GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-14-2013, 19:57   #76
Pawcatch@aol.co
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: West Georgia
Posts: 1,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio Copper View Post
O'rly?

Pursuant to what charges? Just DUI?
From all I've read being diagnosed as an alcoholic still doesn't make you a prohibited person under federal law.
The 4473 form doesn't mention alcohol and the BATF told me in a letter that they don't consider alcohol a controlled substance.

I asked them this because I have one DUI on my record that I'm not proud of and I thought that it might keep me from getting my C&R license,but it didn't.

For the record,the judge in my case did not order a drug or alcohol evaluation in my case.And I've never been diagnosed as an alcoholic.
I rarely drink at all now.

Last edited by Pawcatch@aol.co; 05-14-2013 at 20:09..
Pawcatch@aol.co is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 19:58   #77
Lockback
Polymerlicious!
 
Lockback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pawcatch@aol.co View Post
They might as well just ban restaurants from serving alcohol.

I'm convinced that is what groups like MADD really want now.When a founding member of MADD has stated that they have gone too far,you know something is wrong.

All roads might as well be federal now since states have less say in maintaining their traffic laws.

I really wish their was a state who just said,"the hell with federal dollars."
Bingo!
Years ago I got a fundraising call from a MADD rep, a kid who was just trying to make a few bucks. I didn't blame him but did take his script to task, pointing out that MADD's intent was beginning to far exceed its original intent and was beginning to edge its way into Prohibitionist territory. By the time we hung up, he agreed with me and thanked me for educating him.
MADD and NTSB can kiss my butt. I don't want impaired drivers on the road but this proposed legal limit is absurd.
Lockback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 20:08   #78
Ohio Copper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: In the hood
Posts: 3,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pawcatch@aol.co View Post
From all I've read being diagnosed as an alcoholic still doesn't make you a prohibited person under federal law.
The 4473 form doesn't mention alcohol and the BATF told me in a letter that they don't consider alcohol a controlled substance.

I asked them this because I have one DUI on my record that I'm not proud of and I thought that it might keep me from getting my C&R license,but it didn't.

For the record,the judge in my case did not order a drug or alcohol evaluation in my case.
There is a difference between a guy who has a few beers at a wedding and the guy who habitually gets retarded drunk and drives around constantly.
Ohio Copper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 20:31   #79
sheriff733
NRA LIFE MEMBER
 
sheriff733's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio Copper View Post
There is a difference between a guy who has a few beers at a wedding and the guy who habitually gets retarded drunk and drives around constantly.
And which one are you?

I kid, I kid.

That's one way to pass the time working midnights.

__________________
Sent with Probably Cause and Irrisputable Proof

"This isn't domestic abuse. This is hilarious!" -Peter Griffin

Last edited by sheriff733; 05-14-2013 at 20:31..
sheriff733 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 20:38   #80
Matthew Courtney
CLM Number 285
Instructor #298
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Lake Charles
Posts: 5,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pawcatch@aol.co View Post
From all I've read being diagnosed as an alcoholic still doesn't make you a prohibited person under federal law.
The 4473 form doesn't mention alcohol and the BATF told me in a letter that they don't consider alcohol a controlled substance.

I asked them this because I have one DUI on my record that I'm not proud of and I thought that it might keep me from getting my C&R license,but it didn't.

For the record,the judge in my case did not order a drug or alcohol evaluation in my case.And I've never been diagnosed as an alcoholic.
I rarely drink at all now.
Alcohol is not a controlled substance, but it is a depressant and the word "or" between depressant and controlled substance means that being addicted to a depressant is a disqualifier even if the depressant is not a controlled substance.
__________________
You will never begin in the fight you have planned for. You will begin in the fight the other guy has planned for. Retreat in a manner that leads him into your fight should he press his attack.

www.louisianashooters.com
Matthew Courtney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 20:45   #81
HollowHead
Firm member
 
HollowHead's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam
Posts: 23,106


Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Courtney View Post
...it is a depressant...
Not to those of us of Irish extraction. HH
__________________
Never trust a pastor with a day job.

Sent from two coffee cans connected by a string.
HollowHead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 20:49   #82
Ohio Copper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: In the hood
Posts: 3,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheriff733 View Post
And which one are you?

