Have Beer, Lose Guns – Are Anti-Gun-Rights Warriors Drunk With Power?

Opinion

Beer Alcohol and Guns
Have Beer, Lose Guns – Are Anti-Gun-Rights Warriors Drunk With Power?

U.S.A.-(Ammoland.com)- In the incessant effort to disarm the American public and turn the nation socialist—evincing a design to reduce us under absolute despotism—Congress and the states, with mass media and misguided countrymen in tow, have been using the joy of alcohol to take your firearms.

They have come a long way, boiling the frog slowly under the radar, but you and I know it. Permits for carrying firearms discreetly already come with a ban on possession in places serving alcohol. That’s almost anywhere decent you might want to eat. There’s no inherent danger in owning sidearms in a restaurant, especially if you don’t consume alcohol (the typical requirement), but the gun ban tied to the eating ban is now virtually complete across the nation. Several narrow exceptions exist.

We were all taught that guns and alcohol don’t mix. It’s a reasonable safety rule. How many of you remember a traditional rural Christmas, where after a giant family meal with plenty of wine or whatever, a bottle followed the men and their shootin’ irons to mix on the back porch for some plinking, cigars, and talk unfit for polite company? People survived it and grew up healthy and strong. I’m just sayin’. In a truly free society, you’re responsible for yourself. No blood no foul. Anti-rights advocates don’t buy any of that.

Guns and Cars

A close parallel and “good next step” to the no-drinking restaurant ban for antis is the frequent demand to treat guns the same way we treat vehicles. Aside from the obvious license and registration elements getting all the attention, the restriction on drinking and driving is an underplayed back story here.

If you can’t operate a car with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08, easily reached after a few beers, how could you possibly justify possession of “dangerous loaded handguns” under similar intoxication? This point has morphed into the carry-permit schemes of some states, further poisoning those already gross paperwork-permit infringements.

By extension, the point goes much further. However, it just hasn’t been discussed openly, for fear of tipping the socialists’ hands. If a person is watching sports at home, and consuming as much beer or other adult beverages as the game demands, why wouldn’t the drunk driving rules apply to firearm possession indoors? Don’t laugh; these rules already exist—in a slightly different form at home.

Remember, the left and their disarmament cohorts have dreamed up other absolutely outrageous schemes for justifying “legally” taking away your guns, remember? The guns are made of the wrong materials (they melt too easily), the magazines are the wrong size (they hold as much ammo as police think they need for crime prevention and self-defense), the hunting scopes are really sniper scopes, the guns are too inexpensive, have the wrong safeties, aren’t on the list, you know the litany. It doesn’t end.

So how can “we” (the collective socialist “we” where government is “we” enforcing its notions through the use of armed force) allow “you” (the proletariat under control for the good of society) be “allowed” (that dangerous word, allowed, implying your freedom exists because someone else says so, not because you are free to act), to possess arms at the same time you possess enough alcohol to incapacitate the Coast Guard? The left wing already has announced plans to limit how much ammo you ought to be “allowed” to have. A full gallon of bourbon?

Inebriation

If you suspect regulating your alcohol possession, and tying it to your gun possession seems far-fetched, think of it in context of the larger issue of mental health and capacity to safely own and operate, well, anything.

The rules already exist, at the federal and state level for banning guns based on possession of other inebriants, Schedule 1 drugs. Work is underway to add people to the banned list based on prior legal prescriptions. The attempt was made to ban gun ownership based on a secret police list (secret police? in America?) for air travel (which failed, fortunately, for now).

You are also banned from gun possession if anyone living in your home is a prohibited possessor because that person can’t have access to even a single round of ammunition. So any gun or ammo out in the open, where it might be used, puts you in felony violation of the law (without any harm or actual malum in se crime done). But wait, there’s more. We’re way beyond beer here.

While you can’t walk into a restaurant in many states to eat with your discreetly carried sidearm, even if you don’t imbibe, you can walk into a convenience store and buy a 24-pack of beer and two-fifths of bourbon to wash it all down, while armed to the teeth. You know where that booze is going—down the gullet. How can polite society allow that? (Now the left is polite?)

Worse still, if you’re dead drunk (still legal) and you legitimately shoot a murderous intruder in your home, can prosecutors enter your blood alcohol into the record and use it against you? Sure they can, there’s no protection against this—but maybe there should be some. “§101: Blood-alcohol level is not a factor in justifiable self-defense if no tangential harm is done.” That’s good law. How about if you’re out in public at the time? “See §101.”

