It's a can of worms....as IMPAIRED brings in a whole bunch of medical issues involving medical conditions and prescriptions.

Should you legally not be allowed to defend yourself because you are impaired?

Here's an explanation of how and why the Supreme court decided 9-0 on the topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dskWvaNGbNw

I’m all for more laws on the books of what the government can’t do than what the citizens can’t do. lol

That's a good point Mike. A whole lot of people out there with chronic pain issues that take narcotic pain meds daily. They are no doubt impaired. Should they lose their right to protect themselves?

If someone is impaired, name the drug, liquid or substance, and they are determined to be impaired by LE and proper procedures of that state while driving, their driving rights will be suspended for a given amount of time. After such time they get their license back and may or may not have a car breathalyzer to start their car.

Allowing someone to do anything that requires life or death judgement while impaired is a horrible idea. They are impaired.

Taking away a right of someone who is sober at the time of infraction but is a substance abuser is dead wrong.

Why anyone wants to be purposely impaired is absolutely baffling to me. Call it buzzed, relaxed, whatever. It makes no sense to me.

Any person with a lick of common sense KNOWS no one should carry a firearm or drive if they are buzzed, relaxed, drunk, whatever. And anyone who will try to defend that is a complete moron who has no regard for their fellow citizen or themselves.

This SCOTUS decision was a righteous one IMO.

Fixed it for ya.

Great answer

Right or privilege, either way, if a person decides to do either while impaired they become a danger to me and themselves. If they choose to exercise that right or privilege while impaired a punishment of some kind is warranted.

If they are a known historic abuser of X but are sober at the time of LE interaction, no rights or privileges can be suspended based on that history.

I can only agree with that to a point. I only think a crime has been committed when a person under the influence commits a crime with the gun... not beforehand. Let me give you an example.

A college girl, age 22, goes out for dinner on Friday night with a few girlfriends. They have a few drinks at the restaurant. She isn't sloppy drunk, but is over the legal limit. She calls an Uber to go home. The Uber drops her off outside her apartment. As she's going towards the door, an assailant rushes her with the intent to rape her. She reaches into her purse and pulls out her CC. Seeing the gun, the would-be assailant leaves. She calls the police to report the incident. Should she be arrested for having a gun in her purse, and using it to protect herself, just because she has had a few drinks?

Should she be arrested and charged with DUI if she were in her car and sped off to avoid being captured or assaulted? What if she hit another car or, GOD forbid, a person?

What if she pulled her CC and pulled the trigger too soon or too late and killed or injured a pedestrian or someone driving a car? Her faculties are definitely impaired as well as her judgement.

Do you see how intoxication muddies all waters?

Yote trap nailed 100% my stance on the topic word for word.

A problem with using the term reasonable is interpretation of reasonable. One state/ jurisdiction interpets it one way while another interprets it another. I.e. Montana and Neveda where speed limits were unlimited as long as speeds were safe and reasonable yet states further east would of had a cow had a driver been traveling 90 to 100 mph. Plus the definition of reasonable is subject to change depending on who and how the person interprets it liken it to setting the standards then moving the goal post to accommodate the wishes/ desires of those in charge to get the desire they want.

And we have lawyers, judges and politicians to thank for that.

Yotetrapper30 and I agree on something.

if you are to dangerous to own a gun , you are to dangerous to be in public.

Impaired doesn't even mean having consumed any substances for me. I left work 4 hours early at 3am Thursday morning. My right leg was weak and tingling not functioning correctly, my left tricep was stiff cramping and operating my staring wheel was tough. My head was in a fog, off balance, crazy tired, weak legs and arms. Missed the last step climbing out of my equipment. Walking around the equipment I lost balance/leg strength and staggered nearly falling into a still hot liquid in the middle crusted over pan of droths.
Made it to my booth and sat down got some food, hand was shaking enough the fork smacked my teeth a few times. I sat for 45 min deciding if I was ok to drive home decided no , called the boss told him im leaving and had him drive me out to the gate. Got to mom's and took the elevator for the first time in years the stairs were not an option. I dont like elevators.

Absolutely no substances consumed but Absolutely impaired due to health. I left work at 3am. Sleep a lot at mom's was 10 pm before I felt I was safe to drive home.

If my drive from work to mom's was not only 12 miles and down strait roads and the truck didn't have cruise control I would have had somone come pick me up. I called in for Thursday night.
It may be time to have a realistic discussion on continuing to work. Its a crude joke 2 weeks ago I had 2 of the best days i have had in 8 months. Now back to this.

There are many ways to be impaired. I will use my ignorance as another example. Driving home from work after 7 16 hour night shifts over the years I promise my reaction time was as bad as someone that was impaired. But at the time I thought I was good I was legal.

A guy pulls along side my car and starts shooting at me. I swerve into his vehicle and he crashes killing his passenger. Am I criminally liable?

1) Should she be arrested and charged with DUI if she were in her car and sped off to avoid being captured or assaulted?

IMO, no. Not if no one else was injured.

2) What if she hit another car or, GOD forbid, a person?

Yes. The other person she hurt surely was at no fault. I don't think she should receive the max sentence though.

3)What if she pulled her CC and pulled the trigger too soon or too late and killed or injured a pedestrian or someone driving a car?

Again yes.

I don't see anything muddied at all here. The second two scenarios you laid out, her actions led to injuries to others. Therefore, she should absolutely be held responsible for them, although I do feel that the situation that led to them should be taken into account.

That is what I have been saying all along. People should be held responsible for crimes they commit... with or without guns... with or without intoxication.

They should NOT be held responsible for being in possession of a tool that is protected by the constitution as a natural right... just because they are impaired.

Now you ARE trying to muddy things, LOL. No. The driver would be liable for the death of his passenger, not you.

lol