Utah: Drunk Driving Bill Has Unintended Negative Consequences on Gun Rights

[RugersGR8]

They talked about this today on Tom Gresham's Gun Talk Show

https://www.ammoland.com/2017/03/ut...-unintended-negative-consequences-gun-rights/
Utah: Drunk Driving Bill Has Unintended Negative Consequences on Gun Rights
Posted on March 23, 2017 by AmmoLand Editor Duncan Johnson

 

[Pokinfun]

I am not sure I disagree with the law. People should not be drinking and carry a firearm at the same time, even if it is a glass of wine with dinner. If we have a gun in the vehicle, and we always do, one of us does not drink. Also, one of us does not drive if we have had even one drink with dinner.

 

[RugersGR8]

I still pondering this one. What boggles my mind would be why LE's would be exempted--I would think that they would be held to an even higher standard(no disrespect meant or inferred, I have the highest respect for LE's and the job that they do).

 

[rickm]

I still pondering this one. What boggles my mind would be why LE's would be exempted--I would think that they would be held to an even higher standard(no disrespect meant or inferred, I have the highest respect for LE's and the job that they do).

This would be the main reason i would be against the bill from the start. No one should be exempt from any law. Whats good for the goose should be good for the gander as well, the way i look at it.

 

[RugersGR8]

http://guntalk.libsyn.com/guntalk-03-26-2017-part-b

On the above link, Tom Gresham & guest talk about Utah, BAC and guns. Starts at about 2:20.

 

[Rooster1971]

"The restrictions on carrying a dangerous weapon would apply at all times and everywhere including your home." (Qoute)

I have a problem with this from the article. Over a .05 is a couple good beers.

 

[Dave70968]

I am not sure I disagree with the law. People should not be drinking and carry a firearm at the same time, even if it is a glass of wine with dinner.

And yet, in states where such is legal (Indiana, I think, is one), it simply hasn't been a problem.

There's a big difference between "a glass of wine with dinner" and being drunk.

 

[Pokinfun]

And yet, in states where such is legal (Indiana, I think, is one), it simply hasn't been a problem.

There's a big difference between "a glass of wine with dinner" and being drunk.

As a lawyer, would defending someone who had a glass of wine and shot an aggressor be more difficult than someone who had not?

 

[RugersGR8]

"The restrictions on carrying a dangerous weapon would apply at all times and everywhere including your home." (Qoute)

I have a problem with this from the article. Over a .05 is a couple good beers.

"A man's home is his castle"?---NOT ANY MORE! IMHO, this is yet another case of the gun gabbers/haters running "gun control" down our throats(by any means possible) and upping the ante on the penalties we can run afoul of. Also IMHO, the gun grabbers/haters are trying to make the cost(monitary/legal costs) of owning weapons for self defense, sporting uses, etc. so high that some may eventually have to forgo their 2nd Amendment rights and gun ownership.

 

[Dave70968]

As a lawyer, would defending someone who had a glass of wine and shot an aggressor be more difficult than someone who had not?

Only in the case of a highly questionable shoot. If the decedent walks into the bar, shoves a gun in Our Hero's face demanding a wallet, and catches more than he bargained for, a couple of glasses wouldn't matter--there's not really any subtlety to argue.

If Our Hero shoots a more subtle aggressor, say one who simply makes a furtive movement, then you have to go to his judgment in determining whether that movement created a fear that a reasonable man would recognize.

Where it is more likely to matter is a miss on the assailant resulting in a hit on a noncombatant; a negligence case would certainly look at Our Hero's duty of care with regards to judicious marksmanship, and intoxication could easily affect that, especially under the pressure of the (threat-imposed) clock. "A glass of wine," though, is going to matter far less than "took first place in a tequila slammer contest."

The example we already have from permissive states just doesn't show this to be a serious problem, though.