Public drunkenness is illegal, but a difficult charge if you’re not exhibiting symptoms. But if you’re armed and drunk, well, it depends. Which state? Got a permit? Who’s the prosecutor? The left would love to make a case for: “got alcohol – no guns” because anything that disarms the public is a good idea (to them).

A national blood-alcohol limit on being able to carry—the step before banning possession, or even ownership, for people in possession of dangerous inebriants (beer), is in their playbook, and already on the playing field. Arizona’s laws, like some states, makes the alcohol driving charge stick if “impaired to the slightest degree.” Yes, that’s the rule.

Next, we’re going to look at the medical-marijuana craze sweeping the country. That one is already on the books. Your pot card, and your gun card (which libertarians warned you about), both databased, are easily compared. Barack Hussein Obama knew that when he said, sure, go ahead, enjoy your dope as I did back in college, we’re not going to do anything about that. Yet.

Got medicine?


About Alan KorwinAlan Korwin

Alan Korwin, a national columnist, award-winning author of 14 books and veteran of more than 1,000 radio and TV interviews, runs Bloomfield Press, which distributes the new 2019 Traveler’s Guide to the Firearm Laws of the 50 States. He can be reached at GunLaws.com where you can read more common sense like you just read.

Subscribe
Notify of
36 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
willy d
willy d
1 year ago

I know at times we laugh at some of the stuff that is posted on this sight is serious and something to laugh at; but lets think about two things, SCHOOL SAFETY and WHY CAN’T WE TURN THESE RED FLAG LAWS ON THE IDIOTS THAT PUT THEM INTO EFFECT?Aren’t they designed to keep people from harming themselves and other people, and are supposed to be examined to find if they are a threat to themselves or anybody else???????? ALSO WHAT IS THE PRICE ON A CHILD’S LIFE??????????? The politicians sure don’t want to answer that question, all any of them… Read more »

Timothy Votaw
Timothy Votaw
1 year ago

Gentlemen, I applaud you. For the most part, this has been one of the most intelligent and cogent conversations I have followed on Ammoland. It is encouraging as hell to know I have fellow citizens that hold a well-versed knowledge of what keeps this nation functioning as a Constitutional Republic. . Now, as some of you acknowledge, we are rapidly approaching a point of critical mass in terms of governing in this nation. States’ rights are being used to subvert the Constitution, and by doing, beginning the process of active suppression against those citizens who resist the agenda of what… Read more »

McTaylor
McTaylor
1 year ago

Lookit, People: Either start defending your 2A rights NOW, while you still have them, or don’t freaking cry when you find yourself empty-handed later. There is a war on, and you are sitting on the sidelines pretending it doesn’t affect you.

dave s
dave s
1 year ago

How many of you remember a traditional rural Christmas, where after a giant family meal with plenty of wine or whatever, a bottle followed the men and their shootin’ irons to mix on the back porch for some plinking, cigars, and talk unfit for polite company? People survived it and grew up healthy and strong. I’m just sayin’. In a truly free society, you’re responsible for yourself. No blood no foul. Look her Zeb, I know that you and yr kin like to sit on the porch behin yr double wide and shoot Possum (they do make fer som good… Read more »

Timothy Votaw
Timothy Votaw
1 year ago
Reply to  dave s

Funny but spot on, and deadly serious.

Robert
Robert
1 year ago
Reply to  dave s

I don’t really like alcohol and guns together but I don;t think anyone asked for your opinion, asshole!
I remember my Dad and Uncles having a couple of beers while target practicing, but none of them had more than two beers and none of them ever hurt anyone or did anything dangerous.
No one got drunk and it was no one else’s business, including yours!
But I myself have never had any alcohol before or while shooting guns, but I don’t drink alcohol.

Heed the Call-up
Heed the Call-up
1 year ago
Reply to  dave s

dave s, no, we laugh at ignorant fools like you that assume we are all a bunch if stupid rednecks.

Taj
Taj
1 year ago

I live in Idaho. The same blood/alcohol levels apply to driving as well as carrying a firearm. (.08) If I’m too drunk to drive, I can’t shoot you. My wife doesn’t drink so I have both a designated driver and a designated shooter. God! Am I a lucky guy or what?

