I know of Utah and Texas for sure, regard drinking and carrying in the same light as they do drinking and driving. If you are above the BAH level to handle the lethal tool of a motor vehicle, you should not be carrying. Personally, this makes sense to me. If one beer, or even two (if your body mass is enough) makes you unfit to drive, then you shouldn't have a weapon. However, most adults don't lose rationality over one or two beers. If you do, then you are perfectly correct not to carry.

Correction; I am perfectly correct not to drink! That's my decision.

You drink and carry(?)... whether it's right, wrong, legal, or illegal will be decision for Court of Law.

Aint nobody telling you what to do here, just know that there are consequences should developments arise.

I say; 'better you than me' and I maintain my CCW... I don't like salt in my beer!

Knauga
02-24-2009, 10:55 AM
Sure man, drink all you want... one, two... three, four.

Far be it for me to tell you what to do; you are the master of your own destiny..., so, have att-er!

Alcohol and Guns DO NOT mix, any amount, any time... deviation from this is dense!

I rarely drink, and never do when I have to drive or if I'm packing (which is usually both). My issue was that one or two drinks does not equate getting drunk. One or two drinks does not impair your ability to make good decisions.

All of that said, I agree with Adam Carolla and his "lightweight/heavyweight" drinking standards ;) and getting drunk with firearms is a bad choice.

Glock22Fan
02-24-2009, 11:00 AM
ZirconJohn

Thank you for "correcting" what I said. I thought, and still think, that what I said made perfect sense without it.

If you are talking about just California, fine, don't drink anything while you are using your Californian CCW, as that would indeed be illegal.

If you are, as I was, talking about other states, such as Texas and Utah, then follow their rules. You still don't have to drink at all, if you think that is best, but, personally, I think that (when we talk about a beer or two) drinking and driving is a bigger issue than drinking and carrying.

CCWFacts
02-24-2009, 11:19 AM
It's a bad idea to get "drunk" and carry a weapon for sure. However, it would be rather difficult to do vice checks of ABC locations without having a few drinks

Yeah but maybe they should have people on those duties use Tasers or pepper spray. Some of the vice guys make some really bad decisions (http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/local/no_one_told_to_have_sex_at_spas__beaumont_narcotic s_officers_insist_02-04-2009.html) and I wonder if they should be armed at all.

ZirconJohn
02-24-2009, 11:22 AM
ZirconJohn

Thank you for "correcting" what I said. I thought, and still think, that what I said made perfect sense without it.

If you are talking about just California, fine, don't drink anything while you are using your Californian CCW, as that would indeed be illegal.

If you are, as I was, talking about other states, such as Texas and Utah, then follow their rules. You still don't have to drink at all, if you think that is best, but, personally, I think that (when we talk about a beer or two) drinking and driving is a bigger issue than drinking and carrying.

Yup, it's cool man..., I may be biased in my opinions regarding alcohol because I am recovering alcoholic; June 1, and I'm 10 years sober:)

However, I was raised by by dear old dad, and dad had this thing about alcohol, and guns! Dad is gone now, but his firearms training still lives, clean and clear as if he standing right next to me!

Right, wrong, good, bad, legal, or illegal, 1, 2, or 3... alcohol and guns is just WRONG!

Oh, and that thing about I don't like salt in my beer was only proverbial reference to 'crying in my beer' :thumbsup: I'm good... come on 10-years, bring another day!

what2be
02-24-2009, 11:25 AM
By law, any restrictions must be listed on the license. So, it is not illegal to conceal carry into a bar, and it is not illegal to conceal carry and drink a beer.

Legality aside, if some situation occurs that brings the attention of the Sheriff to your being in a bar, or having consumed alcohol while concealed carrying, then the Sheriff MAY revoke your license. He will however, NOT have grounds for arrest just because you had a beer while carrying.

I think you are incorrect about it being ok to be in a bar.

AFAIK, I have yet to see any ccw license that did not have the restriction about being in a place where the primary business of such place was to serve alcohol. IE< a bar. So the law is you cannot concealed carry in a place where the primary function is to serve alcohol. Its that simple.

Now, a restraunt wouldnt fall into this restriction, as its primary function is to serve food, the alcohol is a add on.

Interesting side note, I used to own a nightclub, and when I got my ccw I saw that restriction and asked the issuing officer about it. He said it was a excellent question and after researching it called me back and said that my own business was exempt, but the rule still applied about not carrying it into other business's where the primary function was to serve alcohol.

