If you have received communication from specific stores, malls, towns and cities regarding their firearms policies, good or bad, post them here.
 #88130  by dean
 
astro_wanabe wrote:Here's the law:
§ 1460. Possession of firearm while under the influence.

(a) A person is guilty of possession of a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or drugs when the person possesses a firearm in a public place while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. It shall be an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that, the firearm was not readily operable, or that the person was not in possession of ammunition for the firearm. The Superior Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over a violation of this section.

(b) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) "Not readily operable" means that the firearm is disassembled, broken down, or stored in a manner to prevent its immediate use.

(2) "Possess," "possession" or "possesses" means that the person has the item under his or her dominion and authority, and that said item is at the relevant time physically available and accessible to the person.

(3) "Public place" means a place to which the public or a substantial group of persons has access and includes highways, transportation facilities, schools, places of amusement, parks, playgrounds, restaurants, bars, taverns, and hallways, lobbies and other portions of apartment houses and hotels not constituting rooms or apartments designed for actual residence.

(4) "Under the influence of alcohol or drugs" means:

a. Having an amount of alcohol in a sample of the person's blood equivalent to .08 or more grams of alcohol per hundred milliliters of blood, or an amount of alcohol in a sample of breath equivalent to .08 or more grams per 210 liters of breath. A person shall be guilty, without regard to the person's alcohol concentration at the time of possession of a firearm in violation thereof, if such person's alcohol concentration is .08 or more within 4 hours after the person was found to be in possession of a firearm, and that alcohol concentration is the result of an amount of alcohol present in, or consumed by such person when that person was in possession of a firearm; or

b. Being manifestly under the influence of alcohol or any illicit or recreational drug, as defined in § 4177(c)(8) of Title 21, or any other drug not administered or prescribed to be taken by a physician, to the degree that the person may be in danger or endanger other persons or property, or annoy persons in the vicinity,

provided that no person shall be "under the influence of alcohol or drugs" for purposes of this section when the person has not used or consumed an illicit or recreational drug prior to or during an alleged violation, but has only used or consumed such drug after the person has allegedly violated this section and only such use or consumption after such alleged violation caused the person's blood to contain an amount of alcohol or drug or an amount of a substance or compound that is the result of the use or consumption of the drug within 4 hours after the time of the alleged violation thereof.

(c) A law-enforcement officer who has probable cause to believe that a person has violated this section may, with or without the consent of the person, take reasonable steps to conduct chemical testing to determine the person's alcohol concentration or the presence of illicit or recreational drugs. A person's refusal to submit to chemical testing shall be admissible in any trial arising from a violation of this section.

(d)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, possession of a firearm while under the influence is a class A misdemeanor.

(2) Possession of a firearm while under the influence is a class G felony if the conviction is for an offense that was committed after a previous conviction for possession of a firearm while under the influence.
Looks like what I stated was correct so how would this neighbor have been charged and convicted?
 #88132  by astro_wanabe
 
dean wrote:-Snip-

Looks like what I stated was correct so how would this neighbor have been charged and convicted?
Without seeing the actual details of the case it's impossible to know. Perhaps he was standing on a public sidewalk, perhaps the cop considered his front yard to be a place the public or a substantial group of people had access to, perhaps his "front yard" is really more of an open field (vs. curtilage) and therefore treated differently, perhaps the arrest was for something else like public intox or disturbing the peace and he just happened to be carrying at the time. Or maybe he was falsely convicted. Don't know.
 #88133  by dean
 
astro_wanabe wrote:
dean wrote:-Snip-

Looks like what I stated was correct so how would this neighbor have been charged and convicted?
Without seeing the actual details of the case it's impossible to know. Perhaps he was standing on a public sidewalk, perhaps the cop considered his front yard to be a place the public or a substantial group of people had access to, perhaps his "front yard" is really more of an open field (vs. curtilage) and therefore treated differently, perhaps the arrest was for something else like public intox or disturbing the peace and he just happened to be carrying at the time. Or maybe he was falsely convicted. Don't know.
That makes sense however it makes me worry about how and why private property could be considered public. I personally wouldn't consider my yard as public property even if it were next to a sidewalk.

I understand that mixing alcohol and firearms is irresponsible however if I want to have a beer in my front yard, which I consider to be private property, I don't see how that should be considered breaking the law.
 #88140  by Dr. Eastwood
 
Left a quick review on their facebook and google+. Will leave a review on Yelp here shortly.
 #88141  by WVisHome
 
dean wrote:
That makes sense however it makes me worry about how and why private property could be considered public. I personally wouldn't consider my yard as public property even if it were next to a sidewalk.

I understand that mixing alcohol and firearms is irresponsible however if I want to have a beer in my front yard, which I consider to be private property, I don't see how that should be considered breaking the law.
Legally, you can have a beer in public while carrying...as long as your BAC remains below 0.08%.
 #88144  by Red Alert
 
Well I'm just telling you folks what my neighbor told me just a few weeks ago. Matter of fact, he is on house arrest for the conviction and has two years probation. He was at a house that has a normal yard per say.

As for walking in public with an open container, I think that is a no no. I mean I've always heard you can't be in public with alcohol which is why you see signs in all public places no alcohol. When told that a few times by different folks and see the signs I would think it kind of makes sense. But then again I really don't know. I just know that I don't as it's better safe then sorry.

Also, the way I read the law that someone posted stated that the firearm must be none operable. So if you have a loaded gun and drinking that is a no no right? That's how I read it...
 #88146  by astro_wanabe
 
Red Alert wrote:Also, the way I read the law that someone posted stated that the firearm must be none operable. So if you have a loaded gun and drinking that is a no no right? That's how I read it...
That's an affirmative defense, meaning that even if you violated the section you could still go free if you can prove you meet the requirements of the defense. As long as you stay under the limits and don't violate the section that doesn't apply.
 #88150  by WVisHome
 
Red Alert wrote:Well I'm just telling you folks what my neighbor told me just a few weeks ago. Matter of fact, he is on house arrest for the conviction and has two years probation. He was at a house that has a normal yard per say.

As for walking in public with an open container, I think that is a no no. I mean I've always heard you can't be in public with alcohol which is why you see signs in all public places no alcohol. When told that a few times by different folks and see the signs I would think it kind of makes sense. But then again I really don't know. I just know that I don't as it's better safe then sorry.

Also, the way I read the law that someone posted stated that the firearm must be none operable. So if you have a loaded gun and drinking that is a no no right? That's how I read it...

I didn't say "walking in public with an open container". You can legally have a drink at a bar or a restaurant while carrying.

And if you read the statute...the "inoperable" clause only applies as a defense if you're caught carrying over the BAC limit...if the gun you're carrying is "inoperable" (i.e. no firing pin, disassembled, etc...) you're off the hook.



It sounds to me that it's nearly an identical statue as Driving Under the Influence...you also can't "Carry Under the Influence".
 #88151  by Taurus247
 
I have carried in several liquor stores down here in Sussex county without a problem. I even did a taste test of a new wine in one without a problem (though i was hesitant but me and my dad shared a test "shot").