DRUG AND ALCOHOL CHARGES AND YOUR LTCH. UPDATE>

[RA8]

They nice ladies in the firearms licensing department have informed me of their policy on denying permits in relation to drug and alcohol charges.

They will allow (misdemeanors or lesser charges, of course);

no more than one alcohol related charge
no more than one drug related charge

two of either will give you a possible five year D.Q.

one of each apparently does not affect you.

Now I'm sure that this is just a gray line. Id put my money on them saying no to someone who has a meth charge.

 

[melensdad]

Personally I'd prefer ZERO tolerance on the drug charges. While I oppose alcohol abuse, I'd concede that 1 charge of something like a DUI might be acceptable.

My opinion is that people with a LTCH should be squeaky clean. Getting a LTCH should be akin to getting a "good honest upstanding citizen award" from our state. Having that little pink card should be a symbol to others that you are a good guy.

 

[Mini-14]

Personally I'd prefer ZERO tolerance on the drug charges. While I oppose alcohol abuse, I'd concede that 1 charge of something like a DUI might be acceptable.

My opinion is that people with a LTCH should be squeaky clean. Getting a LTCH should be akin to getting a "good honest upstanding citizen award" from our state. Having that little pink card should be a symbol to others that you are a good guy.

+1

 

[bigus_D]

Personally I'd prefer ZERO tolerance on the drug charges. While I oppose alcohol abuse, I'd concede that 1 charge of something like a DUI might be acceptable.

My opinion is that people with a LTCH should be squeaky clean. Getting a LTCH should be akin to getting a "good honest upstanding citizen award" from our state. Having that little pink card should be a symbol to others that you are a good guy.

I don't understand why you would say zero tolerance on drug charges (marijuana for example) but are OK with a DUI. Let's consider how dangerous driving under the influence of alchohol is compared to smoking a joint and sitting on your couch.

In my opinion, driving under the influence demonstrates a level of responsibility that is not consistent with the level that should be required for an LTCH. So far as zero tolerance on drug charges, Meth is one thing and pot is another. I'm fine with zero tolerance if that is what it takes. But lumping the drug 'alchohol' in a different category just because it is legal, especially when you start talking about a clear lack of concern for the public by opperating a vehicle under the influence, simply doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[42769vette]

imo there should be a waiting period after charges. i think if someone got a dui and a possetion of pot charge when they were 18 it shouldn't bar them from carrying for life. people do alot of dumb things when they are kids.

 

[RA8]

zero tolerene on drug charges?

Personally I'd prefer ZERO tolerance on the drug charges. While I oppose alcohol abuse, I'd concede that 1 charge of something like a DUI might be acceptable.

My opinion is that people with a LTCH should be squeaky clean. Getting a LTCH should be akin to getting a "good honest upstanding citizen award" from our state. Having that little pink card should be a symbol to others that you are a good guy.

Id like to know how many people you know who carry guns responsibly, and safely who have smoked marijuana in the past. Even decades ago. Should they be stripped of the right? Should these people be looked at like a lifetime criminal, or should they be looked at like a person who has the ability to change into a better person?

Also, why is taking a little hit of marijuana any LESS responsible than A DUI!!! YOU CAN KILL PEOPLE DRIVING DRUNK!

respectfully
-rob

 

[melensdad]

I don't understand why you would say zero tolerance on drug charges (marijuana for example) but are OK with a DUI. Let's consider how dangerous driving under the influence of alchohol is compared to smoking a joint and sitting on your couch.

In my opinion, driving under the influence demonstrates a level of responsibility that is not consistent with the level that should be required for an LTCH. So far as zero tolerance on drug charges, Meth is one thing and pot is another. I'm fine with zero tolerance if that is what it takes. But lumping the drug 'alchohol' in a different category just because it is legal, especially when you start talking about a clear lack of concern for the public by opperating a vehicle under the influence, simply doesn't make any sense to me.

Id like to know how many people you know who carry guns responsibly, and safely who have smoked marijuana in the past. Even decades ago. Should they be stripped of the right? Should these people be looked at like a lifetime criminal, or should they be looked at like a person who has the ability to change into a better person?

Also, why is taking a little hit of marijuana any LESS responsible than A DUI!!! YOU CAN KILL PEOPLE DRIVING DRUNK!

respectfully
-rob

In my simpleton mind I figure that the act of using ILLEGAL drugs is automatically ILLEGAL and therefore a violation of both the state and federal laws. Meth or Pot? I honestly don't see the difference when it comes to using either and then driving a car or using a gun. Both impair judgement and I'd prefer that neither be used when operating a gun or a car or whatever.

