This is why we can't have nice things

[Jumping Frog]

Ohio Statute 2923.15 Using weapons while intoxicated.
(A) No person, while under the influence of alcohol or any drug of abuse, shall carry or use any firearm or dangerous ordnance.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of using weapons while intoxicated, a misdemeanor of the first degree.

No alcohol at all as any consumption would be classified as under the influence. Unlike the Texas law that states intoxicated, the argument is made that with any consumption you are under the influence. It is a VERY grey area.

That law would apply to someone who is under the influence under normal circumstances.

However, he was charged under a different law pertaining beer/liquor permit premises, which is a felony in Ohio.

(A) No person shall possess a firearm in any room in which any person is consuming beer or intoxicating liquor in a premises for which a D permit has been issued under Chapter 4303. of the Revised Code or in an open air arena for which a permit of that nature has been issued.

(B)(1) This section does not apply to any of the following:
. . .
(e) Any person who is carrying a valid license or temporary emergency license to carry a concealed handgun issued to the person under section 2923.125 or 2923.1213 of the Revised Code or a license to carry a concealed handgun that was issued to the person by another state with which the attorney general has entered into a reciprocity agreement under section 109.69 of the Revised Code , as long as the person is not consuming beer or intoxicating liquor or under the influence of alcohol or a drug of abuse.

(E) Whoever violates this section is guilty of illegal possession of a firearm in a liquor permit premises. Except as otherwise provided in this division, illegal possession of a firearm in a liquor permit premises is a felony of the fifth degree. If the offender commits the violation of this section by knowingly carrying or having the firearm concealed on the offender’s person or concealed ready at hand, illegal possession of a firearm in a liquor permit premises is a felony of the third degree.

The CHL's in Ohio are so angry enough at this guy right now there would be no problem finding enough volunteers to staff several firing squads!

Ohio just went through a two and half year battle to get the law changed allowing CHL's in liquor premises. The media up there was in an uproar demonizing guns and drinking in bars, while the 2A crowd kept pointing out that it would be illegal to drink while armed and the law simply allows someone the right to self defense when they went out to eat dinner with their family.

The new law just went into effect Sept 30th, and now this bozo splashes all the headlines.

[Keith B]

Thanks for the correct statute. I was looking for that modificaiton for CHL's and couldn't find it for some reason. My Google-Fu must be off.

[sugar land dave]

The bartender said that he served the fellow two beers. He did have injectable testosterone in his possession which is unusual. I believe the endocrine effects of injecting testosterone would be the well-known "roid rage" probably having more effect than the alcohol.

Leaving the bar and returning gun in hand was not wise. The fact that he had friends present with him tends to argue against immediate fear of death or serious injury. His well publicized arrest may greatly damage the concealed carry community in Ohio. I would say this was not a good day for this fellow or concealed carry.

[KingofChaos]

So confused. Are you saying you rather have a law that saw you can't have a single drink rather than have a gray area? Why not just not drink, then the gray area becomes pretty black and white.

Yes I am saying that I would rather there be no gray area. I already make that decison for myself, but what I'm talking about is having anyones fate determined subjectively by "how intoxicated I feel this CHL holder is". Its the reason we have BAC testing for drivers. It's not for the cases where the driver is obviously hammered, regardless of BAC, and the officer determines that they shouldn't be on the road, but for when two officers, presumably reasonable people, might genuiniely disagree on the level of impairment. I'd rather a man be able to immediately know by his actions whether he's within or not within the law.

[92f-fan]

Funny how many threads end up being about 1 drop of alcohol... We get it, you dont drink and no one should... Got it...

Back on topic - I don't see this as a concealed issue at all - except that he had a permit
The way I read it is he is juiced up on steroids - and got into an argument - stormed out of the bar - went to his car or truck and got his gun - I would be willing to bet he never concealed it - I bet he stormed into the bar armed ...
Assuming my reading of it is right - there is no difference between this and any other thug that carries a gun into a bar. Except this thug had a permit that he was completely ignoring by his actions.

Unfortunately it reflects bad on the people that follow the rules - but then EVERY criminal act does...

[KingofChaos]

Funny how many threads end up being about 1 drop of alcohol... We get it, you dont drink and no one should... Got it...

You obviously don't or else you would have at least said "you don't drink while carrying and no one should", which wasn't even my point. I am talking about being subject to concrete law rather than the feelings of whoever happens to be the LEOs at the scene. He's having a good day, and it it was a good shot, then you're in the clear after having a couple beers. He's having a bad day, and writes in his report that he thinks you were too intoxicated, and you're taking a ride. And this is exactly on topic. Incidents like this are just fuel for why we shouldn't be allowed to carry into 51% establishments. If adopting no consumption got permit holders in Ohio the right to carry into 51% establishments, It might also get us one step closer to being able to enter 51% establishments, which would make me a happy camper.

[tbrown]

I agree the written law should be objective rather than subjective.

I also want to point out the "news" story changed at least twice without any change in the URL or any kind of disclosure on what changed, like any ethical journalist would make when changing a story.