User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 11:52:18 AM EDT
[#1]
iirc depends on state
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 11:52:59 AM EDT
[#2]
Will probably depend on the state. Here you cannot have an open container in a vehicle or on most public property. A drunk passenger may be distracting to the driver? I don't f'ing know, I think the driver can drink in some states.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 11:53:02 AM EDT
[#3]
The temptation would be too strong?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 11:53:08 AM EDT
[#4]
It's illegal in WV.
 I couldn't tell you why though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 11:55:28 AM EDT
[#5]
In Texas it is. youll get cited for an Open Container. Some cops will go so far to even ticket (or harass you at the least) for empty cans/bottles that you may have rolling around in the back of a pickup. A buddy if mine damn near got a MIP and an OC for empty cans in the bed back in highschool when he borrowed his dads truck.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 11:56:00 AM EDT
[#6]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 11:56:59 AM EDT
[#7]
Maybe becaue the road is owned by the public, the public doesn't want open containers in vehicles operating on their property, and there is no "you have the right to do whatever the fuck you want on public property" clause in the Constitution?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 11:57:54 AM EDT
[#8]
Hmm I see you've spawned a thread topic from mine
 . Come to Ct and drink in the car!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 11:59:13 AM EDT
[#9]
Probably to give them an opportunity to gig the driver for something like a DUI and he can't say it's his friends beer.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 11:59:42 AM EDT
[#10]
I don't think it has anything to do with passengers drinking, it's more to keep drivers from passing their drink to passengers if pulled over.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 12:01:00 PM EDT
[#11]
why in my state is it a ticket if your not wearing a helmet, or seat belt. stupid laws is all.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 12:02:28 PM EDT
[#12]
I always figured it was a way to shut a loophole for drivers.
"That is my passenger's beer, not mine!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 12:02:46 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Maybe becaue the road is owned by the public, the public doesn't want open containers in vehicles operating on their property, and there is no "you have the right to do whatever the fuck you want on public property" clause in the Constitution? Sure there is, it's called the Tenth Amendment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 12:04:57 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
I don't think it has anything to do with passengers drinking, it's more to keep drivers from passing their drink to passengers if pulled over. I'm sure that's it. Of course, I don't have a problem with a driver drinking while driving as long as he does it safely. /begin bashing and shitstorm |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 12:05:11 PM EDT
[#15]
So the driver can't hand his drink to the passenger, or have it where both of them can access it, and claim it's the passenger's drink, not his.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 12:06:05 PM EDT
[#16]
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 12:06:29 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
I always figured it was a way to shut a loophole for drivers. "That is my passenger's beer, not mine!" Who gives a shit? If the driver is drunk, he's drunk. If he's not, then he's not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 12:06:34 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
I always figured it was a way to shut a loophole for drivers. "That is my passenger's beer, not mine!" "These aren't my pants!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 12:08:07 PM EDT
[#19]
$500 ticket here in MA for any occupant with an open container of alchol
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 12:09:29 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I always figured it was a way to shut a loophole for drivers. "That is my passenger's beer, not mine!" Who gives a shit? If the driver is drunk, he's drunk. If he's not, then he's not. It's appearantly much better for a driver to shotgun a can or two rather than drink while on the roll. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 12:17:02 PM EDT
[#21]
LOL I had a dream last night that I got pulled over by the cops and was drinking a beer. I had an empty in my pocket too!
I guess it's so when the cop comes up to the window, he doesn't look in and see the passenger holding two beers. "Don't mind him, he just gets real thirsty!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 12:25:43 PM EDT
[#22]
For some reason I thought Texas did not have an open container issue.
Is this something recent? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 12:36:28 PM EDT
[#23]
Here in TX, it it just a $35 dollar fine. It is also one of the traffic laws that you can't be taken to jail for. Supposedly they did it this way so it wouldn't interfere with tourism.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 12:37:43 PM EDT
[#24]
Doesn't matter here.
No such law IIRC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 12:40:43 PM EDT
[#25]
I think it's something that came about long before roadside breathalyzer tests were available. When you have no tools to measure impairment, it makes more sense to pass laws to outright ban alcohol consumption in the vehicle.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 12:42:02 PM EDT
[#26]
It was only a few years ago that Virginia made it illegal for the driver to drink. Before that it would get you stopped for a DWI check, bt it was not illegal by itself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 12:45:18 PM EDT
[#27]
Ours I think is a $50 fine. The legislature when passed wanted to be tough on drunk driving but still have a minor fine so it wouldn't be a big deal if a passenger had a beer on the way back from the mountain
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 12:46:10 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
I think it's something that came about long before roadside breathalyzer tests were available. When you have no tools to measure impairment, it makes more sense to pass laws to outright ban alcohol consumption in the vehicle. And yet, the law never went away after those tools become available. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 12:48:51 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Quoted: I think it's something that came about long before roadside breathalyzer tests were available. When you have no tools to measure impairment, it makes more sense to pass laws to outright ban alcohol consumption in the vehicle. And yet, the law never went away after those tools become available. No law ever seems to go away.  I think the single most valuable constitutional amendment possible would put a time limit on every law passed. Make it 10 years max, and then it has to be re-voted on or it simply expires. For all of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 12:50:22 PM EDT
[#30]
In today's go-go busy society sometimes theres no way around doing some of your drinking in the car.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 12:50:56 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think it's something that came about long before roadside breathalyzer tests were available. When you have no tools to measure impairment, it makes more sense to pass laws to outright ban alcohol consumption in the vehicle. And yet, the law never went away after those tools become available. No law ever seems to go away. I think the single most valuable constitutional amendment possible would put a time limit on every law passed. Make it 10 years max, and then it has to be re-voted on or it simply expires. For all of them.
