Guns in Bars, I for one don't like it!

[nyffman]

An intoxicated driver isn't infringing upon anyone else's rights until he hits somebody.

If nobody else is on the road, you're right!

A drunk driver is putting my life at considerable risk and I have the right to defend myself from that danger. Since I don't have the option of running the drunk off the road myself, I hire law enforcement to do it for me. As a society, we pass laws to defend ourselves from behavior that has demonstrably proven itself to be dangerous to others in our community.

If you choose to juggle straight razors in the privacy of your backyard, I completely agree that you should be allowed that right. Do it on a crowded city bus, however, and I think you should be arrested.

Define "drunk driver". Do you use the government's changeable definition? Now .04 BAC? Or someother measure. I'm out driving every night till way past most people's bed times. I'm sure there are drunks all around me every night. Occasionally I see one who is obviously impaired. There are thousands of people who, by one definition or another, drive drunk every night . Have they broken a law made by men? Of course. Is it smart? Of course not. But they haven't harmed anyone nor deprived them of any rights. I understand where you guys are coming from, but I agree with jgalt. Maybe if when American society got to the fork in the road where they decided to protect everyone from all danger, both real and imagined, they had instead decided to invoke harsh punishment on those who, through their own disregard and self centered intentions, infringed on another person's rights instead of preemptively infringing on everyone's rights, we wouldn't be in this mess.

[Squib Joe]

Define "drunk driver"

In Minnesota, I would define it as a BAC of .08 or higher - a level determined by our democratically elected officials.

[nyffman]

Yeah, I was thinking about the limit for myself. For me it's .04 all the time. But, regardless, I think I'm going to back out of this one and just watch the rest. I think I would have taken the other fork.

[princewally]

For me it's .04 all the time.

How's that? The only law I'm aware of is for commercial drivers driving commercially.

[jgalt]

Define "drunk driver"

In Minnesota, I would define it as a BAC of .08 or higher - a level determined by our democratically elected officials.

And the issue - for carry or driving - is whether or not there is some principle in play here which should not be subject to the whims of the mob, i.e. a simple majority. That someone feels that I am a greater risk to their health and safety because my bac has reached an arbitrary level, and I may lose rights & freedoms for having crossed that level, despite the fact that I have not in fact put anyone at risk due to any actual behavior, should not be acceptable to those who claim to live in in a free society.

[nyffman]

Do you have a specific reference on that? I've looked and find conflicting and unclear answers. I know what you are saying makes sense. But, in the spirit of "for the children" and preemptive laws, the other way of interpreting this could also make sense.

[princewally]

Do you have a specific reference on that? I've looked and find conflicting and unclear answers. I know what you are saying makes sense. But, in the spirit of "for the children" and preemptive laws, the other way of interpreting this could also make sense.

Sure.

169A.20 DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED.

Subdivision 1.Driving while impaired crime.

It is a crime for any person to drive, operate, or be in physical control of any motor vehicle within this state or on any boundary water of this state:

(1) when the person is under the influence of alcohol;

(2) when the person is under the influence of a controlled substance;

(3) when the person is knowingly under the influence of a hazardous substance that affects the nervous system, brain, or muscles of the person so as to substantially impair the person's ability to drive or operate the motor vehicle;

(4) when the person is under the influence of a combination of any two or more of the elements named in clauses (1), (2), and (3);

(5) when the person's alcohol concentration at the time, or as measured within two hours of the time, of driving, operating, or being in physical control of the motor vehicle is 0.08 or more;

(6) when the vehicle is a commercial motor vehicle and the person's alcohol concentration at the time, or as measured within two hours of the time, of driving, operating, or being in physical control of the commercial motor vehicle is 0.04 or more; or

(7) when the person's body contains any amount of a controlled substance listed in schedule I or II, or its metabolite, other than marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinols.

[Squib Joe]

And the issue - for carry or driving - is whether or not there is some principle in play here which should not be subject to the whims of the mob

Statistical research and the scientific method isn't the "whim of the mob". Drunks with guns kill. Drunks with cars kill. We have plenty of research to put this out of the realm of the hypothetical.

[justaguy]

Drunks with guns kill.

Where do you get this? Rather ignorant statement.

[Pat]

Drunks with guns kill.

Where do you get this? Rather ignorant statement.

Come on, Justa. Grow up a bit.

[justaguy]

Drunks with guns kill.

Where do you get this? Rather ignorant statement.

Come on, Justa. Grow up a bit.

Thank you for the suggestion Pat. But if you think that statement is true you need to get a clue.

[jgalt]

And the issue - for carry or driving - is whether or not there is some principle in play here which should not be subject to the whims of the mob

Statistical research and the scientific method isn't the "whim of the mob". Drunks with guns kill. Drunks with cars kill. We have plenty of research to put this out of the realm of the hypothetical.

#1 - "Statistical research and the scientific method isn't the "whim of the mob"." Absolutely - the truth or falsehood of the results of inquiries derived through the scientific method are definitely not subject to the whim of the mob. Unfortunately, your statement in no way addresses my point. Where is your statistical research and scientific studies which show conclusively that I cannot handle the responsibility of carrying a gun on my hip while having a beer with friends? Or that I'll jump in a car and hurt someone immediately after having said drink? Or that I'll ever drink to excess while carrying or prior to driving? There can be none, of course. The principle I am defending is that my individual rights cannot be limited by the government without some cause, i.e. without proof of some prior bad act. This is not a principle which any majority, of any size, should ever be able to override, and any majority which does is acting as a simple mob, irregardless of their reasons for doing so.

#2 - Sober people with guns kill. Sober drivers kill. We have plenty of research to put this out of the realm of the hypothetical as well. So? I guess the logical conclusion is that no one who is sober should be allowed to handle a weapon or drive a car, right?

[infidel]

Justaguywithnoclout and jgalt make a lot of sense. No need to grow up, very mature thought process.

There are laws on the books for threatening, brandishing, maiming, recklessness etc. One is infringing on my constitutional right to self defense, when one says I cannot drink and carry a firearm. It is like arresting a drunk in a crowded theatre before he yells fire. Potential is not a good enough reason to limit our rights.

[Squib Joe]

Where is your statistical research and scientific studies which show conclusively that I cannot handle the responsibility of carrying a gun on my hip while having a beer with friends? Or that I'll jump in a car and hurt someone immediately after having said drink?

This question doesn't apply to the subject at hand. Having a beer, unless a very, very large beer, wouldn't make you legally intoxicated.

#2 - Sober people with guns kill. Sober drivers kill. We have plenty of research to put this out of the realm of the hypothetical as well. So? I guess the logical conclusion is that no one who is sober should be allowed to handle a weapon or drive a car, right?

Not a very logical conclusion to me. Sort of like saying "I have to leash my Rottweiler in the park. My goldfish is a pet, do I have to leash it too?"

[Holland&Holland]

Justaguywithnoclout and jgalt make a lot of sense. No need to grow up, very mature thought process.

There are laws on the books for threatening, brandishing, maiming, recklessness etc. One is infringing on my constitutional right to self defense, when one says I cannot drink and carry a firearm. It is like arresting a drunk in a crowded theatre before he yells fire. Potential is not a good enough reason to limit our rights.

Since when is drinking a right?