Shooting and Drinking at a BBQ?

[Aragon]

My gun club's annual BBQ is coming up in a few weeks. The BBQ is held at a publicly owned outdoor range that we have exclusive use of for the day. The individual in charge who will be the RSO for the day went though the "rules of the day" during a recent club meeting -- there is great and legitimate concern about liability, etc.

In years past, members were allowed to shoot, eat/drink alcoholic beverages and then go back to shoot again. I pointed out that the club needed to forbid this. The RSO said he "didn't want to play cop" on that day.

I pointed out that if there was an incident and if someone got hurt, that would mean the end of the club once the lawyers found out that the club allowed members to shoot after consuming alcoholic beverages. It might mean a few board members getting personally sued as well.

I said the hard and fast (and documented) rule must be NO SHOOTING AFTER CONSUMING ANY ALCOHOL. Each member could then be responsible for their own actions and for the actions of their fellow members.

It seems just plain stupid to be concerned about safety and liability while allowing people to drink and then shoot. What do you all think?

 

[BSA1]

What are the rules of the Government Agency that owns the range?

 

[Delford]

It seems any sensible person would agree with you. The range ought to be a bit more cautious in allowing users of their facilities not abiding by safety rules (supposing they are written) considering the litigious society we live in. You can only suggest to them and to your club members the dangers they face. If you haven't spoken to your club officers on the matter you're behind the curve. Our extended family has had several shooting events on our farms (engagements, graduations, etc.) and the use of alcohol automatically ends shooting privileges. Also, no loaded firearms except for those on the firing line.

 

[bannockburn]

Aragon

Seems like a no brainer to me, as in alcohol and guns don't mix. If the current RSO doesn't "want to play cop" (which is essentially what the job of the RSO is), then maybe you should get yourself another RSO who will enforce the club and/or public range rules in this matter.

 

[Ed Ames]

Sounds like an event you should skip.

 

[WNTFW]

As complicated a some people can make an argument I tend to go with simple logic. If there is no alcohol present then there won't be an alcohol related problem.

Gun ranges are for shooting. Everyone can drink alcohol somewhere else. Why the need to combine the two is what I don't get.

Plus what everybody else said!

 

[cambeul41]

What are the rules of the Government Agency that owns the range?

And what are the state laws?

 

[Ed Ames]

As complicated a some people can make an argument I tend to go with simple logic. If there is no alcohol present then there won't be an alcohol related problem.

People make exactly the same argument about guns.

 

[rule303]

Our club hosted a group of long range shooters from Switzerland a few years ago. They were absolutely dumbfounded that they would not be able to have a few glasses of wine to calm their nerves before shooting. I personally would not have a problem with someone having a beer or glass of wine with lunch before shooting, but it seems too many people can't stop with just one or two. A large group of people, alcohol, and guns just doesn't seem like a great idea.

 

[Ed N.]

Policing individuals will be difficult.

Why not just pick a time when the range will go cold? No drinking while the range is active, but at 2:00 (or whenever) all shooting stops and those who want to pop open a beer are free to do so.

 

[PhilMc]

It is tough enough to keep people from doing stupid things at a firing line not to mention the bad idea of adding alcohol. At the state range I go to here in Ohio it is hard to get even cease fires to go smoothly. This get together would be a no-go for me, just my opinion.

 

[Longhorn 76]

Hold my beer and watch this!

 

[Ed Ames]

This has been bugging me so I'm going to say more. I don't expect this to be widely accepted but whatever.

By arguing that your gun club's members cannot be trusted to act responsibly around guns and alcohol at the same time, you are making the argument that those people (and by extension all people) cannot be trusted to keep firearms at home. Homes generally have alcohol.

You are arguing concealed carriers cannot be trusted, period, because Alcohol is widely available in society.