Now, I doubt that was a specific law he looked up, he probably just checked with the Sherrif and got a ok from him that I would not be charged for carrying in my own bar, but thats the word I got and it was fine for me.

Decoligny
02-24-2009, 11:32 AM
I think you are incorrect about it being ok to be in a bar.

AFAIK, I have yet to see any ccw license that did not have the restriction about being in a place where the primary business of such place was to serve alcohol. IE< a bar. So the law is you cannot concealed carry in a place where the primary function is to serve alcohol. Its that simple.

Now, a restraunt wouldnt fall into this restriction, as its primary function is to serve food, the alcohol is a add on.

Interesting side note, I used to own a nightclub, and when I got my ccw I saw that restriction and asked the issuing officer about it. He said it was a excellent question and after researching it called me back and said that my own business was exempt, but the rule still applied about now carrying it into other business's where the primary function was to serve alcohol.

Now, I doubt that was a specific law he looked up, he probably just checked with the Sherrif and got a ok from him that I would not be charged for carrying in my own bar, but thats the word I got and it was fine for me.

Wrongo MaryLou.

Please cite the section of the Penal Code where it says that you can't CCW in a bar. Can't do it can you.

The application is the only place where it states that. And the application does NOT have the power of a law.

The LAW states that any restriction must be printed on the license.

(b) A license may include any reasonable restrictions or conditions which the issuing authority deems warranted, including restrictions as to the time, place, manner, and circumstances under which the person may carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(c) Any restrictions imposed pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be indicated on any license issued.

Cypren
02-24-2009, 1:40 PM
The application is the only place where it states that. And the application does NOT have the power of a law.

I think there are two things you may be overlooking here:

1.) 12050(b) permits the issuing authority to issue "any restrictions" on time, place or manner that he or she deems appropriate that apply to the individual license. It does not specify that these are to be the only restrictions on the license, and nothing whatsoever indicates that the standard application process cannot include additional restrictions for all applicants. The grant of a power to personalize restrictions for licensees (and the requirement in 12050(c) that these personalized restrictions be printed on the license) is not a denial of a general power to apply broader licensing standards. (Note that nowhere does the penal code say the sheriff can revoke the license for arbitrary reasons as well, but the current court precedent finds that they can.)

2.) 12027(j) does not cover you unless you are carrying "in compliance with Article 3." That's a very broad term and it's very easy to manipulate in a courtroom.

If I were a prosecutor I would feel pretty confident charging a person arrested with a concealed weapon as long as I had proof they had been drinking. A really, really good defense attorney might be able to get them off, but the law here is so vague, and the defense is technical enough, that I'd feel pretty comfortable that I could persuade the jury that the CCW holder violated the terms of his license that were clearly spelled out in the application contract that he signed, that those terms are generally applicable to all licensees and that therefore they are not the personalized restrictions which 12050(b) was meant to allow for, and that therefore he wasn't carrying in compliance with Article 3 and the 12027(j) exemption doesn't apply. This argument is pretty easy to sell to a jury -- none of whom will be lawyers, and most of whom will want out of that stupid box as soon as possible -- if you just paint the defendant as a careless, self-absorbed person who was entrusted with great responsibility under the law and knowingly violated that trust because he couldn't stay away from alcohol.

The real point of all of this is, do you want to risk the legal defense fees (at best) or two years in prison (at worst) just to have a couple of beers? Stow your weapon in a lockbox in your car first. If you're that worried about having to defend yourself, you shouldn't be drinking in the first place.

And yeah, I know that cops do it all the time. They break plenty of other laws and get away with it, too; that says more about our dysfunctional police culture than the safety of drinking while packing.

hawk1
02-24-2009, 2:02 PM
CCW + Alcohol = Fail.

nuff said...

Decoligny
02-24-2009, 2:39 PM
I think there are two things you may be overlooking here:

1.) 12050(b) permits the issuing authority to issue "any restrictions" on time, place or manner that he or she deems appropriate that apply to the individual license. It does not specify that these are to be the only restrictions on the license, and nothing whatsoever indicates that the standard application process cannot include additional restrictions for all applicants. The grant of a power to personalize restrictions for licensees (and the requirement in 12050(c) that these personalized restrictions be printed on the license) is not a denial of a general power to apply broader licensing standards. (Note that nowhere does the penal code say the sheriff can revoke the license for arbitrary reasons as well, but the current court precedent finds that they can.)

