I guess you've never been deer hunting in Wisconsin. They're living proof you can operate a gun while intoxicated with great efficency and safety...

Good thing for us it already isn't legal to carry when intoxicated under the permit law(With exceptions for places you don't need a permit). As a matter of fact, at half the threshold as for driving.



There's a great deal of gradiation in alcohol consumption. One drop does not a drunk make. Your experience may be different but one beer with dinner does not make most people raging alcoholics.



I suspect you've had a serious run in with alcohol or with someone who has an alcohol problem. That has affected your judgment of the ability for permit holders to self regulate and take responsibility for themselves within the reasonable confines of the law.

It should be legal to carry, period.

It should only be illegal to commit a criminal act.

+1

And might I add, we shouldn't criminalize activities in order to make certain people feel better when we don't know that doing so will likely have a considerably positive effect.

I really hate to respond to this, but Jim really doesn't comprehend that his anecdotes of correlation do not prove causation in any way.

I imagine the reasons for Jim's observations are manyfold:
- DUI is more stigmatized in our culture than it used to be
- Jim is witnessing these stories among people he has grown older with. When we get older we tend to be more mature, more considerate, and have more to lose.
- bars are fearful of being sued for not looking out for their patrons
- perhaps law enforcement is more effective at actually catching people
- perhaps a certain misguided many who felt it was okay to drive at 0.08, 0.09, and moreover knew that they were at those levels and not at 0.10 or higher are fearful that they'll now be caught under the new laws

+1
And making it illegal to carry while riding a unicorn should not count as a criminal act.

I don't want to de-rail this thread... but I will.

The libertarian in me agrees with you. However at what point does an act become so risky to others that it should be considered criminal?

Drunk driving is a great example of this. I don't think a society such as ours would be able to function properly without some sort of DUI laws on the books. The danger of driving while severely intoxicated is pretty undispuitable. Also without contention (by most) is that very small amounts of alcohol do not impair driving to any significant level.

How does someone of your opinion of "only crime should be criminal" deal with this situation?

Driving is not a right and can be regulated more than the RIGHT to keep and bear arms IMO. I know what you are saying but I will chose liberty over safety as far as our laws (government) are concerned until such a time when data proves otherwise. Great and thought simulating question.

Here's a question:

How many people have intoxicated permit holders injured or killed with their handgun, while carrying in a public place since the law was enacted?

AFAIK, 1 and that guy was driven / drove himself home and returned with a gun so he was not operating under the terms of a permit.

Drunken shooting is not a particular problem.

It's a bad idea for a drunk to have lots of things, knives, cars, tools, matches, gasoline, airplanes, fishing boats, even children. But we only demonize guns, because well they're guns.

I think Dick has been channeling Joel. He sounds just like him.

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/ ... /id/75459/



City to appeal decision in strip club gun case



The city of Duluth filed notice Wednesday that it is appealing a judge’s decision to dismiss a criminal charge against a Duluth strip club owner accused of illegally carrying a pistol while intoxicated in his club.


The city of Duluth filed notice Wednesday that it is appealing a judge’s decision to dismiss a criminal charge against a Duluth strip club owner accused of illegally carrying a pistol while intoxicated in his club.
A misdemeanor charge of carrying a pistol in a public place while under the influence of alcohol was dismissed last week against James Gradishar, 46. Gradishar told police that he had been handling money and forgot he was carrying the firearm.
In his order dismissing the charge, 6th Judicial District Judge Eric Hylden wrote that there is no case law interpreting the law in question.
Defense attorney Richard Holmstrom successfully argued the charge should be dismissed because “public place” as defined in one Minnesota gun statute excludes a place of business owned or managed by a person.
In his order, Hylden wrote: “It seems that the Legislature has always considered a place of business, like one’s home, a location where the protection of a handgun was warranted.”
In her notice to appeal the case to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, filed in St. Louis County District Court, assistant city attorney Terri Lehr wrote that the issues she proposes be raised on appeal are:
* Does Minnesota [law] prohibit the owner of a retail liquor establishment from carrying a loaded, concealed handgun while under the influence of alcohol at his place of business during business hours and while members of the public are present?
* Did the trial court err in its interpretation of the term “public place” found in Minnesota [law]?

What a wonderful use of the St. Louis County taxpayer's money.

Well for me a "public place" is one that is owned and paid for by the PUBLIC. If the place is owned and paid for by a private individual(s) it is not a public place. The public may be welcomed by the private owner, however they do not have any element of ownership in the enterprise. I do believe it is a matter of private property rights.

There are people that want to have complete control over everything including what takes place on private property (ie; smoking bans, etc.)
We are moving very quickly on the path to Socialism.