[jason1]

Is there a law that makes it unlawful for a off-duty LEO to drink a beer and carry a pistol at the same time or is it legal to do so.I know this might be a stupid question but I want to know because I saw something that just got me on my soap box about Georgia law and the carry of firearms that a GFL holder can't do is carry in a bar and a LEO can carry. :roll:

 

[jrm]

It's a bad practice.

It shows poor judgment.

It should be against department policy.

I don't know of a law against it.

 

[ls1ssdavid]

I asked the same question about Military, because they are exempt as well. Apparently there are no laws against it. But i'm pretty sure you would get snatched up by a LEO reguardless. And what would the purpose be to do so? No matter if you were justifed to use the firearm or not your judgement will be brought into question. And you would probobly loose all credibility in a court case.

It would be a stupid decison to do so in my opinion.

 

[jason1]

I will tell why I asked

I saw a off duty female LEO that I know carrying concealed into and drink on one beer.She didn't concealed that good under her shirt behind her back.I spotted it right off that she was carrying.

 

[GAGunOwner]

I'm not one of those people who believe that one beer is going to make a lawful gun carrier go on a rampage of death and distruction. Following this logic you are in lockstep with the antis and we will never get resturant carry in Georgia!

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with drinking one or two drinks while carrying! I'm sure many of you will disagree with me, that's fine. You know yourself and if you can't handle a drink or two, thank God you're smart enough not to carry.

That said...I would imagine off-duty police in uniform drinking would be against department policy, that would also apply to plainclothes with a badge showing probably. I would think this is a good way to get fired if you act like an idiot but not illegal.

It is not against the law for any of those exempt to drink while carrying into a bar.

 

[ls1ssdavid]

I think drinking in a bar is diffrent from being in a resturant. You are comparing two diffrent things. I too believe drinking one beer or two would not cause you to start shooting up the place. But I think it is bad personal policy of doing so. Thus I would never do it. And how could tell how many that person has had. What are you gonna do give a breathalizer test?

To set this straight. I believe everyone should be able to carry into a resturant with the GFL. However, I believe you shouldn't be allowed to consume alcohol and carry a firearm in public at the same time. Because you couldn't put a limit on it. I carry my gun all the time when i'm in my house. But, I unload it and do not wear it on my person for that reason.

 

[jason1]

thanks for the post here on this subject

I do agree that we should have resturant carry but I'm just pointing out that if a LEO can carry in a sports bar and drink why can't I or you drink one or two beers like her but not be over the legal driving limit in Georgia.The law should be that if carry you can drink a little but not get so drunk that you can not drive.Look at Virginia you can carry but they have a set limit on how much you can drink.I wish we had Virginia laws at least you know where you can and can't carry. So I just saying that it is unfair that a LEO's have more rights then us when thier off-duty its B.S.There rights should be limited when thier off duty because they are not helping the public when there not working and should be treated like a GFL holder.I know some many disagree but fair is fair.

 

[GAGunOwner]

But i'm pretty sure you would get snatched up by a LEO reguardless.

How can a LEO "snatch up" someone who isn't breaking the law?

Besides if we are talking about a LEO carrying, I doubt that for a second reason.

 

[GAGunOwner]

I do agree that we should have resturant carry but I'm just pointing out that if a LEO can carry in a sports bar and drink why can't I or you drink one or two beers ...

The sad truth is because LEOs (and other exempted persons) are assumed to be more responsible and law abiding than "just a citizen" with a GFL. It is as simple as that!

 

[Macktee]

The sad truth is because LEOs (and other exempted persons) are assumed to be more responsible and law abiding than "just a citizen" with a GFL. It is as simple as that!

And because they have an union and we don't...

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

To set this straight. I believe everyone should be able to carry into a resturant with the GFL. However, I believe you shouldn't be allowed to consume alcohol and carry a firearm in public at the same time.

So, just so I am clear on this, and not wanting to put words in your mouth, do you believe it is a proper function of government to use force against a peaceable citizen who is seen taking a sip from a beer while sitting next to his five year old son in Pizza Hut if that peaceable, pizza-eating citizen is also known to have a loaded gun holstered and concealed somewhere on his person?

:jail:

 

[USMC - Retired]

I think it should be more like driving. You can carry and drink as long as you don't drink enough to be impared. IE the same legal blood alcohol levels for driving. So like you could get a DUI in a car you can get a CUI while packing. Put the responsability with the user just like with a license to drive.

