inebriating armaments

When you get right down to the brass tacks, nuts and bolts, and whatever else it is that underlies a conversation, I fear we are allowing anti-rights advocates to too-narrowly define the debate here in Tennessee concerning lawfully carrying firearms into restaurants that serve alcohol.
For years now, the United States government has trusted American citizens to operate multi-ton, high-speed, flammable-liquid-filled devices so long as their blood alcohol content remains below 0.08 – approximately three to four drinks within an hour for an individual of my size. The vast majority of Americans will likely agree that an individual should not operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated, and yet 17,602 Americans were killed in 2006 by drunk drivers, with the majority of those fatalities being caused by drivers with BACs above the legal limit. All said, vehicle-related deaths totaled to 45,509 in 2006.
On the other hand, here in Tennessee, I am not permitted to carry a firearm if I have so much as a drop of alcohol remaining in my system… yet I can legally operate my vehicle so long as I do not get “too” drunk. I could then plow that vehicle into a schoolbus full of children, killing all of them, and unless the state could definitively, beyond a shadow of a doubt, prove that my judgement/ability was impaired by the alcohol, it would not factor into the case – granted, assuming I blew anything greater than a 0.00, their odds of doing so would be pretty good. But it is not a given. On the other hand, if I had a single glass of wine for dinner two hours ago, had to run out to Wal-Mart for something-or-another, got pulled over at a sobriety check, and blew 0.01 while carrying my Walther, I would become an instantaneous criminal (even if I just happened to be walking at the time).
How does that make sense?
Make no mistake – I am not, in any way, shape, or form, encouraging or supporting carrying firearms and drinking alcohol simultaneously. The two simply do not mix (unless you have one hell of a blender), and a lot of terrible things that transpired when people wielded firearms after drinking alcohol could have been avoided without the latter part of that equation.
But the same goes for automobiles.
Car accidents account for nearly 50% more total fatalities than firearms, and yet those additional vehicle-related fatalities (and a few thousand more) could have been prevented if the drivers had not consumed excessive, or any, quantities of alcohol. Yet we still allow a policy of “some but not too much” for vehicles, and a zero-tolerance policy for firearms? Again, how does that make sense?
“What alternative do we have?” will invariably be the question. Being an engineer, there is one simple thing I ask from my politicians, my laws, and my government: consistency. If the government considers me to be of sufficiently sound and capable mind to operate one tool, then why am I arbitrarily and capriciously denied the ability to operate, or even carry, another tool? To be fair, though, some states actually do try to be consistent.
In Lousiana (go to page 5, LRS 40:1379.3, section I, paragraph 1), it is legal to carry a firearm, with a permit, so long as your blood alcohol concentration level is below 0.05.
In Utah (see here for Utah’s definition of “intoxicated”), it is legal to carry a firearm, with a permit, so long as your blood alcohol concentration is below 0.08.
In Nevada, it is legal to carry a firearm, with a permit, so long as your blood alcohol concentration level is below 0.10 (I would again point out the cut-off for vehicle-related BAC is 0.08).
Other states do allow for carrying of firearms while not “under the influence of intoxicating” substances, but “influence”, “intoxicating”, and “under the” can all to subject to individual interpretations of the police officers, lawyers, and judges involved in the situation, given the lack of specific definitions provided in state laws (For example, Kansas (see 75-7c12 paragraph (b)(1)) indicates that any blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 and above is automatically considered “under the influence”, but anything below that does not necessarily mean not under the influence. Likewise, Massachusetts simply states that carrying while intoxicated is forbidden, but does not specify what “intoxicated” actually means.). In those states, consuming alcohol while carrying a firearm is technically legal, but if, in the opinion of the arresting officer, a single glass of beer is sufficient to be “intoxicating” for you, then have fun trying to challenge it in court.
On the other hand, states like Pennsylvania and Arizona appear to have no specific law or code regarding whether or not one may be “intoxicated” while carrying a firearm, nor any laws or codes concerning how much alcohol in your system constitutes “intoxication” in regards to carry firearms. The language simply does not exist in those states.
How many of the above-mentioned states have cases of rampant, drunken shootings? Have you heard of any? “Blood on the bars”, “blood-splattered drinks”, “tap-room shoot-outs” – all these things we have heard used to describe potential outcomes of allowing law-abiding, licensed, background-checked, trained, sober Tennessee residents to carry their firearms into restaurants that serve alcohol… and yet we have three prime examples of states where carrying while drinking is legal, and none of those horror stories have come to pass. Could it be that those prognostications are nothing more than the baseless, emotional hysterics they appear to be?
The single worst mass-shooting in American history is the Virginia Tech massacre, totalling 32 dead and 25 wounded, and the perpetrator was stone-cold sober at the time, though carrying and employing a firearm in a “gun-free zone”. Yet one of the worst vehicle-related accidents here in America resulted when a drunk driver hit a school bus head-on, resulting in the death of 27 individuals on the bus and 20 to 40 injuries. But raw comparisons of deaths and injuries attempts to quantify the meaning and value of a life, and that is something we simply cannot do.
What we can and, I firmly believe, should do is lobby our duly elected representatives to establish some degree of consistency in our laws. If I am considered to be legally capable of making the velocity, acceleration, braking, maneuvering, collision-avoidance, lane-following, signalling, and countless other law-obeying decisions accurately and effectively while my BAC is 0.07, then why am I considered to be legally incapable of deciding whether or not a person is threatening my life, and defending myself appropriately, when my BAC is 0.01?
Here in Tennessee, we are allowing the anti-rights advocates to define the argument by actually engaging in the debate over what is a restaurant and what is a bar and whether or not individuals should be allowed to carry in one or the other. Honestly, none of that matters. If I am trusted, and, in fact, legally obligated, to not drink to the point of intoxication when I am driving to and from a location, so should it be with firearms. If I am trusted, and in fact, legally obligated, to not operate a motor vehicle when legally intoxicated, so should it be with firearms. In the end, this would clear up the “bar vs. restaurant” mess Tennessee currently finds itself embroiled in (so long as it was passed with an additional bill indicating that lawful, permitted carry is legal in any food-and/or-drink establishment, regardless of how much alcohol or food is served), while simultaneously preserving individuals’ inherent rights to self defense. Works for me.
Guns and alcohol do not mix. But, then, neither do cars and alcohol. If the government has no problem with you operating one tool while slightly inebriated, why do they have such a problem with you operating another tool in the same condition… especially when the operation of the latter tool is a Constitutionally-protected right?
(Again, to be clear, this post should not be construed to support, encourage, facilitate, or defend driving while intoxicated or operating/carrying a firearm while intoxicated – I am, in fact, firmly opposed to both. I have never driven a vehicle, nor carried or fired a firearm, while alcohol is in my system. Hell, I mostly do not drink in public, and was generally relied upon to be the designated driver / drunk wrangler in my NROTC / Navy days. It is amusing how people always make fun of the guy who does not drink… until they need to get home.)
(Special thanks to Weer’d Beard, Bob S., David Chandler, Eseell, Aaron, Sean Sorrentino, and Joe Huffman for helping out with my lacking Google-fu.)