Temporary Residences (Camping)

[donal_w]

My understanding is I cannot mix alcohol with my CCW. But how does the law look at open carry in your campsite with alcohol? Can you sit around the camp fire and have a beer? Or does the mere presence of that firearm exclude that?

[Librarian]

No CA law cares about CCW and alcohol.

There's a good argument that the CCW app binds your use of alcohol, and you sign that app agreeing to its terms.

Your issuing agency will almost certainly be unhappy if circumstances arise such that they learn you used your CCW weapon and had been consuming alcohol.

Now, for many purposes, your campsite is the same as your home - Under those conditions, you do not need CCW, because your campsite is essentially the same as your home, so any opinions on alcohol + CCW are not relevant.

Any arresting officer may have a different idea. Your IA may have an opinion.

And, whether that action might be 'wise' is a different question from 'might you be convicted for doing it'.

[Quiet]

There are no CA laws prohibiting consuming alcohol while in possession of a firearm.

However, being under the influence while discharging a firearm can result in a charge for "willfully discharges a firearm in a grossly negligent manner which could result in injury or death". [PC 246.3(a)]



Penal Code 246.3

[donal_w]

So based on that my understanding is the consumption of alcohol and the presence of a firearm are not illegal, the usage of one might be. To take that one step further lets say I needed to dispatch a predator in the middle of the night (four legged kind) could I potentially have the same problem? Meaning I use a firearm to deal with a threat and potentially have to deal with a willful discharge.

[newbutold]

I've camped with firearms for 60 some years and haven't needed to dispatch a two or four legged predator in the middle of the night.....just lucky I guess.

[SanDiego619]

So based on that my understanding is the consumption of alcohol and the presence of a firearm are not illegal, the usage of one might be. To take that one step further lets say I needed to dispatch a predator in the middle of the night (four legged kind) could I potentially have the same problem? Meaning I use a firearm to deal with a threat and potentially have to deal with a willful discharge.

Yeah, what if you are at home and drunk and someone breaks in and you shoot them?

[Rustlin’ Jack]

Yeah, what if you are at home and drunk and someone breaks in and you shoot them?

This is a very responsible question to ask. The short answer is that the circumstances of the shooting will be examined entirely on their own merit, without the level of inebriation considered. If the shooting is solid, then it can pass muster.

If the shooting has any, and I mean any, questionable aspects to it, such as use of other than perfect judgement, expect some static from the D.A.’s Office, and a whopper of a civil suit.

Being drunk does not automatically make you vulnerable to charges and civil accusations, but it certainly opens a very wide door for them.

[SharedShots]

Shooting someone while you are drunk will always have questionable aspects to it. There are no people who being drunk, use perfect judgement.



.

[pacrat]

Shooting someone while you are drunk will always have questionable aspects to it. There are no people who being drunk, use perfect judgement.

I agree with the above quote. But no statute requires "perfect judgement".

The standard is "reasonable".

So if a villain is climbing through your window, or tent, as the case may be. And is met with lethal force. The determination will be, [was lethal force reasonable, under the circumstances?]

Not, was the defenders BAC below a certain level.

[SharedShots]

This is a very responsible question to ask. The short answer is that the circumstances of the shooting will be examined entirely on their own merit, without the level of inebriation considered. If the shooting is solid, then it can pass muster.



Being drunk does not automatically make you vulnerable to charges and civil accusations, but it certainly opens a very wide door for them.

Shooting someone while you are drunk will always have questionable aspects to it. There are no people who being drunk, use perfect judgement.



.

I agree with the above quote. But no statute requires "perfect judgement".

The standard is "reasonable".

So if a villain is climbing through your window, or tent, as the case may be. And is met with lethal force. The determination will be, [was lethal force reasonable, under the circumstances?]

Not, was the defenders BAC below a certain level.

Agreed.

I was referring to the post above mine where the perfect judgement idea was introduced.