 Can you imagine how full the Congress would have their hands just trying to keep up with expiring laws? They would never be able to pass any new legislation.
I mean, it would take probably a year or more reading line by line to get just through the tax laws. It would be awesome. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 12:51:06 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Hmm I see you've spawned a thread topic from mine . Come to Ct and drink in the car!Yup! I figured I hijacked yer thread enough. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 12:54:30 PM EDT
[#33]
"Oh, that wasn't mine, officer... it was my passenger's. Hic!"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 12:55:58 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: Can you imagine how full the Congress would have their hands just trying to keep up with expiring laws? They would never be able to pass any new legislation.I mean, it would take probably a year or more reading line by line to get just through the tax laws. It would be awesome. It would be awesome, huh? And who'd want to be a member of congress, that sounds way too much like work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 12:59:20 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and this is the real answer.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 12:59:27 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can you imagine how full the Congress would have their hands just trying to keep up with expiring laws? They would never be able to pass any new legislation.
I mean, it would take probably a year or more reading line by line to get just through the tax laws. It would be awesome. It would be awesome, huh? And who'd want to be a member of congress, that sounds way too much like work.
Why do you assume they would read them? They haven't been reading the new stuff, much less the old. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 1:19:50 PM EDT
[#37]
But in many states these laws do not apply to limo drivers.
If you're rich enough, you can have the laws made so that they only applies to "the little people". |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 6:12:51 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: Simple question. 1) Makes it easier for the driver to claim 'that's not my beer'.... 2) Makes it more likely, if everyone else in the car is drinking, that the driver will drink too... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 6:13:45 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think it's something that came about long before roadside breathalyzer tests were available. When you have no tools to measure impairment, it makes more sense to pass laws to outright ban alcohol consumption in the vehicle. And yet, the law never went away after those tools become available. No law ever seems to go away. I think the single most valuable constitutional amendment possible would put a time limit on every law passed. Make it 10 years max, and then it has to be re-voted on or it simply expires. For all of them. Can you imagine how full the Congress would have their hands just trying to keep up with expiring laws? They would never be able to pass any new legislation.I mean, it would take probably a year or more reading line by line to get just through the tax laws. It would be awesome. It would result in complete chaos on a national level, and not impact Open Container laws one bit, since these are state-level laws.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 6:15:47 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: But in many states these laws do not apply to limo drivers. If you're rich enough, you can have the laws made so that they only applies to "the little people". The reasons for having an OC law in a regular motor vehicle don't apply to a professional (licensed) limo driver who's passengers are drinking behind a glass partition... Since the majority of bitching about 'Open Container' comes from log-heads, who haven't figured out 'don't drink and drive' means DO NOT EVER DRINK ANY AMOUNT AND DRIVE ANY DISTANCE, wanting to have 'road beers'... There's really no sympathy in that department... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 6:48:13 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I always figured it was a way to shut a loophole for drivers. "That is my passenger's beer, not mine!" Who gives a shit? If the driver is drunk, he's drunk. If he's not, then he's not. I'm not one of the anti-DUI crusaders, just explaining the rationale. Obviously, getting shitfaced and driving is bad, but I think DUI enforcement has been taken too far in some cases. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 6:52:11 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Since the majority of bitching about 'Open Container' comes from log-heads, who haven't figured out 'don't drink and drive' means DO NOT EVER DRINK ANY AMOUNT AND DRIVE ANY DISTANCE, wanting to have 'road beers'... Which is why the legal maximum is .001%, right Dave? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 6:55:20 PM EDT
[#43]
It's not. What the hell are you talking about?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 6:58:00 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Simple question. 1) Makes it easier for the driver to claim 'that's not my beer'.... 2) Makes it more likely, if everyone else in the car is drinking, that the driver will drink too... For what it's worth these problems don't seem to be rampant in Connecticut where open containers are fine, but don't let that ruin the party for everybody else. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 7:01:38 PM EDT
[#45]
Let's think about this for a sec. Why would someone outlaw open containers? Hmm, very interesting. Here's the way i see it...
A guy opens a beer 'cause he wants to feel all warm and toasty inside. Makes a man feel good. Of course it does. Why shouldn't it? You figure you put that beer under your pillow at night, the Beer Fairy might come down and leave a quarter, am i right? The point is, how do you know the fairy isn't a crazy glue sniffer? "Building model airplanes" says the little fairy. Well, we're not buying it. He sneaks into your house once, that's all it takes. Next thing you know there's money missing off the dresser and your daughter is knocked up. I've seen it a hundred times. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 7:01:57 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
In today's go-go busy society sometimes theres no way around doing some of your drinking in the car. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 7:04:03 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: Probably to give them an opportunity to gig the driver for something like a DUI and he can't say it's his friends beer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 7:05:10 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think it's something that came about long before roadside breathalyzer tests were available. When you have no tools to measure impairment, it makes more sense to pass laws to outright ban alcohol consumption in the vehicle. And yet, the law never went away after those tools become available. No law ever seems to go away. I think the single most valuable constitutional amendment possible would put a time limit on every law passed. Make it 10 years max, and then it has to be re-voted on or it simply expires. For all of them. Can you imagine how full the Congress would have their hands just trying to keep up with expiring laws? They would never be able to pass any new legislation.I mean, it would take probably a year or more reading line by line to get just through the tax laws. It would be awesome. This would be perfect! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 7:21:05 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
I think it's something that came about long before roadside breathalyzer tests were available. When you have no tools to measure impairment, it makes more sense to pass laws to outright ban alcohol consumption in the vehicle. No they only recently changed in it NC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2009 7:23:36 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
It was only a few years ago that Virginia made it illegal for the driver to drink. Before that it would get you stopped for a DWI check, bt it was not illegal by itself. Wait, a passenger can have an open container in VA? 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