 

[jrm]

MP,

You may have seen me mention once or a thousand times before, but I don't think it's a proper function of government to use force against a peaceable citizen who is believed to have committed a crime. Force should be reserved for violent citizens who are beleive to have committed crimes. There is no reason for Fulton County Jail to be bulging with pot smokers awaiting trial.

 

[kkennett]

I know Michigan has laws that mirror your discussion here. Restaurant carry is OK, but BAC needs to be below 0.02. There are are grades of infractions from 0.02 to 0.06, 0.06 to 0.08, and over (or at least something like that). They also have an implied consent law on the testing. Personally, I don't know. I'd love to have a beer or glass of wine while out to dinner and still be armed. However, I do think carrying into a bar and drinking is looking for trouble. Michigan differentiates a restaurant from a tavern. Other states do the same with the 51% of revenue thing.

 

[jrm]

I don't believe that possessing (or carrying) a gun while intoxicated should be a crime any more than possessing a car while intoxicated is. If the combination of guns and alcohol are going to be criminalized, it should be restricted to discharging a gun while intoxicated, and I think there should be an additional element of recklessness or something of the sort. For example, while I don't think it's great judgment to go targeting shooting after a few driinks, I don't believe those combined activities should be a crime per se.

 

[USMC - Retired]

I'm not sure I would agree with that JRM. Shooting while impared, whether it be at targets or bad guys leaves way too much room for error. Look at it this way, you can get a DUI for being intoxicated, asleep in your car with your keys in the ignition and the car not running. The DUI laws arn't to punish only the guys that get in a wreck but anyone that may endanger themselves and others. Now I agree that should someone harm others while drunk and driving/packing then the charges should be more severe.

 

[jrm]

It's a close call, USMCR, but there is one additional element required for a DUI conviction under the circumstances you describe. There must be some evidence that the car was driven on a public roadway. So, if you were found drunk, asleep in your car parked on the side of the road with the keys in the ignition, you could be convicted (assuming you were the only occupant). On the other hand, if you were found drunk, asleep in your car parked on the back 40 of your farm with the keys in the ignition, there should be no conviction.

The point I'm trying to make is the DUI law has an implied element of recklessness in that it only punishes operating while less safe on public roadways. You can infer that the legislature believes the necessary element of recklessness is not present when driving on your own private property.

So, I think there could be circumstances where one discharges a firearm while "less safe" but in a manner that is not inherently reckless. The example I gave was shooting at a range, which may not be the best example, but you probably get the idea. Shooting inside a tavern while intoxicated probably is inherently reckless. Shooting in other circumstances while intoxicated probably is not inherently reckless.

I think criminal codes should be narrowly drafted to include only the precise conduct sought to be punished, and no others.

 

[Gunstar1]

Possession and/or discharge of a firearm while under the influence

It is against the law to be in possession of firearm while engaged in hunting and fishing activities or discharge a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or any drug or any combination of alcohol and any drug to the extent that it is unsafe for the person to discharge such firearm except in the defense of life, health, and property;

It is also against the law to discharge a firearm while engaged in any shooting activity while under the influence of alcohol or any drug or any combination of alcohol and any drug.

It is NO defense to violation of this law even if you are legally entitled to use such a drug (prescription). (16-11-134, 27-3-7)

http://www.georgiapacking.org/law.php

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

If the combination of guns and alcohol are going to be criminalized, it should be restricted to discharging a gun while intoxicated . . .

You probably already know this, but that is already a crime in Georgia.

O.C.G.A. 16-11-134

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

To set this straight. I believe everyone should be able to carry into a resturant with the GFL. However, I believe you shouldn't be allowed to consume alcohol and carry a firearm in public at the same time.

So, just so I am clear on this, and not wanting to put words in your mouth, do you believe it is a proper function of government to use force against a peaceable citizen who is seen taking a sip from a beer while sitting next to his five year old son in Pizza Hut if that peaceable, pizza-eating citizen is also known to have a loaded gun holstered and concealed somewhere on his person?

:jail:

Since the original question is more restricted, I would like an answer. I will not jump on you for it, but I would like to know if you think it is proper for government to exercise force in the situation described above (which matches what you have said), since law is nothing but force.

The Law (Stirling Translation, 1874)
By Frederic Bastiat

:wink: