Hypothetical Question- Restaurants and Carrying

[Guest mac_05evo]

Say you carry all day at work or wherever and go straight from there to a restaurant that serves alcohol. You decide you may want a drink so you leave your firearm in the car and lock it up. You do not touch it again until you're home. Is this ok or something that should be avoided? More or less just curious and trying to get all the facts. Thanks.

[MacGyver]

A couple of thoughts.

Since the restaurant carry bill was overturned in the fall, we can't legally carry in restaurants that serve regardless of whether we are drinking or not.

Sometimes the best way to stay out of trouble is to avoid situations that potentially get you into it. Since it's you locking up the firearm, you have just added a step to accessing it. You've not removed your access to it. I wouldn't drink at all in public if you have access to a weapon. It's just asking for trouble if you ever get stopped. If you still choose to do so, I would unload the weapon and separate the ammunition from the weapon, so that you have several step of separation - just like a non-permit holder needs to do if they are going to the range to shoot.

Edited April 18, 2010 by MacGyver

[Guest mac_05evo]

Thank you for the input. I should have been more specific but typed that in a hurry. I knew the gun was supposed to stay in the car regaurdless. I did mean seperating gun and ammo (like a non-carry holder) but failed to mention that. Anyone else have thoughts?

[Guest jackdm3]

A couple of thoughts.

Since the restaurant carry bill was overturned in the fall, we can't legally carry in restaurants that serve regardless of whether we are drinking or not.

Sometimes the best way to stay out of trouble is to avoid situations that potentially get you into it. Since it's you locking up the firearm, you have just added a step to accessing it. You've not removed your access to it. I wouldn't drink at all in public if you have access to a weapon. It's just asking for trouble if you ever get stopped. If you still choose to do so, I would unload the weapon and separate the ammunition from the weapon, so that you have several step of separation - just like a non-permit holder needs to do if they are going to the range to shoot.

It got worse than that last week on Beale Street. A man got his drink on and went back to his car parked in a parking garage to sleep it off. He was reported for sleeping and it was noticed a gun was on his side and he was charged with toting while under the influence. This DOES NOT mean that he was drinking while packing. It could have been left in the car and he put it nearby to go to sleep. If he awoke hours later not under the influence, he would be free to go. Apparently, there is a policy that you can't stay the night, but your car can. Sounds backwards to me if we want to get people to not drive home.

[Smith]

A couple of thoughts.

Since the restaurant carry bill was overturned in the fall, we can't legally carry in restaurants that serve regardless of whether we are drinking or not.

Sometimes the best way to stay out of trouble is to avoid situations that potentially get you into it. Since it's you locking up the firearm, you have just added a step to accessing it. You've not removed your access to it. I wouldn't drink at all in public if you have access to a weapon. It's just asking for trouble if you ever get stopped. If you still choose to do so, I would unload the weapon and separate the ammunition from the weapon, so that you have several step of separation - just like a non-permit holder needs to do if they are going to the range to shoot.

Technically it was not overturned and the law is still in effect till clarified by the assembly. Only one part was ruled bad. However, i do not want to be the one who test trials it.

[MacGyver]

Yeah, me either.

[deerslayer]

Say you carry all day at work or wherever and go straight from there to a restaurant that serves alcohol. You decide you may want a drink so you leave your firearm in the car and lock it up. You do not touch it again until you're home. Is this ok or something that should be avoided? More or less just curious and trying to get all the facts. Thanks.

Maybe I am a fuddy-duddy, but I don't think the gun will be the main issue if you get pulled over on they way home after drinking. A weapons violation will just be a cherry on top of the DUI you may be facing.

[Guest mac_05evo]

Maybe I am a fuddy-duddy, but I don't think the gun will be the main issue if you get pulled over on they way home after drinking. A weapons violation will just be a cherry on top of the DUI you may be facing.

I'm talking 1-2 beers or mixed drinks, not getting drunk. FWIW, I may drink alcohol once every couple of weeks if that. I was just curious was more of my reason for posting. Thanks for assuming though.

[Fivestring63]

I thought it was posted on another thread that there was no law against , say, having a couple drinks at home and then carrying in public as long as you're not drunk. Kinda like driving after a couple drinks. Still legal as long as not drunk. So which is it?

[Guest mac_05evo]

I thought it was posted on another thread that there was no law against , say, having a couple drinks at home and then carrying in public as long as you're not drunk. Kinda like driving after a couple drinks. Still legal as long as not drunk. So which is it?

This is what I'm trying to figure out. Thank you for putting it in an easier to read format.

[brooksjr]

I thought it was posted on another thread that there was no law against , say, having a couple drinks at home and then carrying in public as long as you're not drunk. Kinda like driving after a couple drinks. Still legal as long as not drunk. So which is it?

This is what I'm trying to figure out. Thank you for putting it in an easier to read format.

I for one wouldn't even want to be around a gun after drinking regardless if it's legal or not. Back in my younger days I did some pretty stupid things after "just a few".

On a side note, I don't drink anymore.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

If you had a couple of beers, then went, with your gun,

to the store to get a gallon of milk, reached down for

something and swerved, not noticing the cruiser. He pulls

you over and smells beer. You do the test, fail.

Breathalyzer is next and you blow something that you

didn't think could happen. What do you do, then, when

he sees the gun. Unreasonable? Maybe, but why take

the chance? It's your HCP and DUI. Is is worth it?

Not for me.

[Smith]

No drinking and carrying in TN. The "legally drunk" limit only applies to driving. As far as HCP a .01 is illegal. IIRC

[Oh Shoot]

No drinking and carrying in TN. The "legally drunk" limit only applies to driving. As far as HCP a .01 is illegal. IIRC

Nah. It's undefined. Totally up to the interpretation of LEO/judge as to possession under the influence.

LEOs here have disagreed on it.

- OS

[Smith]

Nah. It's undefined. Totally up to the interpretation of LEO/judge as to possession under the influence.

LEOs here have disagreed on it.

- OS

True, but being undefined I read as a No. If you don't have a defense you don't have a anything.

[MacGyver]

True, but being undefined I read as a No. If you don't have a defense you don't have a anything.

This.

You don't have to blow a 0.08. You have give the officer suspicion that you are intoxicated, and then blow anything. You might get it tossed out of court, but I wouldn't want to take that chance.

[RD3]

I'm not sure so I keep one of those safes in each of my vehicles for any time that I need to leave it for any reason.

[Guest mac_05evo]

So this is just basically one of those gray areas that most would avoid, I think I will do the same. Thanks for everyone's input. I'm waiting on my HCP and just trying to get all my facts straight!

[Fire/hunting guy]

I for one wouldn't even want to be around a gun after drinking regardless if it's legal or not. Back in my younger days I did some pretty stupid things after "just a few".

On a side note, I don't drink anymore.

+1

[Guest Plainsman]

I wouldn't encouage you to take the breathalyzer at all, in any event. If they ask you to blow, your already in enough trouble for them to arrest you anyway (if not arrested), so its only going to add to your bad news. If you go to jail for violation of implied consent, then so be it, but they will never be able to prove your Blood-Alcohol content in court which is pivotal in their case. You could fail a field test for a number of reasons that a good attorney could come up with. As far as being armed, I'm in the same boat as most here, its just asking for trouble. I either drink and have a good time knowing I'm risking my safety or I carry.

Note: I'm not an attorney, this is not legal advise, and you can do what you want.

[Guest 270win]

It is against the law in TN to be 'under the influence' of alcohol or narcotic drugs while in possession of a handgun. That is a Class A Misdemeanor.

I do not know the exact TN law on DWI/DUI, not being from here. I do know in Arkansas the police do not have to breathalyze people to charge them with DWI. You can EITHER have a BAC of .08 or higher OR be INTOXICATED by alcohol and/or narcotic drugs (prescribed or unprescribed) to the point you cannot safely control a vehicle. It give's the police very broad discretion on who to charge. Yeah you may be under the 'legal limit'...but if you are still stumbling/swaying..appear drunk..you can still get charged with DWI in Arkansas because you are intoxicated. Each person is affected different by alcohol or narcotic drugs.