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  Taj

Taj, Driving has been deemed a privilege granted by the state. Keeping and bearing firearms are a Constitutionally enumerated, unbridgeable, pre-political Civil Right. States do not have authority over our Civil Rights. Nor can a state negate your self defense Civil Right, just because you have a certain level of BAC.

Patriot
Patriot
1 year ago

The gun banning cults ( run by Bloomberg, Soros, American hating foreign governments and the evil U.N.) will stop at nothing to ban our right to own guns and ammo (and knives too). They sit in a jerk off ring thinking. up the most outlandish ideas ever. I’ve read that they say if one got a parking ticket or a speeding ticket that would make you a criminal and you can’t own guns. I don’t smoke, but next they will say if you smoke cigarettes you are an addict and you can’t own guns. Next they’ll say if you pick… Read more »

Chief Nickel
Chief Nickel
1 year ago

Ever notice that they don’t include marijuana, crack, cocaine, heroin, and other drugs with their alcohol bans? The reason is simple, they are pushing those drugs on America because they have read the book “RED COCAINE: The Drugging of America and The West” which all of you should read, it is available free online. Now, anyone who drinks and uses a gun is no better than anyone who drinks and drives. The penalties should be the same. In other words, if you’re going to take a drunk’s guns away, then you need to take his car away and forbid his… Read more »

Patriot
Patriot
1 year ago
Reply to  Chief Nickel

The democrats politicians serve cocaine and pot at their banquets and fund raising events.

frankw
frankw
1 year ago

You are inevitably left with the unenviable choice of submitting to these onerous regulations or defying them and risking whatever the neo-Bolshevik enforcers slap you with. Free men/women will reject these oppressions and risk the wrath of the statists.

tomcat
tomcat
1 year ago

Good article, we haven’t heard from Alan in quite some time. The main purpose for more restrictions on alcohol and guns is to make it more difficult to own and possess guns. Do these morons actually think they will live long enough to see this country with no guns. If they do then they are crazier than I thought.

MockingBird
MockingBird
1 year ago

I’d like to see them try to enforce it while I’m at home drinking whisky with my shotgun by the couch, I’d just love to see the try! Over my dead body!

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  MockingBird

@MBird, I can see that you run a tight ship. Pass the bottle, admire the shotgun, have a few laughs, give the head shed their warrant back with no subject matter found. Everybody goes home happy.

Ray D Jones
Ray D Jones
1 year ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

I learned the hard way that guns booze don’t mix. I am little older now and live in the country. My very good friends across invite me to all celebrations. I can walk there so I can drink. A few LEOs are usually there and when I pop a top will not even handle a gun….

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  Ray D Jones

D. Jones, That is a wise policy.

Kent Cannon
Kent Cannon
1 year ago

They will stop at nothing to take away your rights! The voting block, especially in states like Oregon, Washington and California are afraid of your resistance to their progressive socialist agenda. Think about it, a few extremely counties control the entire state. They don’t want the danger of you using your second amendment rights to stop their power grab!

Don Bailey
Don Bailey
1 year ago

Everyone commenting here about your 2nd Amendment rights must look at the entire picture. Most people do no drink alcohol and then think it is okay to get into or onto their motor vehicle and drive because of the legal and financial consequences, not to mention the possible safety issues to yourself and others. The same legal, financial, ethical and moral consequences apply to firearms and alcohol.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  Don Bailey

Bailey, Driving has been deemed an activity granted by government. The Second Amendment enshrines and enumerates a prepolitical, personal, individual, undiminishable Right. Your old washed out analogy still fails.

Heed the Call-up
Heed the Call-up
1 year ago
Reply to  Don Bailey

Don Bailey, you fail to understand what the writer of the story was saying. It’s not about one actually drinking and being intoxicated, it’s about mere possession or being near alcohol and being a firearm owner. Virginia has proven the stupidity of that idea for the past decade or so. We are “allowed” to consume alcoholic beverages in places that serve alcohol as long as we are OC. It’s illegal to CC and consume alcohol. The antis were raging that the streets would become rivers of blood when the law passed allowing CC in places that serve alcohol, even though… Read more »

Core
Core
1 year ago

I get what the author is getting at. One thing most of us have forgotten is that the Second Amendment “…shall not be infringed.” All of these unconstitutional laws are, well unconstitutional: I know mind blowing huh.. Let me sum it up: Article VI Supreme Law of the Land. All those not in good standing with the US Constitution (under God) from POTUS, State Constitutions, Supreme and Inferior Courts, to the Locale must maintain good standing or be De-funded, Disbarred, and Discharged from Office. The legal scholar hacks that get paid to shill false interpretations of the Bill of Rights… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  Core

, You have your finger on the pulse, brother. Please allow me to make one little change. They can not be laws because they are Unconstitutional. They are only acts of the Congress or legislature. They are statutes, but not law.

