Not the best decision...

[Allstop]

The law in Minnesota is that you can't carry if your BAC is .04.

[Bree]

Originally Posted by griz312000

OK, then...how about this...you go out to the restaurant for a meal and have a couple drinks, leaving the weapon at home. You go home, go to bed and someone breaks into your house. Are you going to tell him.."Can you come back after my BAC hits 0.00?" Kinda apples and oranges, but you can see my point. I also don't think the article gives nearly enough information to have a valid opinion one way or the other on this one. I certainly have to be suspect of any media report when it has anything to do with guns, especially, OMG!!! a handgun!!!! I'd sure like to know what happened to the driver???

No I don't see your point at all. Totally different risk profile when you are in your own home and someone breaks in then you out in public under the influence. So it is apples and pears. No real comparison.

[Bree]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia

No problems. I didn't expect to change anybody's mind. Just explainin' that the law is different in PA and a lot of people look at the issue differently. We don't go shooting up the place like the wild west around here either, even though the gov't lets us have a drink.

Plus your avatar is hot!

PA is a great state. My dad was born there. I am licensed in PA and love coming down to shoot there.

On the avatar... I felt that it was time to ratchet it up to encourage others to overcome boring avatars.

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by Alaskapopo

Also if you were carrying after drinking at all you are acting irresponsible. Alcohol and guns don't mix. No way to argue this.
Pat

We've already discussed on duty undercover cops who are allowed to drink to maintain their cover. There are different policies about how much and when depending on the jurisidiction (in NYC for example, it has been reported that it's up to the supervisors to subjectively evalutate if somebody had a little too much -- and there's no set definition of too much), but it seems to be a fairly widespread practice.

How does this jibe with the absolutes you pronounce from on high? Are all the undercovers irresponsible? Should they leave their guns home? They must be irresponsible and should be required to leave their guns home 'cause there's just no way to argue this. What do we make of all this?

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by Alaskapopo

Police are not going to arrest a person who is clearly and legally defending himself or others.
Pat

Probably not, but when it's not crystal clear, off to jail they go until things shake out. Or do you just throw away the key before the investigation is complete 'cause you had PC? We'll create a new standard to reflect your approach for condeming people: probably guilty based on a few witness statements while the investigation continues. Or why bother with a trial since the arrest was based on PC?

I'm still wondering how the driver managed to hit that tree. And then back up as if it were nothing. The whole thing seems very odd. I hope your brothers also arrested the driver. Driving into a crowd of people, even if you manage not to hit any of them, is dangerous (risking a catastrophe, reckless endangerment, etc.) and not the type of thing that should be allowed without consequence.