2.) 12027(j) does not cover you unless you are carrying "in compliance with Article 3." That's a very broad term and it's very easy to manipulate in a courtroom.

If I were a prosecutor I would feel pretty confident charging a person arrested with a concealed weapon as long as I had proof they had been drinking. A really, really good defense attorney might be able to get them off, but the law here is so vague, and the defense is technical enough, that I'd feel pretty comfortable that I could persuade the jury that the CCW holder violated the terms of his license that were clearly spelled out in the application contract that he signed, that those terms are generally applicable to all licensees and that therefore they are not the personalized restrictions which 12050(b) was meant to allow for, and that therefore he wasn't carrying in compliance with Article 3 and the 12027(j) exemption doesn't apply. This argument is pretty easy to sell to a jury -- none of whom will be lawyers, and most of whom will want out of that stupid box as soon as possible -- if you just paint the defendant as a careless, self-absorbed person who was entrusted with great responsibility under the law and knowingly violated that trust because he couldn't stay away from alcohol.

The real point of all of this is, do you want to risk the legal defense fees (at best) or two years in prison (at worst) just to have a couple of beers? Stow your weapon in a lockbox in your car first. If you're that worried about having to defend yourself, you shouldn't be drinking in the first place.

And yeah, I know that cops do it all the time. They break plenty of other laws and get away with it, too; that says more about our dysfunctional police culture than the safety of drinking while packing.

(c) below is a legal REQUIRMENT put on the issuing agency. It doesn't say "might" it doesn't say "could" it says "SHALL".

(b) A license may include any reasonable restrictions or conditions which the issuing authority deems warranted, including restrictions as to the time, place, manner, and circumstances under which the person may carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(c) Any restrictions imposed pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be indicated on any license issued.

Cypren
02-24-2009, 3:14 PM
It doesn't say "might" it doesn't say "could" it says "SHALL".

You completely missed the point of my argument. (c) is a constraint on (b). But (b) can reasonably be argued as extant to protect discretionary variance in individual licensing against equal protection arguments. In other words, (b) gives the issuing authority the direct ability to apply different restrictions to individual licenses according to that authority's personal discretion, meaning that the only challenge that could be raised is that the restrictions are "arbitrary and capricious". Nowhere does it say that receipt of the license and continuing validity thereof cannot be conditioned upon additional, universal restrictions to all licensees.

(c) only applies to restrictions issued pursuant to (b). The argument I was making (and that I believe a prosecutor could make) is that the ban on alcohol consumption can be argued as a restriction that is not issued under the authority of section (b) but under general discretionary licensing and revocation authority, which is not conditioned by (c) and therefore does not need to be stipulated upon the license itself.

I'm not saying this is a guaranteed argument. But I'm saying that if this case fell in my lap to prosecute, I'd probably be willing to run with it and bet a jury would side with me.

Glock22Fan
02-24-2009, 3:25 PM
But I'm saying that if this case fell in my lap to prosecute, I'd probably be willing to run with it

Are you qualified to make this statement, and other statements such as the ones in the self-defense thread (where a shopkeeper shot someone who threatened him and you came up with all these "but someone might think that it might have been a fake gun" comments?)

DDT
02-24-2009, 3:26 PM
You completely missed the point of my argument. (c) is a constraint on (b). But (b) can reasonably be argued as extant to protect discretionary variance in individual licensing against equal protection arguments. In other words, (b) gives the issuing authority the direct ability to apply different restrictions to individual licenses according to that authority's personal discretion, meaning that the only challenge that could be raised is that the restrictions are "arbitrary and capricious". Nowhere does it say that receipt of the license and continuing validity thereof cannot be conditioned upon additional, universal restrictions to all licensees.

(c) only applies to restrictions issued pursuant to (b). The argument I was making (and that I believe a prosecutor could make) is that the ban on alcohol consumption can be argued as a restriction that is not issued under the authority of section (b) but under general discretionary licensing and revocation authority, which is not conditioned by (c) and therefore does not need to be stipulated upon the license itself.

under general revocation authority you are absolutely right. I am sure that getting caught CCW in a bar could be used as reason to yank your CCW. But, as I said early in this thread and others have picked up, any restriction beyond the PC MUST be listed on the actual license.

U2BassAce
02-24-2009, 3:30 PM
So, in your situation, you could get arrested and prosecuted as it would indeed be a 12025 violation to conceal carry if you have had even a single beer, as it would invalidate your license to conceal.

There was a pretty recent case IRC of a female arrested I believe for DUI. They charged her with 12025 also for the above reason. In the end the judge dropped that charge.

Cypren
02-24-2009, 3:34 PM
Are you qualified to make this statement, and other statements such as the ones in the self-defense thread (where a shopkeeper shot someone who threatened him and you came up with all these "but someone might think that it might have been a fake gun" comments?)

*sigh* People completely misunderstood the point I was trying to make in that thread. I did not say the person had done anything wrong. I said that the video, if used as an argument for weapons rights in debate as the original poster was advocating, could be twisted into a "he gunned down this poor man who hadn't hurt anyone" argument. Please read all my comments in that thread instead of just reading the first post and assuming you knew what was going through my head.

My argument in that thread was solely public relations and in no way related to the law.

Glock22Fan
02-24-2009, 3:40 PM
*sigh* People completely misunderstood the point I was trying to make in that thread. I did not say the person had done anything wrong. I said that the video, if used as an argument for weapons rights in debate as the original poster was advocating, could be twisted into a "he gunned down this poor man who hadn't hurt anyone" argument. Please read all my comments in that thread instead of just reading the first post and assuming you knew what was going through my head.

My argument in that thread was solely public relations and in no way related to the law.


I did read them all. Did you read my question, because you didn't answer it?

ZirconJohn
02-24-2009, 3:42 PM
*sigh* People completely misunderstood the point I was trying to make in that thread. I did not say the person had done anything wrong. I said that the video, if used as an argument for weapons rights in debate as the original poster was advocating, could be twisted into a "he gunned down this poor man who hadn't hurt anyone" argument. Please read all my comments in that thread instead of just reading the first post and assuming you knew what was going through my head.

My argument in that thread was solely public relations and in no way related to the law.

Cy,

Playing devils advocate on this subject, on this site can get you in hot water as you have discovered. The political/firearms climate does not lend itself to hypothesizing these subjects very well at this time.

I read you now, and I understand what you are saying. However, I am not interested in debating this very sensitive issue. Was going to post reply to your post above, but my anger was getting involved and so I backed out.

Take care... good luck to you Sir.

Cypren
02-24-2009, 3:48 PM
Playing devils advocate on this subject, on this site can get you in hot water as you have discovered. The political/firearms climate does not lend itself to hypothesizing these subjects very well at this time.

So I've noticed. But the echo chamber effect I sometimes see on this site makes me feel that someone should do it. Nothing is more dangerous for a community at large than normative drift caused by peer pressure and reinforcement of fringe views.

My personal views are probably pretty similar to most of the posters around here, and I get outraged at most of the same things everyone else does. But when posting I try to remain as dispassionate as possible and take the most grim view of any situation in order to remind people that we are not the majority and how some of our views and actions come across to those who are.

Decoligny
02-24-2009, 3:48 PM
There was a pretty recent case IRC of a female arrested I believe for DUI. They charged her with 12025 also for the above reason. In the end the judge dropped that charge.

Probably because there was no restriction actually indicated on the license issued as required by the Penal Code.

Cypren
02-24-2009, 3:53 PM
There was a pretty recent case IRC of a female arrested I believe for DUI. They charged her with 12025 also for the above reason. In the end the judge dropped that charge.

Do you have a cite on that? Would very much like to read it.

Cypren
02-24-2009, 3:57 PM
I did read them all. Did you read my question, because you didn't answer it?

I'm not a member of the California Bar. My analysis on this topic is non-professional and as an enthusiast, nothing more.

natedogg1777
02-24-2009, 3:58 PM
I don't know if this sheds much light on the topic, but here is a SacBee article posted on California Concealed Carry (http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com:80/news/sacbee2.html)

These lines stuck out to me:

Motamedi was arrested Sept. 1, 2005, on suspicion of drunken driving and cited by a California Highway Patrol officer for having a gun with her in the car. Under Sheriff's Department policy, drinking alcohol while carrying a loaded gun invalidates the permit.

The Sacramento District Attorney's Office chose not to file the gun charge and Motamedi pleaded no contest to the DUI charge in 2005.


It appears that Motamedi's permit was valid at the time of arrest, but the DA chose not to prosecute a 12025 violation. But choosing not to, I would assume that means he could just as easily have chosen to prosecute. Why didn't he? Especially when the permit specifically restricted drinking while carrying.

Interesting indeed.

Glock22Fan
02-24-2009, 3:59 PM
So I've noticed. But the echo chamber effect I sometimes see on this site makes me feel that someone should do it. Nothing is more dangerous for a community at large than normative drift caused by peer pressure and reinforcement of fringe views.