Mark
Mark
1 year ago

While I agree that we don’t need more poorly written laws impeding the second amendment, I also agree that this piece is a bit hyperbolic. I hope gun owners can settle amongst ourselves that drinking and guns need to be separate and separated functions. I had a great uncle who was the poster child for “stupid drunk person with a gun”.

Tionico
Tionico
1 year ago
Reply to  Mark

well, hate to disappoint you Mark, but I am NOT your uncle. I maintain self-control in all I do…. I can drive cars crazy fast (so fast the steering wheel is NOT what decides the directioin the car will go, my right foot does) but on the street I don’t. I take a nip once in a while, know how much I can deal with and still be fully functionaland cognisant. Same wiht sleep….. I know when I’m too sleepy to conitnue driving, and stop. Somewhere. Somehow. Walmert parking lots aren’t too hard to find… that’s half why I got… Read more »

hippybiker
hippybiker
1 year ago

Independence Day at our house wit( Alcohol and explosives. A family tradition. I’ve still got all my fingers, so i5s nobody’s Damn business! Suck it, Nancy Boys!

ras
ras
1 year ago
Reply to  hippybiker

10 4 on that

Norman Dvorak
Norman Dvorak
1 year ago

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! The 2nd Amendment clearly states these 4 words and there are so many idiots in our Government and States Governments that do not understand the meaning of these 4 words. There can be no law enacted that denies the right of the people (the Citizens of the United States) to own and bear arms. this means any weapon the Citizens so desires to purchase and carry. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about permits or any rules that would prohibit a Citizens from obtaining and carrying a weapon for his or her protection. It appears that eventually… Read more »

GregTorchia
GregTorchia
1 year ago

This coming from a drug /alcohol induced Washington goofballCollection of “isms” 1776

Jomo
Jomo
1 year ago

Writing hyperbolic crap doesn’t help us. Most (90%) states with a restriction on being in a bar require that the facility be a bar. In other words, devoted to serving alcohol. There is nothing illegal in these states about going to a family restaurant that happens to have a wine or cocktail menu. And this is defined in the law, often called the 51% rule, which states the establishment must make more than 50% of it’s revenue from liquor. Most family restaurants don’t fit that. Is it right to make people felons for walking into a bat? No. But lieing… Read more »

1776 Patriot
1776 Patriot
1 year ago
Reply to  Jomo

Mr. Korwin was clearly talking about the dangers of progressive incrementalism, hence his reference to “boiling the frog slowly”, with citizens not even aware the statists are gradually limiting our Rights with the goal of removing them entirely. Drinking and driving, OK there’s sometimes, possibly, a good argument against that but then we get the “open container” laws in which a designated driver cannot even be in the same vehicle with people who are drinking. And, as another reader noted, you must in some locales, be cognizant of a restaurant’s P&L, lest you violate the arbitrary “51% revenue for food”… Read more »

Crotalus Maxximus
Crotalus Maxximus
1 year ago
Reply to  1776 Patriot

Ronald Reagan was right.

Dgf
Dgf
1 year ago
Reply to  Jomo

State restrictions vary. I live in Montana. The law clearly states that you CANNOT carry into ant establishment that serves alcohol whether you consume or not, period. That means restaurants, casinos, bars, no distinction is made.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  Dgf

@Dgf, States do not have the authority to restrict our Constitutionally recognized, unbridgeable, pre-political Civil Rights. Does Montana have restrictions on talking politics or religion in any establishment that serves alcohol, whether you consume that alcohol or not?

KMB
KMB
1 year ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

I don’t think that was the point he was trying to make. He was countering the comment about only being restricted from being in a bar while armed. That being said, your point is not lost either. I think you may have misinterpreted what Dgf’s intent was. There are some States, right or wrong that have laws on the books that regardless of the establishment type, if they serve alcohol, you can’t be in there armed, even if you don’t drink alcohol. I happen to agree with the premise of the article and what you are saying that it is… Read more »