There is another issue not discussed but its relevant. The campsite has boundaries and it's easy to wander around, especially if you are drinking and lose some inhibitions or your judgement loosens up a bit. Someone calls you over to share some food or whatever. Once you leave your campsite it's the same as leaving your home and stepping onto public property and the protections you have as if you were in your home or on your property vanish.

Anyone who camps, does the RV thing has probably experienced how some people are ultra protective about their campsites. If it's your site then it's your castle and there are often those who decide to take the shortcut through your site because they are clueless. Mix drinking and guns and then the potential for conflict goes way up and the reasonable criteria goes out the window because once fired, nothing can stop the bullet except what it hits.

Camping is a lot of fun but when I see someone chugging a beer and carrying a gun, not being anywhere around them seems reasonable.

[Rustlin’ Jack]

Shooting someone while you are drunk will always have questionable aspects to it. There are no people who being drunk, use perfect judgement.



.

[SharedShots]

I suppose I was remiss in using the word “perfect“ in my above post. I know that very few things in life are actually perfect. I should not have chosen a word with such an absolute definition. My point was that anything that happens as a consequence of drunkenness will be quickly linked to an accusation of negligence, especially in a civil court setting.

I would challenge the above assertion that a drunk person’s behavior will never be as logical or as legal as a sober person. I will try to illustrate that with two scenarios.

Scenario A:

A single woman who lives in an apartment becomes intoxicated. She goes to bed and falls asleep. At some point, she wakes up to find a strange man with a ski mask standing over her. The suspect is holding a knife toward her throat. The woman grabs a gun off her nightstand and puts three rounds into the suspect. Her reasoning and behavior is both lawful and logical, and her level of intoxication had no bearing on the incident.

Scenario B:

Using the same circumstances as above, the woman grabs her gun and fires three rounds at the suspect. Two of the rounds hit the suspect, but the third round misses the suspect and goes through the wall next to her bed. That round hits the person in the neighboring apartment. While this outcome could happen to anyone, the additional factor involving her level of intoxication becomes central to the degree of negligence involved.

The drunkenness might have been directly responsible for her missing the shot, or may have had no bearing at all on the missed shot. Which ever the case may be, the woman in scenario B is now open to prosecution for negligent discharge of a weapon, or even manslaughter if her neighbor is killed.

A sober person could also be prosecuted and sued civilly, but the negligence would be much easier to prove due to the intoxication.

I get your point, I was probably a little to nitpicky over semantics.

In today's world, even scenario A could easily find her drunken state being called into question because it's never really just the instant of the shooting that matters but everything else leading up to the event.

In her drunken stupor, was she playing some game earlier and stated her fantasy was to be in that position? It's not unheard of, fantasy play is a thing these days, so I understand (although considering real life, why fantasy?). Perhaps she was into the role game playing as was he, left her door unlocked and the uninvited BG was really an invited guest and due to her passing out, forgot what she said or did before that. Sometimes people will say all kinds of things to complete strangers they meet in places where drinking is the activity of the day.

My point is that the instant of shooting is only the result and not the cause of the event and once a person is compromised, the argument that someone who is drunk or drinking isn't compromised is typically not believed by reasonable people (IMO). There is always something leading up to the shooting. If Scenario A is the total of the event, yes, I agree with that.

Your Scenario B should be a wakeup call for a lot of people who don't really appreciate what happens once they pull a trigger with the intent to shoot someone even in SD and it only gets far worse if the shooter has had anything to drink, taken medications with cautionary warnings or decided "brownies" are better when they are more than just brownies. Given some of the talk in other forums here, like shooting upwards to avoid hitting innocents in a crowd goes beyond comprehension and the same applies to advising anyone to shoot downward toward the floor for the same reason. Add just one drink to either situation and negligence is a word some will need to get used to hearing - unfortunately.


Its a good idea to remember that two reasonable people, one who drinks and one who does not can see someone carrying a gun and having a drink from two very different perspectives and come to two very different conclusions if the CCW has to use the gun. Some things just don't mix and among them are alcohol and guns unless the alcohol is used to swab the bore before the cold shot.





.