My personal views are probably pretty similar to most of the posters around here, and I get outraged at most of the same things everyone else does. But when posting I try to remain as dispassionate as possible and take the most grim view of any situation in order to remind people that we are not the majority and how some of our views and actions come across to those who are.


I think that we are all aware of the irrational views that tend to be put forward by the sheeple. Views such as:

But nobody needs machine guns to shoot moose (my sister-in-law)
The streets will run with blood
The police are there to help you, so you don't need a CCW
Nobody needs a gun that can fire 223 rounds per minute (my mother-in-law)
It's for the children
He should have shot the gun out of his hand
and many more, including the ones in the other thread.

Really, and I mean this nicely, it isn't necessary to be reminded of them in what appears to be a lecturing manner.

Don't just point out all the things the sheeple might say unless you have a counter to these that the sheeple will recognize (and I've just about given up any hope of being rational with my in-laws).

Sorry, I've managed to derail the original topic.

Cypren
02-24-2009, 4:02 PM
Really, and I mean this nicely, it isn't necessary to be reminded of them in what appears to be a lecturing manner.

That's a fair point, and mea culpa.

Now, I have to ask -- were you really going to use a machine gun to hunt moose? And if so, how can I get in on that? :D

Cypren
02-24-2009, 4:17 PM
It appears that Motamedi's permit was valid at the time of arrest, but the DA chose not to prosecute a 12025 violation. But choosing not to, I would assume that means he could just as easily have chosen to prosecute. Why didn't he? Especially when the permit specifically restricted drinking while carrying.

I'm not sure I would read too much into that. The DA probably had an easy case for the DUI and knew it would result in revocation of the CCW; he may have simply chosen not to go ahead with the 12025 charge because it would take more time and energy than he cared to put into it. Like I said earlier, I don't think the case for prosecuting CCW'ers with alcohol is a slam dunk, just that it's winnable and represents a significant risk for minimal (if any) reward.

DDT
02-24-2009, 4:34 PM
It appears that Motamedi's permit was valid at the time of arrest, but the DA chose not to prosecute a 12025 violation.

Perhaps clause one was directly causal of clause two.

A DA can choose to prosecute perfectly legal activities and do so regularly, especially as it regards guns. If permit is valid there is no 12025 violation. I suspect that he would argue that when you violate the terms of the application you sign your CCW is instantly invalidated but I highly doubt it would be a winning argument. If he had tried it and lost there would be case law that he wouldn't like.

what2be
02-24-2009, 4:35 PM
(c) below is a legal REQUIRMENT put on the issuing agency. It doesn't say "might" it doesn't say "could" it says "SHALL".

(b) A license may include any reasonable restrictions or conditions which the issuing authority deems warranted, including restrictions as to the time, place, manner, and circumstances under which the person may carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(c) Any restrictions imposed pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be indicated on any license issued.

Well, it sounds like you are correct. The penal code does not lie, and after reading what you posted, I stand corrected.

BUT, and this is a big butt, if you do decide to forgoe what they requested when you signed your ccw permit, and get caught, or are involved in any altercation whether it be under the influence or carrying inside a establishment that's sole purpose is to sell alcoholic beverages, you better believe your as$ that when the Sheriff gets wind of your argument (and yes, you will be correct in stating the law) he will have his foot so far up your butt you will never see another ccw permit issued to you in that county for as long as you live.

Thats the bottom line. Having a CCW is sort of like your drivers license. Its not a right to have one, its a privilige, and until ca becomes a "shall issue" state, thats the way it is. I for one would not want to jeopardize my ccw by going against what is CLEARLY stated at the time you sign your permit, in the right or not. They issued the permit, they can taketh away...

Glock22Fan
02-24-2009, 6:04 PM
Now, I have to ask -- were you really going to use a machine gun to hunt moose? And if so, how can I get in on that? :D

She was actually responding to a photo of Sarah Palin.

F-2_Challenger
02-24-2009, 6:19 PM
Just don't CCW if you want to drink. Keep CCW safe and don't do something stupid.

Meplat
02-24-2009, 6:30 PM
So, again, what is "under the influence" my permit says "under the influence of alcohol or drugs". My guess is that it is going to have a lot to do with the opinions of any officers involved in any "incident".

what2be
02-24-2009, 6:53 PM
So, again, what is "under the influence" my permit says "under the influence of alcohol or drugs". My guess is that it is going to have a lot to do with the opinions of any officers involved in any "incident".

If you register any BAC, your under the influence.

As for drugs, I guess its the officers discretion.

dirtykoala
02-24-2009, 7:02 PM
no one answered my question... does any of this pertain to open carry of firearms? ive seen people at the bar (VERY rarely) with an open gun on their hip, having a drink.

DDT
02-24-2009, 7:58 PM
So, again, what is "under the influence" my permit says "under the influence of alcohol or drugs". My guess is that it is going to have a lot to do with the opinions of any officers involved in any "incident".

"under the influence of alcohol" has very specific meanings in California law. For those over 21 a BAC of .08 is "under the influence" for driving a normal car, for commercial vehicle operations it is .04. (CVC 23152)

Since this is the only definition I could find for "under the influence" applied to those 21+ in California code it is almost certainly the commonly accepted meaning when no other is given. I would say you are fairly safe at <.08 and extremely safe at <.04. However; if you are ever involved in an incident where you have ANY alcohol in your body the civil trial will be horrific for you.

CA_Libertarian
02-25-2009, 11:04 AM
It is on the application that you signed stating that you would follow the rules therein:

State of California, Department of Justice
Standard Application for CCW License
Section 4 – CCW License Conditions and Restrictions
The licensee is responsible for all liability for, injury to, or death of any person, or damage to any
property which may result through any act or omission of either the licensee or the agency that issued
the license. In the event any claim, suit, or action is brought against the agency that issued the license,
its chief officer or any of its employees, by reason of, or in connection with any such act or omission,
the licensee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the agency that issued the license, its chief
officer or any of its employees from such claim, suit, or action.
The licensee authorizes the licensing agency to investigate, as they deem necessary, the licensee’s
record and character to ascertain any and all information which may concern his/her qualifications and
justification to be issued a license to carry a concealed weapon and release said agency of any and all
liability arising out of such investigation.
While exercising the privileges granted to the licensee under the terms of this license, the licensee
shall not, when carrying a concealed weapon:
• Consume any alcoholic beverage.
• Be in a place having a primary purpose of dispensing alcoholic beverages for on-site
consumption.
• Be under the influence of any medication or drug, whether prescribed or not.
• Refuse to show the license or surrender the concealed weapon to any peace officer upon
demand.
• Impede any peace officer in the performance of his/her duties.
• Present himself/herself as a peace officer to any person unless he/she is, in fact, a peace
officer as defined by California law.
• Unjustifiably display a concealed weapon.
• Carry a concealed weapon not listed on the permit.
• Carry a concealed weapon at times or circumstances other than those specified in the permit.

None of which is binding, as any exceptions/conditions to the permit must be listed on the permit, or listed in the penal code.

Now, as others have/will mention, it is not legally tactical if you have to defend yourself....

However, IMO, if you're safe enough to drive a car, you're safe enough to have a loaded gun. (Statistically, cars are much more dangerous than firearms.)

CA_Libertarian
02-25-2009, 11:10 AM
no one answered my question... does any of this pertain to open carry of firearms? ive seen people at the bar (VERY rarely) with an open gun on their hip, having a drink.

There are no statutes making it illegal to be in a bar or even to be drinking while armed. I don't think there's even any statute prohibiting being drunk while armed - though I wouldn't recommend it any more than driving drunk.

I've open carried in several restaurants to have dinner... and a beer. On one occasion, some buddies and I went to a Chili's and just bellied up to the bar. I wasn't hungry, so I just nursed a beer for about an hour, then we went on our way.

The "gun + drop of alcohol = bad" crowd are hypocrites, unless they say the same about cars. Automobiles are statistically far more dangerous than firearms. How much more so when the gun is safely holstered? IMO, if you're sober enough to control a car, you're sober enough to control your gun.

what2be
02-25-2009, 11:15 AM
"under the influence of alcohol" has very specific meanings in California law. For those over 21 a BAC of .08 is "under the influence" for driving a normal car, for commercial vehicle operations it is .04. (CVC 23152)

Since this is the only definition I could find for "under the influence" applied to those 21+ in California code it is almost certainly the commonly accepted meaning when no other is given. I would say you are fairly safe at <.08 and extremely safe at <.04. However; if you are ever involved in an incident where you have ANY alcohol in your body the civil trial will be horrific for you.