Now are you guys suggesting that you can't kill people while driving under the influence of pot? Clearly you'd be on the wrong side of that argument.

HOWEVER, again just my simple little pea brain thinking, someone who drinks a couple drinks at dinner with his wife may be "legally" impaired under the ever-lowering alcohol limits but may not really be affected much by the fact that he had 2 glasses of wine with dinner, yet when snared in one of the DUI roadblocks and when tested may be just barely over the legal limit. Therefore it may be that someone with a DUI was unaware that he was breaking the law while using a LEGAL substance.

Fine line? Yes. But I think a marginally acceptable one.


Now if you want to get into a debate about legalizing drugs, that is way off topic, but I would suggest that some drugs should be legalized, regulated, and taxed in the same way the cigarettes and alcohol are legal, taxed and regulated.

imo there should be a waiting period after charges. i think if someone got a dui and a possetion of pot charge when they were 18 it shouldn't bar them from carrying for life. people do alot of dumb things when they are kids.

You'd get no serious argument from me on this.

 

[42769vette]

HOWEVER, again just my simple little pea brain thinking, someone who drinks a couple drinks at dinner with his wife may be "legally" impaired under the ever-lowering alcohol limits but may not really be affected much by the fact that he had 2 glasses of wine with dinner, yet when snared in one of the DUI roadblocks and when tested may be just barely over the legal limit. Therefore it may be that someone with a DUI was unaware that he was breaking the law while using a LEGAL substance.

+ 1 .08 or what ever it is now isn't much. when the limit was .12 you wad a pretty good idea you were impared if you didn't know you were. at .08 you could know you are fine and then find out you are wrong.

 

[42769vette]

i may be a little off topic here but i also believe getting a felony shouldn't bar you from owning a firearm. i could see if you have a felony you cant carry one but i believe (depending on the felony) after a set amount of time you should get your rights back and be considered a debt paid member of society.

 

[RA8]

In my simpleton mind I figure that the act of using ILLEGAL drugs is automatically ILLEGAL and therefore a violation of both the state and federal laws. Meth or Pot? I honestly don't see the difference when it comes to using either and then driving a car or using a gun. Both impair judgement and I'd prefer that neither be used when operating a gun or a car or whatever.

Now are you guys suggesting that you can't kill people while driving under the influence of pot? Clearly you'd be on the wrong side of that argument.

HOWEVER, again just my simple little pea brain thinking, someone who drinks a couple drinks at dinner with his wife may be "legally" impaired under the ever-lowering alcohol limits but may not really be affected much by the fact that he had 2 glasses of wine with dinner, yet when snared in one of the DUI roadblocks and when tested may be just barely over the legal limit. Therefore it may be that someone with a DUI was unaware that he was breaking the law while using a LEGAL substance.

Fine line? Yes. But I think a marginally acceptable one.


Now if you want to get into a debate about legalizing drugs, that is way off topic, but I would suggest that some drugs should be legalized, regulated, and taxed in the same way the cigarettes and alcohol are legal, taxed and regulated.

I think we agree on many things. From your fictional 'responsible guy' story, I think there is a discernible difference between him and the 'im * wasted, but im gonna drive because I can get away with it.

JUST as there is the same difference between the guy who tries pot in college, and the guy who welds 50 lbs of weed into his fake gas tank and drives back from tijuana.

My point is that each person needs to be looked at as they do in a court. there is law, but the judge can look at your character references, your past, mitigating and aggravating circumstances, and make a call based on the 'law'.

 

[bigus_D]

Now are you guys suggesting that you can't kill people while driving under the influence of pot? Clearly you'd be on the wrong side of that argument.

...

Now if you want to get into a debate about legalizing drugs, that is way off topic, but I would suggest that some drugs should be legalized, regulated, and taxed in the same way the cigarettes and alcohol are legal, taxed and regulated.

...

I am not suggesting that driving under the influence of pot is any less dangerous than driving under the influence of alcohol. It is my opinion that any DUI demonstrates a level of irresponsibility that is not consistent with the level I believe is appropriate for handling firearms. I don't care if the arrest was from a traffic stop for crossing the center line or from a checkpoint... either case is drinking and driving... either case demonstrates a lack of concern for the lives of others.