One of the main pushes in the gun rights movement has been to normalize guns. To foster the perception of handguns as an everyday part of life instead of a rare and threatening enigma. You are directly attacking that by saying that - for you - guns cannot coexist with other normal parts of life. Cars can. There is absolutely nothing illegal about having a beer with your car club buddies and then driving on track or public street. You are saying guns aren't safe in office workplaces because many companies have beer Fridays and the like, allowing coworkers to share a beer or two before ending the work week.

You are directly attacking liberties I hold dear. Why?

I can only assume the reason is that you have internalized prohibitionist propaganda. I assume anti-alcohol but possibly anti gun. Either way, you are supporting what is probably the second worst idea (Prohibition, right behind slavery in messing up a great nation) in American history and actively harming America and her people.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

This example and many of the responses define pretty closely why I no longer attend big events or rallies of any of the organizations to which I belong. Corralling your own stupidity is enough without having to deal with the stupidity that is inherent in large groups.....

 

[200Apples]

.

Ed Ames

There is absolutely nothing illegal about having a beer with your car club buddies and then driving on track or public street.

While I agree with the rest of what you have posted, and although it may not be *illegal*, no automotive high-performance driver-ed track day I have ever attended or participated in has allowed open containers before track closure (usually 5 P.M.).

 

[jcwit]

This has been bugging me so I'm going to say more. I don't expect this to be widely accepted but whatever.

By arguing that your gun club's members cannot be trusted to act responsibly around guns and alcohol at the same time, you are making the argument that those people (and by extension all people) cannot be trusted to keep firearms at home. Homes generally have alcohol.

You are arguing concealed carriers cannot be trusted, period, because Alcohol is widely available in society.

One of the main pushes in the gun rights movement has been to normalize guns. To foster the perception of handguns as an everyday part of life instead of a rare and threatening enigma. You are directly attacking that by saying that - for you - guns cannot coexist with other normal parts of life. Cars can. There is absolutely nothing illegal about having a beer with your car club buddies and then driving on track or public street. You are saying guns aren't safe in office workplaces because many companies have beer Fridays and the like, allowing coworkers to share a beer or two before ending the work week.

You are directly attacking liberties I hold dear. Why?

I can only assume the reason is that you have internalized prohibitionist propaganda. I assume anti-alcohol but possibly anti gun. Either way, you are supporting what is probably the second

Have you ever lost a family member from a drunk driver?

 

[yugorpk]

Going to a barbecue tomorrow with a few thousand rounds of ammo and a box of toys. Usual deal. The beer will be there as usual. Everyone knows the deal. More than a couple of beers and you''e done shooting. Means theres a lot of shooting in the morning and only the teetotalers shooting in the afternoon.

 

[Ed Ames]

.


While I agree with the rest of what you have posted, and although it may not be *illegal*, no automotive high-performance driver-ed track day I have ever attended or participated in has allowed open containers before track closure (usually 5 P.M.).

Track days and club BBQs are quite different. A group of people spending a lot of mobey trying to perform their best and build skills is probably going to choose to hold off on the alcohol. The same group meeting to socialize around some tasty smoked meat will behave differently.

My point wasn't to map every area where alcohol is or isn't controlled by law or social convention. It was to say that the approach of claiming that people with guns cannot be trusted if they have access to alcohol is very destructive to the pro-RKBA cause.

The hangups about alcohol have nothing to do with reality. In reality responsible people can and do integrate both alcohol and firearms.into their daily lives and there is no blood on the streets, no negative outcome at all. It is a non-issue being portrayed as menacing by gun and/or alcohol prohibitionists to help take away your rights.

 

[Ed Ames]

Have you ever lost a family member from a drunk driver?

Yes, in fact. My oldest brother was killed by a drunk driver.

That does not change the fact that consuming a beer does not suddenly rob you of all inhibitions and make you into an uncontrolled menace. Nor does it change the fact that saying gun owners can't be trusted if they have had a beer is damaging to the pro-RKBA cause.

