Woman shoots, kills herself at Kannapolis restaurant

Part-time hunter

Ten Pointer
So short of someone waving their gun around why would any leo stop an OC person and give them a breathalyzer? Maybe if they were stopped for a traffic violation or something then the leo could add that charge if they blew over the limit?
 

UpATree

Six Pointer
Contributor
So short of someone waving their gun around why would any leo stop an OC person and give them a breathalyzer? Maybe if they were stopped for a traffic violation or something then the leo could add that charge if they blew over the limit?
LEO has to have a reasonable, articulatable suspicion that you are involved in a crime to detain you. In NC, open carry, whether drinking or not, is not a crime unless you are in a place where guns are not permitted. Brandishing, discharging recklessly, discharging within city limits, and other things would be grounds to detain you, but simple OC, with or without alcohol, is not. Also be aware that there are places that are off limits to guns unless you have a CHP, including restaurants that serve alcohol and educational property. Oddly, the law doesn't require you to conceal it in those places, so CHP holders could open carry in TGI Friday's, unless they put up a gunbuster sign or ask you to leave.

Could the legislators in Raleigh make this any more confusing? Does anyone believe that all these laws will make anyone one bit safer?
 

41magfan

Twelve Pointer
Contributor
So short of someone waving their gun around why would any leo stop an OC person and give them a breathalyzer? Maybe if they were stopped for a traffic violation or something then the leo could add that charge if they blew over the limit?
I'm not aware of any law on the books making the act of carrying a gun openly and being intoxicated - in and of itself - unlawful. The intoxication could certainly lead to a particular act that would be unlawful, but being inebriated isn't unlawful in most circumstances.

Note: Breath testing is related to violations involving the operation of a vehicle.

ETA: In times past, I have temporarily relieved people of a firearm for the relative safety of themselves and the community under the community care-taking doctrine, but no criminal charges were involved the the seizure was temporary.
 

Crappie_Hunter

Ten Pointer
Contributor
I used to bartend so I look at OC and drinking through that lens. You better tread real carefully if you are gonna serve someone who is carrying a weapon. The potential liability you are taking on is astronomical.

I don't remember all the exact specifics of the case but a couple years ago, there was a situation where a man was shot and killed after an altercation on the side of the road. The man who killed him (which was ruled justified) had been drinking earlier that night at a minor league baseball game, and was on his way home when the incident occurred.

I'm firmly in the camp of ANY alcohol and firearms is bad... I understand opinions vary
 

Mr.Gadget

Old Mossy Horns
Note: Breath testing is related to violations involving the operation of a vehicle.
Yes and no
It is tied to driving but also used as a tool for underage drinking, even seeing it used in cases where people have had way to much and may be at risk of death from high levels.
 

41magfan

Twelve Pointer
Contributor
Yes and no
It is tied to driving but also used as a tool for underage drinking, even seeing it used in cases where people have had way to much and may be at risk of death from high levels.
Well, let me be just a bit more clear:

Testing a person's breath or blood for the presence of alcohol (with a consequence for refusing) is limited to violations involving the operation of a vehicle.

I have no doubts that LEO's have asked people to submit to a PBT device for a host of reasons , but there was no consequence involved for refusing such a thing.

And as it relates to underage drinking, ANY consumption is unlawful and a BAC is not required to charge or convict. The mere odor of alcohol on a person's breath is sufficient because the relevant issue is consumption - not impairment.
 
Last edited:

Part-time hunter

Ten Pointer
I'm not aware of any law on the books making the act of carrying a gun openly and being intoxicated - in and of itself - unlawful. The intoxication could certainly lead to a particular act that would be unlawful, but being inebriated isn't unlawful in most circumstances.

Note: Breath testing is related to violations involving the operation of a vehicle.

ETA: In times past, I have temporarily relieved people of a firearm for the relative safety of themselves and the community under the community care-taking doctrine, but no criminal charges were involved the the seizure was temporary.
And good on you for taking care of the community like that.
 
Top