Pot is illegal... right or wrong... an arrest for pot demonstrates a propencity for breaking the law. I'm fine with this being a disqualifier for an LTCH. My point was, and still is, that your assertion that an alcholol related DUI is not as bad as a pot charge is incorrect. In simpleton mind at least, drunk driving is FAR WORSE than a simple bag of weed. Any argument to the contrary falls on deaf ears.

 

[melensdad]

+ 1 .08 or what ever it is now isn't much. when the limit was .12 you wad a pretty good idea you were impared if you didn't know you were. at .08 you could know you are fine and then find out you are wrong.

And again when you have a couple glasses of wine, beer or scotch with dinner you are doing something that is LEGAL to do. The activity is perfectly legal, the question is can you drive after doing it. That is actually a very complex question based on your body weight, the time from when you took the drinks, the amount of food ingested and the rate at which the alcohol absorbed into your blood stream.

2 healthy adults sitting side by side at the dinner table, each has 2 glasses of white wine. Both, neither or one of them may be "legally" drunk 1 hour later depending on the above factors. Given that it is LEGAL to drink those glasses of wine, and given the fact that few of us are in the medical profession and actually study our own bodies and how alcohol is absorbed, I'd say it is not unreasonable to issue a single pass on the DUI.

Again, using ANY amount of illegal drug is ILLEGAL and therefore BREAKING THE LAW. That is well known to everyone, including and especially to those who are using the illegal drugs. Therefore I think it is reasonable to suggest that they get no 'free pass' on a one time charge. But the concept of a 'waiting period' of say 5 years to mature is not unreasonable. And I would entertain the concept of legalizing some drugs if taxed and regulated like alcohol or tobacco, but that is a completely different topic.

Pot is illegal... right or wrong... an arrest for pot demonstrates a propencity for breaking the law. I'm fine with this being a disqualifier for an LTCH. My point was, and still is, that your assertion that an alcholol related DUI is not as bad as a pot charge. In simpleton mind at least, drunk driving is FAR WORSE than a simple bag of weed.

We will simply have to agree to disagree on this last point you are making. I do think that someone who is known to drink and drive is totally unqualified to attain a LTCH but I also believe that I have laid out reasoned scenarios as to why I might accept 1 'pass' for someone with a DUI. Circumstances and blood alcohol content would dictate the possibility of getting the "pass."

 

[in_betts]

My opinion is that people with a LTCH should be squeaky clean. Getting a LTCH should be akin to getting a "good honest upstanding citizen award" from our state. Having that little pink card should be a symbol to others that you are a good guy.

Gotta disagree with that. I think for the most part it IS a sign -right now- that the licensee is a "good guy", BUT.........................

Number one there should be no such thing as needing a license to carry/use a firearm. Yes I understand that in our current social condition many people feel "safer" believing that "criminal" or "unstable" or "not proper" persons can't LEGALLY carry/use/own firearms, that isn't very realistic. This debate could go on for years so I won't blather on about that point.

Number two- the really scary part about all the "lines" drawn between what makes you a proper person and what doesn't means some JUDGE, who has his/her own opinion of where the line should be will at some point be deciding a case that will move that line.

So today it's a DUI or illegal drug use, what if tomorrow it's political dissent. What if you are arrested for peaceful protest (like you were impeding traffic or something, or didn't have a "permit" for your gathering) and so now a JUDGE decides that this type of behavior makes you "not a proper person" and you are revoked. Are you not now a good guy? Have you become a bad guy? If you think "that could never happen", you are dreaming. It may not happen tomorrow but these things come in small "creeps" where they erode your rights tiny bits at a time.

 

[RA8]

I did not mean to start a discussion on what is actually right and wrong... was just trying to inform those who would care to know what their guidelines are.

 

[bigus_D]

Gotta disagree with that. I think for the most part it IS a sign -right now- that the licensee is a "good guy", BUT.........................

Number one there should be no such thing as needing a license to carry/use a firearm. Yes I understand that in our current social condition many people feel "safer" believing that "criminal" or "unstable" or "not proper" persons can't LEGALLY carry/use/own firearms, that isn't very realistic. This debate could go on for years so I won't blather on about that point.

Number two- the really scary part about all the "lines" drawn between what makes you a proper person and what doesn't means some JUDGE, who has his/her own opinion of where the line should be will at some point be deciding a case that will move that line.

So today it's a DUI or illegal drug use, what if tomorrow it's political dissent. What if you are arrested for peaceful protest (like you were impeding traffic or something, or didn't have a "permit" for your gathering) and so now a JUDGE decides that this type of behavior makes you "not a proper person" and you are revoked. Are you not now a good guy? Have you become a bad guy? If you think "that could never happen", you are dreaming. It may not happen tomorrow but these things come in small "creeps" where they erode your rights tiny bits at a time.

I can certainly get on board with this line of thinking.

 

[jayhawk]

And again when you have a couple glasses of wine, beer or scotch with dinner you are doing something that is LEGAL to do. The activity is perfectly legal, the question is can you drive after doing it. That is actually a very complex question based on your body weight, the time from when you took the drinks, the amount of food ingested and the rate at which the alcohol absorbed into your blood stream.

This really isn't much of an argument, because a responsible person drinking a couple of glasses of wine at dinner will know that they are potentially over the legal limit. The activity of drinking is perfectly legal, but getting in the driver's seat above .08 isn't. If you a person can't figure out when he or she is above or very near .08, then their judgment is probably pretty questionable.

 

[Boilers]

What law(s) are their criteria derived from?

 

[melensdad]

Gotta disagree with that. I think for the most part it IS a sign -right now- that the licensee is a "good guy", BUT.........................

Number one there should be no such thing as needing a license to carry/use a firearm. . . .

You and I are actually in very firm agreement on what you just wrote

This really isn't much of an argument, because a responsible person drinking a couple of glasses of wine at dinner will know that they are potentially over the legal limit. The activity of drinking is perfectly legal, but getting in the driver's seat above .08 isn't. If you a person can't figure out when he or she is above or very near .08, then their judgment is probably pretty questionable.

I weigh about 185 pounds, I am in generally good health, a college graduate with an advanced degree, I have 20 years of running a successful corporation under my belt, have employed hundreds of people, was elected to 2 national boards of directors of corporations and I have no idea what my blood alcohol content is 1 hour after I have 2 glasses of wine with dinner.

So you are saying that my judgement is questionable because I don't know if I am legally impaired. I know I don't 'feel' impaired. But 'feeling' and legally 'knowing' are two different things.

Do you ACTUALLY know if you are legal after 1 hour after 2 drinks with dinner?

 

[airmotive]

Again, using ANY amount of illegal drug is ILLEGAL and therefore BREAKING THE LAW. That is well known to everyone, including and especially to those who are using the illegal drugs. Therefore I think it is reasonable to suggest that they get no 'free pass' on a one time charge. But the concept of a 'waiting period' of say 5 years to mature is not unreasonable. And I would entertain the concept of legalizing some drugs if taxed and regulated like alcohol or tobacco, but that is a completely different topic.

Making an illegal U-turn is (as the name suggests) illegal as well.
Making an illegal U-turn clearly demonstrates a disregard for the law and the safety of others.
Should this be a disqualifying offense?
Perhaps just a 5 year waiting period?

 

[jayhawk]

I weigh about 185 pounds, I am in generally good health, a college graduate with an advanced degree, I have 20 years of running a successful corporation under my belt, have employed hundreds of people, was elected to 2 national boards of directors of corporations and I have no idea what my blood alcohol content is 1 hour after I have 2 glasses of wine with dinner.

So you are saying that my judgement is questionable because I don't know if I am legally impaired. I know I don't 'feel' impaired. But 'feeling' and legally 'knowing' are two different things.

Do you ACTUALLY know if you are legal after 1 hour after 2 drinks with dinner?

Yeah, that's kind of my point. If you don't know you're legal, and there is a possibility that you aren't, you probably shouldn't be driving. If you really want to know, you could always carry around one of those pocket breathalyzer things. Ultimately, it's your responsibility to stay within the limit and that is really all that matters. The .08 number isn't there, so you can drink until .079 and then jump in the car...though obviously you can do that legally.
A person smoking pot knows that they are doing something that is unlawful, and a person getting in a car after having a few drinks knows that they potentially doing something that is unlawful. In my mind, there really isn't much difference.

I actually have been pulled over (for speeding) after having a couple of drinks at dinner, and I wasn't close to .08. So, I do sort of have an idea of what I personally can get away with, but I don't typically try to push it (I have a wife that can drive me around).

Anyway...suffice to say, I tend to agree that folks with multiple drug/alcohol related offenses should probably get a little time off from their LTCH...5 years is maybe a bit harsh though. That said, I certainly agree that it can be dangerous allowing the LTCH to be revoked for various things. We certainly don't want to see a "no fly" list for the LTCH.