 

[Malamute]

Part of the problem with having alcohol and firearms at the same event is that some people do not, in fact, have good self control and self limiting inclinations. Perhaps the streets dont run in blood simply because people are allowed to own guns and alcohol, but I think its assuming way too much that everyone will be on their best behavior and have good decision making abilities when alcohol and guns are together. If they want to do that on their own time fine, I wouldnt be involved with a club sponsored and sanctioned event if both were freely available and no formal restrictions were brought up and enforced. If that makes me the enemy of freedom and the American way in someones opinion, I can live with that.

 

[lobo9er]

I agree with Ed Ames

Always follow the local and state laws of course. I wouldn't advocate unlawful behavior. But beyond that do as you see fit, if you don't agree with beer being available voice your opinion, if no one else agrees do not attend. Everyone can make up their own mind on how to act.

 

[George Dickel]

People make exactly the same argument about guns.

OK Ed, you need extremely delicate and dangerous brain surgery. The surgeon tells you that just before he does the surgery he will drink a beer or two but not to worry he knows how to control his drinking and it won't affect him in the least bit.

 

[George Dickel]

Always follow the local and state laws of course. I wouldn't advocate unlawful behavior. But beyond that do as you see fit, if you don't agree with beer being available voice your opinion, if no one else agrees do not attend. Everyone can make up their own mind on how to act.

I spent almost 21 years in the Army (1966 - 1986) and back then there were alcoholics at all levels of the rank structure. Everyone of them didn't have a problem with booze and knew their limit.

 

[DaisyCutter]

From a criminal liability standpoint, expect detectives to draw your (not addressing anyone specific) blood if you're ever involved in a fatal event, like a fatal traffic collision or fatal accidental shooting.

It's not optional. Any decent detective can draft a warrant, fax it to the initial appearance judge at the county jail (open 24/7/365), and have it faxed back in a couple hours. The detective will get an invasive as needed once he's holding a warrant for your blood.

The presence of any alcohol or drug, or it's metabolite, can easily result in a manslaughter charge.

You can literally have one beer, be driving along, have another driver cut you off, swerve, and hit a pedestrian...and it will be charged as manslaughter. With no alcohol in the blood, it's just a horrible accident.

If your rifle slamfires, and the bullet skips off the ground and let's the air out of someone, the presence of ANY alcohol in your blood can elevate a horrible accident into a manslaughter charge.

You don't have to actually be drunk, stoned or faded, just have the alcohol, drugs or pills in your blood. The dead schmoe is the evidence that you were impaired.

I'm not trying to nanny anyone, I just don't want to see a good person jambed up over an accident, just because there was a beer in him.

Freak stuff happens. I've seen a guy put some gasoline on a dying camp fire, and burn his wife and kids. The added insult was the criminal charges. He only had a couple beers, and was a career firefighter.

I had a friend from high school on a riding lawn mower with a beer in his hand and his daughter on his lap. The daughter jumped off funny and got run over. Criminal charges there too. In both those cases, it was the mere presence of alcohol, not the quantity, that elevated the evidence to the threshold of criminal charges... Despite the fact that the events would have been unchanged without the beer.

The term "mensrea" refers to a person's culpable mental state. IE, intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, negligently.

A beer and a gun is easily considered "recklessly", and recklessly is the culpable mental state required for manslaughter in many jurisdictions.

Note, in a defensive shooting, you'll be deliberately pulling the trigger, so the circumstances will outweigh a beer.

 

[Ed Ames]

OK Ed, you need extremely delicate and dangerous brain surgery. The surgeon tells you that just before he does the surgery he will drink a beer or two but not to worry he knows how to control his drinking and it won't affect him in the least bit.

Utter non-sequitur, in no way analogous to anything in this thread.

The only thing you are "proving" is that your memory of "WKRP in Cincinnati" is deeply, deeply flawed. As a hint: "The Doctor" was the air name of a DJ, in that episode he demonstrated that his performance in fact improved, and it was fiction, a TV sitcom.