Keep reading the penal code, last time I checked (doubt they took it out) there is a charge of being under the influence thats UNDER .08 if your over 21

The are two reasons for it, one, if a officer wants to arrest you, but your not .08, he may do that, you just wont be charged with DUI. You can still be charged with being under the influence. The other is that if he does arrest you for DUI, and for some reason you dont hit .08, you can still be charged for the lesser under the influence, and it protects him from unlawful arrest.

As for the commercial license license part, to clarify, you must have 0.00 bac while driving a commercial vehicle. If you are drinking in a non commercial vehicle and have a commercial license, its .04, you are also not eligible for traffic school with a commercial license, and there are other restrictions as well.

what2be
02-25-2009, 11:17 AM
no one answered my question... does any of this pertain to open carry of firearms? ive seen people at the bar (VERY rarely) with an open gun on their hip, having a drink.

No, it doesent. Why would it? You werent issued a "open carry" permit, there is no restrictions to open carry other than the law saying it cant be loaded while you open carry.

Decoligny
02-25-2009, 11:30 AM
Well, it sounds like you are correct. The penal code does not lie, and after reading what you posted, I stand corrected.

BUT, and this is a big butt, if you do decide to forgoe what they requested when you signed your ccw permit, and get caught, or are involved in any altercation whether it be under the influence or carrying inside a establishment that's sole purpose is to sell alcoholic beverages, you better believe your as$ that when the Sheriff gets wind of your argument (and yes, you will be correct in stating the law) he will have his foot so far up your butt you will never see another ccw permit issued to you in that county for as long as you live.

Thats the bottom line. Having a CCW is sort of like your drivers license. Its not a right to have one, its a privilige, and until ca becomes a "shall issue" state, thats the way it is. I for one would not want to jeopardize my ccw by going against what is CLEARLY stated at the time you sign your permit, in the right or not. They issued the permit, they can taketh away...

WOW, that sounds vaguely familiar!

Read Post #14:

Originally Posted by Decoligny
By law, any restrictions must be listed on the license. So, it is not illegal to conceal carry into a bar, and it is not illegal to conceal carry and drink a beer.

Legality aside, if some situation occurs that brings the attention of the Sheriff to your being in a bar, or having consumed alcohol while concealed carrying, then the Sheriff MAY revoke your license. He will however, NOT have grounds for arrest just because you had a beer while carrying.

Decoligny
02-25-2009, 11:36 AM
no one answered my question... does any of this pertain to open carry of firearms? ive seen people at the bar (VERY rarely) with an open gun on their hip, having a drink.

I am not a no one! ;)

See post #36

Decoligny
02-25-2009, 11:38 AM
No, it doesent. Why would it? You werent issued a "open carry" permit, there is no restrictions to open carry other than the law saying it cant be loaded while you open carry.

Unless you are in unicorporated territory where the discharge of firearms is not prohibited by law. In that case you have have it loaded.

proudamerican831
02-25-2009, 11:48 AM
deleted

DDT
02-25-2009, 12:49 PM
Keep reading the penal code, last time I checked (doubt they took it out) there is a charge of being under the influence thats UNDER .08 if your over 21


Can you please quote the CVC/CPC? Thanks.

BTW: CVC 23152(d) It is unlawful for any person who has 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in Section 15210

what2be
02-25-2009, 3:01 PM
Can you please quote the CVC/CPC? Thanks.

BTW: CVC 23152(d) It is unlawful for any person who has 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in Section 15210

Dont have a current copy, but hopefully a LEO can chime in here to back me up.

what2be
02-25-2009, 3:02 PM
If your in a bar with a gun on your hip, you are asking for trouble. I can think of several scenarios that would get you in trouble. If posted, bar owners as any store owner has the right to refuse service to anyone. If they refuse to serve you, I'm not too sure you will get any backing from the cops or the courts. Common sense should dictate here. It is one thing to prove your 2nd amendment rights, another to flaunt your weapon at a bar. I am curious as to why you feel the need to do so.

Common sense went out of this thread 2 pages ago. People are too concerned about the LETTER of the law than common sense. Hence, why some of these people (if they have a ccw) are just asking to get it taken away.

DDT
02-25-2009, 3:06 PM
Dont have a current copy, but hopefully a LEO can chime in here to back me up.

No need. Here you go: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html

Decoligny
02-25-2009, 4:47 PM
If your in a bar with a gun on your hip, you are asking for trouble. I can think of several scenarios that would get you in trouble. If posted, bar owners as any store owner has the right to refuse service to anyone. If they refuse to serve you, I'm not too sure you will get any backing from the cops or the courts. Common sense should dictate here. It is one thing to prove your 2nd amendment rights, another to flaunt your weapon at a bar. I am curious as to why you feel the need to do so.