I am assuming TN's intoxication laws, whether it be driving or public intox are very similar to Arkansas giving police broad discretion on either .08/.10 OR someone who appears to be driving while intoxicated.

Now the handgun deal....ask yourself....are you 'under the influence of alcohol/narcotics'? Does it impair your ability to make normal decisions if you have a beer? There are some who actually would be legally 'intoxicated' in my homestate by two beers but would be under the legal DWI limit b/c they can't handle liquor. If you can have a drink and go about your business as normal....then you are not 'under the influence of alcohol/narcotics'....then you can't break the law...at least that's my thinking.

[Oh Shoot]

It is against the law in TN to be 'under the influence' of alcohol or narcotic drugs while in possession of a handgun.

Not "narcotic" but "any controlled substance".

This can even be a legitimately prescribed drug.

If you can have a drink and go about your business as normal....then you are not 'under the influence of alcohol/narcotics'....then you can't break the law...at least that's my thinking.

However, it's not YOUR thinking that will determine the outcome if cop smells booze on your breath. And as you say, you don't have to have undergone a BAC to be charged.

Of course, assuming the booze/restaurant bill (re)passes, you cannot have ANY alcohol (at least while inside the establishment).

- OS

[deerslayer]

So many mistakenly think that you can't get a DUI unless you blow a .08. BAC is merely one test that an officer can do. In TN, you can blow a .03 and still go to jail. Two beers will get many to .08, anyway. It doesn't matter if you are drunk or not. Maybe you'll win in court, maybe you won't. The state does not care if someone can handle their alcohol or not. That's where .08 comes in--it's an arbitrary limit for determining when someone is drunk, but officers get LOTS of discretion.

Too many people have too lax an attitude when it comes to drinking and driving. I fear that these same people will have the same lax attitude when drinking and carrying. This is why I have no problem with a "no guns in places where you must be 21 to enter" law. If somebody gets a DUI, nobody is going to start a grassroots movement to ban people from driving. If someone with an HCP gets caught drinking and carrying, drunk or not, someone somewhere will use the event as ammunition for the argument that no one should have an HCP. And if an armed HCP holder is considering having a couple drinks while carrying, I don't think they should have one either. I'm not as worried about what they will do as a result of drinking as I am about the consequences of being caught drinking and carrying for non-drinking HCP holders.

[Guest 270win]

Oh I will agree that DWI, public intox, and this TN 'possession of a handgun while under the influence' are all gray laws that can all be selectively enforced at the whim of a police officer. I will say that if you get stopped and are driving a car and you smell like liquor...even if not intoxicated....and you are in control of everything just fine...you will probably be asked to step outside of your car. It is a big hassle from a driver's standpoint (I'm not talking gun standpoint). You will be checked out to whatever point the police wants to do to see if you are not intoxicated...however much you are willing to prove on the side of the road that you aren't ...and of course...that can get very interesting....or you can refuse and see what happens if he decides to charge you with DWI...or if he decides to ask you to do a breathalyzer...then charge you with DWI...or if you refuse and then charge you with DWI after that...it's a lot easier to let someone else do the driving honestly even after having a drink! Now gun wise...this is the same routine you could go through if carrying on you and stopped for suspected DWI. Get popped for DWI and the cop might charge you for the gun offense too...and they can add public intox on that too. Very common for public intox on top of DWI back in Arkansas.

[Fallguy]

deerslayer is right on not needing a BAC of 0.08% to be charged with DUI, it is just that it is presumed you are intoxicated at that level. However the LEO could still determine you are intoxicated at a lower level, he may just have a harder case to make.

As has been said, the law says you can't be under the influence and in possession of handgun....with under the influence being up to the discretion of the LEO and then maybe the judge.