I kid, I kid.

That's one way to pass the time working midnights.


Why do you think I'm only here on certain nights of the week?
Ohio Copper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 20:50   #83
vart
Senior Member
 
vart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Moscow, ID
Posts: 16,805


The Okie Corral
__________________
Okie -

"That's a big bite of crap sandwich, my friend..."

Rabbi - "Anyways, that is a beautiful car. Bill probably already farted in it."
vart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 20:55   #84
TBO
CLM Number 122
Why so serious?
 
TBO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: NRA Life Member
Posts: 43,671
Blog Entries: 1


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio Copper View Post
There is a difference between a guy who has a few beers at a wedding and the guy who habitually gets retarded drunk and drives around constantly.
...and posts about all his bad cop contacts online.
__________________
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."

"If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don't have integrity, nothing else matters".

"A person who won't reason has no advantage over one who can't reason."

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."

“Ignorance is a lot like alcohol: the more you have of it, the less you are able to see its effect on you.”


Originally Posted by Rooster Rugburn:
Didn't the whole sheepdog thing actually start right here on Glock Talk? A bunch of wannabees bought a bunch of T-shirts and took an oath to defend those who won't defend themselves?
TBO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 21:00   #85
Ohio Copper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: In the hood
Posts: 3,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBO View Post
...and posts about all his bad cop contacts online.
Wahh Wahh Wahhhhhhh....
Ohio Copper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 21:09   #86
GVFlyer
Senior Member
 
GVFlyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Somewhere in the air.
Posts: 6,618
Even M.A.D.D. doesn't support this one.
__________________
The Truth Only Hurts If It Should.

http://www.specialops.org/
GVFlyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 21:18   #87
DanaT
Pharaoh
 
DanaT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: CO & Baden –Württemberg
Posts: 15,853
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by GVFlyer View Post
Even M.A.D.D. doesn't support this one.
Maybe M.A.D.D. doesn't but someone must...

The Okie Corral
__________________
Quote:
Twice a week? 14 times a month?
Quote:
2x4=8, not 14.
Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view.
DanaT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2013, 21:19   #88
larry_minn
Silver Membership
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 17,822
I am against it. And I don't drink. I normally drink more (as part of church service) then I do in public. :0

Thing is I am already at a (by law) .04 as I have a CDL. (some Officers think this applies even in POV) :(

So if it changes now will it be .02bac????
larry_minn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 00:42   #89
sputnik767
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 8,099
From what I understand, the law currently is 0.08 or lower if person is showing signs of impairment. This may just be a VA state law though. For the limit to be lowered to 0.05 or anything else, they would have to provide evidence to show that a statistically significant number of people are impaired at above 0.05 BAC. If they can't do that, they are simply criminalizing the guy who is driving his family home after 1 beer with dinner at a restaurant.

I am also curious on statistics about drunk drivers in general. Are most of them habitual offenders, or just people who had a lapse in judgement and got caught? Reason being that habitual offenders aren't exactly paying attention to their BAC before driving, and lowering to the limit to even 0.00 isn't going to stop them.
sputnik767 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 00:43   #90
Snaps
Hail 2 The King
 
Snaps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: SWPA sticks
Posts: 3,222
just trying to legislate personal behavior that they consider bad out of existence.
__________________
Brad
Snaps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 04:45   #91
airmotive
Tin Kicker
 
airmotive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Debris Field
Posts: 7,004
Blog Entries: 1
Lowering the BAC limit to reduce drunk driving is like lowering the number of bullets a mag can hold to reduce armed robberies. While their hearts are in the right place, their brains are up their anal orifices.

It's straight-up illegal to drive while under the influence at all in India, yet they manage to kill 170,000 people every year on their roads. (But the US has far more cars and miles of roads than India). Culturally, they just don't give a **** about safety when driving. I've driven there. Trust me. It's one giant don't-give-a-**** traffic network.

MADD has served its purpose. It raised awareness of drunk driving. The only people who drive drunk today are people who don't give a ****. Guess what...they don't give a **** if the law is .08 or .05. It's like hanging a 'no guns' sign on the bank's front door in order to prevent a robbery.

The problem MADD is facing is that, culturally, the US has pretty much adopted their message into our culture. Thus, MADD is no longer needed. They fulfilled their purpose.
However, MADD has become a corporation. It has career people who have kids to put through college and retirement plans to fund. But MADD is a one-string guitar. They can't play a different tune, they can only play louder. They're trying to justify their existence in order to survive...no matter how many people go to jail.
__________________
----------------------------------------------------
Combine ignorance, arrogance and low altitude, and the result is guaranteed to be spectacular.

Last edited by airmotive; 05-15-2013 at 04:46..
airmotive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 05:07   #92
czsmithGT
Senior Member
 
czsmithGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by airmotive View Post
Lowering the BAC limit to reduce drunk driving is like lowering the number of bullets a mag can hold to reduce armed robberies. While their hearts are in the right place, their brains are up their anal orifices.

It's straight-up illegal to drive while under the influence at all in India, yet they manage to kill 170,000 people every year on their roads. (But the US has far more cars and miles of roads than India). Culturally, they just don't give a **** about safety when driving. I've driven there. Trust me. It's one giant don't-give-a-**** traffic network.
There was a show called Ice Road Truckers about drivers who hauled in Alaska and Canada, Anyway, they had a series of shows where the drivers were sent to India to make some long hauls. Downright scary!!! I'd never get behind the wheel in that country. If I recall correctly, one of the drivers actually walked off and flew home in the middle of the series.
czsmithGT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 05:09   #93
Pawcatch@aol.co
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: West Georgia
Posts: 1,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Courtney View Post
Alcohol is not a controlled substance, but it is a depressant and the word "or" between depressant and controlled substance means that being addicted to a depressant is a disqualifier even if the depressant is not a controlled substance.
Again,is there a case study?I specifically asked the BATF and they said under federal law that the questions on the 4473 only referred to things under the controlled substances act.
Pawcatch@aol.co is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 05:20   #94
Pawcatch@aol.co
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: West Georgia
Posts: 1,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Courtney View Post
Alcohol is not a controlled substance, but it is a depressant and the word "or" between depressant and controlled substance means that being addicted to a depressant is a disqualifier even if the depressant is not a controlled substance.
"Are you an unlawful user of,or addicted to,marijauna,or any depressant,stimulant,or narcotic drug,or any other controlled substance"

Going by the answer the BATF gave me and the wording of "or any other controlled substance",alcohol and nicotine are not included under federal law.

Technically driving under the influence of alcohol would make you an unlawful user if alcohol was included in this,yet I was granted a C&R license.
Pawcatch@aol.co is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 05:33   #95
GVFlyer
Senior Member
 
GVFlyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Somewhere in the air.
Posts: 6,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by airmotive View Post
Lowering the BAC limit to reduce drunk driving is like lowering the number of bullets a mag can hold to reduce armed robberies. While their hearts are in the right place, their brains are up their anal orifices.

It's straight-up illegal to drive while under the influence at all in India, yet they manage to kill 170,000 people every year on their roads. (But the US has far more cars and miles of roads than India). Culturally, they just don't give a **** about safety when driving. I've driven there. Trust me. It's one giant don't-give-a-**** traffic network.

MADD has served its purpose. It raised awareness of drunk driving. The only people who drive drunk today are people who don't give a ****. Guess what...they don't give a **** if the law is .08 or .05. It's like hanging a 'no guns' sign on the bank's front door in order to prevent a robbery.

The problem MADD is facing is that, culturally, the US has pretty much adopted their message into our culture. Thus, MADD is no longer needed. They fulfilled their purpose.
However, MADD has become a corporation. It has career people who have kids to put through college and retirement plans to fund. But MADD is a one-string guitar. They can't play a different tune, they can only play louder. They're trying to justify their existence in order to survive...no matter how many people go to jail.
"Even safety groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and AAA declined Tuesday to endorse NTSB’s call for a .05 threshold. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which sets national safety policy, stopped also short of endorsing the board’s recommendation."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...f7c_story.html

MADD endorses proven methods of reducing drunk driving like high visibility law enforcement, mandatory ignition interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers and the continued development of advanced technology—the development of the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS).

http://www.madd.org/blog/2013/may/ma...ues-focus.html
__________________
The Truth Only Hurts If It Should.

http://www.specialops.org/
GVFlyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 06:40   #96
captainstormy
Senior Member
 
captainstormy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 3,971
Send a message via ICQ to captainstormy Send a message via AIM to captainstormy Send a message via Yahoo to captainstormy
Apparently being fat helps me out for once. According to those BAC calculators I could have quite a bit before hitting .08 or even .05.

I like booze but I don't typically drink in public. Too expensive and the legal limit in Ohio if your carrying a firearm is zero. It might actually be something like 0.01 but basically it's zero.

Even MADD isn't for this. The problem isn't really people driving between .05 and .08. The problem is the people driving at stupidly high level.

I went along on a ride along as a kid once. The officer stopped a drunk driver while I was with him who blew a .21 BAC. Not that I'm saying someone who blew a .08 has never hurt anyone while driving, I just don't think they are the biggest problem.
__________________
I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a-hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them. - John Bernard Books(John Wayne in The Shootist)
captainstormy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 07:20   #97
Jeremy_K
Senior Member
 
Jeremy_K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 1,095
I'd like to see the data on crashes fatal and non fatal where the driver had alcohol in their system but was below .08. A NY senator just proposed that all new school buses be required to be fitted with ignition interlocks. The data on school bus crashes in NY shows that not one involved an impaired school bus driver. I really hate when politicians try to create a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Last edited by Jeremy_K; 05-15-2013 at 07:20..
Jeremy_K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 07:27   #98
DanaT
Pharaoh
 
DanaT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: CO & Baden –Württemberg
Posts: 15,853
Blog Entries: 1
I need to drop the kid off at school. I had my first few coffee with Baily's this morning, but now I have lost my Irish Coffee. Has anyone seen my coffee? I need to drink it before it i leave and it gets cold.
__________________
Quote:
Twice a week? 14 times a month?
Quote:
2x4=8, not 14.
Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view.
DanaT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 08:22   #99
SGT HATRED
Senior Member
 
SGT HATRED's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: PHX AZ
Posts: 2,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtull7 View Post
MADD and absurd BAC levels can ruin your life.
Agreed...
__________________
What I loathe more than the government are the thugs that impose its will on us.
SGT HATRED is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2013, 08:23   #100
Dennis in MA
Get off my lawn
 
Dennis in MA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Taunton, MA
Posts: 52,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaT View Post
21st Amendment.
Yeah, but 18 was before 21, so I guess booze is alienable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cubdriver View Post
I see accidents with a BAC >0.08 compiled in the info that Dennis posted and Dana quoted, but what I'd be interested to see is that ACTUAL BAC in the fatal accidents. Are a lot of them at around 0.08 - 0.09, or are they mostly much higher, like perhaps north of 0.15 or so? In other words, would lowering the legal limit help much if at all, or are we getting below the point of diminshing returns as far as safety goes and into purely punitive territory?

With that being said, there is no excuse for drunken driving. Behave yourself, get a designated driver, or only booze when you're somewhere you can safely stay till sober.

-Pat
That WOULD be good data. I could get behind that!

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtull7 View Post
So, really, DUI roadblocks, absurd BAC level legislation, and punitive sentencing only serve as a deterrent for about one-third of the population. On New Years Eve, for instance, ordinary, law-abiding citizens will drink responsibly, have a designated driver, and go home earlier, to avoid the drunks on the road.
Whoa! Too fast of a jump. I was with you right up until that one.

You are saying that 1/3 of the population is alcoholic and 1/3 is criminal, with no overlap. It's probably less than 20% (maybe 10%) combined, if I had to guess. But it isn't 2/3.

I hear what you are saying overall - laws don't stop lawbreakers. I'll also quote an old family acquaintance: "Locks only stop honest people." Think about that. (Not just J - everyone.) If they are honest, why do we need locks?

SOME sort of DUI law is important to get a subset of drunks off the road. What we are arguing is what level is adequate. Cubby nailed it - gimme stats on accidents/deaths by BAC level.
__________________
The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be the shepherd.
Dennis in MA is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 17:49.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,335
425 Members
910 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42