As it their right, and I see no person here argue the position of walking into a bar with a gun and demanding to be served, and then if not, calling the cops, or taking the bar owner to court. So, your scenario is irrelevant.

This discussion started with the question: "I am a Ca CCW holder and I have a question about alcohol consumption: What rule, if any, is there with regard to carrying a firearm and drinking ANY alcohol?"

So, this was a question about the legality of a specific action. And anyone who is carrying a CONCEALED firearm with a License to Carry Concealed is not FLAUNTING thier weapon. They are keeping it discreetly CONCEALED.

DDT
02-25-2009, 4:52 PM
Common sense went out of this thread 2 pages ago. People are too concerned about the LETTER of the law than common sense. Hence, why some of these people (if they have a ccw) are just asking to get it taken away.

It is not illegal to lack common sense. It is illegal to not follow the letter of the law. Is that too difficult for you to understand?

Someone asked a question about the law. Thus a valid answer needs to be based on the law and not common sense. We all know that the two rarely have anything to do with one another.

DDT
02-25-2009, 4:56 PM
Fixed that for ya!

Thanks, fixed the OP.

tyrist
02-25-2009, 5:10 PM
Dont have a current copy, but hopefully a LEO can chime in here to back me up.

Yes you can still book even if they have less than 0.08. The whole 0.08 is the point where the courts assume you are under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. It is still illegal to operate any motor vehicle under the influence of an alcoholic beverage whether or not your blood alcohol level is 0.08. The (a) section spells this out. The (b) sections deal with the 0.08. Now when you book them when they are less than 0.08 most of the time the city attorney declines prosecution. Basically you cannot drive if you are under the influence of any alcoholic beverage no matter what your blood alcohol level is.

DDT
02-25-2009, 6:20 PM
Yes you can still book even if they have less than 0.08. The whole 0.08 is the point where the courts assume you are under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. It is still illegal to operate any motor vehicle under the influence of an alcoholic beverage whether or not your blood alcohol level is 0.08. The (a) section spells this out. The (b) sections deal with the 0.08. Now when you book them when they are less than 0.08 most of the time the city attorney declines prosecution. Basically you cannot drive if you are under the influence of any alcoholic beverage no matter what your blood alcohol level is.

And as a LEO how did you determine if someone was under the influence? Field Sobriety Test?

what2be
02-25-2009, 7:39 PM
It is not illegal to lack common sense. It is illegal to not follow the letter of the law. Is that too difficult for you to understand?

Someone asked a question about the law. Thus a valid answer needs to be based on the law and not common sense. We all know that the two rarely have anything to do with one another.

I dont think your getting it. Yes, you can go to the bar and drink, yes, you can have your concealed weapon in the bar, because the LETTER of the law doesent prohibit it.

And YES, YOU WILL GET WTF PWNED by the sheriff when there is a altercation and they find out you are going against the very document you signed when they requested you do not do those very things you did. then you will lose your ccw because you pissed off the sherrif.
end of story.

what2be
02-25-2009, 7:40 PM
And as a LEO how did you determine if someone was under the influence? Field Sobriety Test?

very easy, eye nastagmas (did i spell that right). cant fake that test.

tyrist
02-25-2009, 8:05 PM
And as a LEO how did you determine if someone was under the influence? Field Sobriety Test?

Experience and Training

Glock22Fan
02-25-2009, 8:50 PM
Experience and Training

Blood Alcohol level testing was introduced exactly because experience and training is an inexact science and varies from individual to individual claiming to have that experience and training.

proudamerican831
02-26-2009, 12:07 AM
deleted

DDT
02-26-2009, 12:12 AM
I said I could think of several scenarios. I did not state any. What I was thinking was the problems with fellow patrons. Misinterpretation of the simple act of checking the gun to make sure it was secure. A drunk grabbing the weapon as a joke or just being a jerk. Someone accusing you of threatening them with the gun. If putting up with problems that simply doesn't have to be is your thing, by all means, go for it.


you must hand out at the wrong bars if the patrons are all slobbering drunkards looking to start something with a person who is armed. They, of course, know he is armed because in their drunken stupor they are hyper sensitive to a guy putting his hand on his waist.

Meplat
02-26-2009, 5:39 PM
Dark glasses




very easy, eye nastagmas (did i spell that right). cant fake that test.