Can my carry ability really be revoked for DUI?

**Valorius** · May 27th, 2011, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by Hawk

^ This! +1

Think of drunk driving as playing Russian Roulette, except the drunk drivers gun is pointed at fellow drivers heads after he spins the chamber.

That's how i look at it.

Doesn't matter if the law is just or not. It's the law. Break it, and kiss your LTCF good bye.

**Valorius** · May 27th, 2011, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by farmplinker

Excellent post. As with many organizations, power and money corrupted the original intent over time. The woman who started MADD left several years ago after she realized the organization had become a temperance and prohibitionist organization and had strayed from its original safety ideals. She was particularly opposed to lowering the BAC limit below 0.10, realizing doing so would simply create more criminals (in the eyes of the law) and do nothing to increase safety.

The poster who equates someone breaking into a house and stealing things with someone who has a few drinks and decides to sleep in his car exhibits a shocking lack of logic.

As to the OP, he is not the first to be arrested while sleeping in his car. How the law can interpret that as "operating" a motor vehicle is beyond me. Bad luck or bad laws. I choose the latter.

I think that if you think that getting in your car after having "a few drinks" is OK, that you probably shouldn't have a permit- or a car- either.

People who have been drinking should not be anywhere near the drivers wheel of a car.

**johnfritz** · May 27th, 2011, 12:34 PM

Yup. Break the law, go to jail! MF'er.

Big Government. Small Brains. Dumb Laws.

**farmplinker** · May 27th, 2011, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by Valorius

I think that if you think that getting in your car after having "a few drinks" is OK, that you probably shouldn't have a permit- or a car- either.

People who have been drinking should not be anywhere near the drivers wheel of a car.

Then I guess you would agree with all of these statements, as well:

I think that if you think that getting in your car after having taken cold medicine is OK, that you probably shouldn't have a permit- or a car- either.

I think that if you think that getting in your car after having an argument with your boss or spouse is OK, that you probably shouldn't have a permit- or a car- either.

I think that if you think that talking on your cell phone while driving is OK, that you probably shouldn't have a permit- or a car- either.

I think that if you think that reading text messages while driving is OK, that you probably shouldn't have a permit- or a car- either.

I think that if you think that looking at a map while driving is OK, that you probably shouldn't have a permit- or a car- either.

I think that if you think that applying makeup, yelling at your kids, shaving, changing the radio station - or any of a number of things that people do that distract them from driving - while driving is OK, that you probably shouldn't have a permit- or a car- either.

----

From your last sentence, you sound as if one or two beers makes a person incapable of safely driving a car. If that's not the case, then I misunderstood what you meant by "people who have been drinking". It strikes me as awful self-righteous to issue such a blanket statement for one behavior, but ignore all of the things distracted and impatient drivers do.

I see people changing speeds, drifting in and out of lanes and generally driving like idiots all the time. More times than not, they are either talking on a phone, or worse yet, texting while driving. Should that disallow them from getting a carry permit?

I am not an apologist for drunk drivers, and never drive drunk myself. But the OP got royally screwed by a legal system that has singled out one cause of bad driving, and stretched the definition so far as to include people who are not drunk, and in fact are not even operating vehicles. It just strikes me as narrow-minded and authoritarian for anyone to argue that this should prevent him from exercising his second amendment rights.

**Valorius** · May 27th, 2011, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by farmplinker

Then I guess you would agree with all of these statements, as well:

I think that if you think that getting in your car after having taken cold medicine is OK, that you probably shouldn't have a permit- or a car- either.

I think that if you think that getting in your car after having an argument with your boss or spouse is OK, that you probably shouldn't have a permit- or a car- either.

I think that if you think that talking on your cell phone while driving is OK, that you probably shouldn't have a permit- or a car- either.

I think that if you think that reading text messages while driving is OK, that you probably shouldn't have a permit- or a car- either.

I think that if you think that looking at a map while driving is OK, that you probably shouldn't have a permit- or a car- either.

I think that if you think that applying makeup, yelling at your kids, shaving, changing the radio station - or any of a number of things that people do that distract them from driving - while driving is OK, that you probably shouldn't have a permit- or a car- either.

I certainly agree that anyone who is participating in any of the above activities should certainly not be operating a motor vehicle.

If you have a cold, stay home.

If you're reading a map, pull over.

If you have to text, pull over.

If you're doing your make up, pull over.

If you're drinking, get a designated driver, take a taxi, or walk.

Simple.

Drunk driving is utterly irresponsible IMO.

**farmplinker** · May 28th, 2011, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by Valorius

If you're drinking, get a designated driver, take a taxi, or walk.

Simple.

Drunk driving is utterly irresponsible IMO.

I don't disagree. I guess where we might disagree is whether the OP was in fact drunk driving - from what he states, I don't think so - and whether that should preclude him from his second amendment rights - I don't think so, as well. Granted, these are my opinions, and may not match PA laws, which is why I referenced "bad laws".

**Valorius** · May 28th, 2011, 05:05 PM

We as LTCFer's have to behave to a higher standard for two reasons.

One, because "the man" will use any excuse he can to disarm us if we get into trouble.

Two, because when we misbehave, we make all LTCFer's look bad, and hurt the cause of freedom.

Is .08 "drunk"? Well it doesn't really matter does it...because the law says it is. If you want to drink at .08 because you don't feel impaired, you should do so KNOWING that if you get caught, you're still liable to lose your LTCF, your DL, and be fined through the nose (or pay exorbitant attorney's fees).

And if we get caught and lose your rights, that's no one else's fault but our own.

Personal responsibility is not just a neat-o catch phrase, it is a way of life.

**TZ7792** · November 21st, 2012, 09:05 PM

I agree with you. I have also had bad luck. The last DUI changed my life and quite frankly; Im glad it happend to me. It has changed my life for the better. I also cant carry a firearm and it sucks because I would like to carry a gun when I take my son hunting. I still go, but just for suport. However, the scary part is that someone could break into my house when my family is sleeping and we would all be dead...... This is an issue like the over-the-top child support that some hard working men have to pay. The laws just arn't fair at times. Others don't pay crap........