I think this is going to be a divided one so I am starting a poll. 

Online testimony deadline is tomorrow 2/6/14 1:00 pm
Public hearing is Friday 2/6/14 1:00pm

SB2590: Firearms; LEOs; Alcohol; Prescription Medications
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=2590

Prohibits state and county law enforcement officers who are authorized to carry firearms from consuming alcohol or ingesting prescription medications that would impair the judgment or physical response of the employee while carrying a firearm. Prohibits the consumption of alcohol for an unspecified number of hours prior to carrying a firearm.

Submit testimony here (requires sign-in)
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/submittestimony.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=2590

Are we going to set up the same requirements for COPs and guns as we do for pilots and flying?  The Air Force Flight Surgeon has to clear any over-the-counter meds, prescription meds, ANYTHING a pilot takes before flying.  Something as innocent as Afrin has to be reported and approved.  Any medication can potentially affect reaction time, judgement, or motor skills.  We all react to chemicals differently, so caution is taken to prevent human error resulting from drugs (includes alcohol and non-legal substances).

If we apply this same oversight to the COPs, each one will need to contact a doctor or have a list of what they can and can't take/use and still carry a weapon.  This bill doesn't look at the effect, namely being under the influence.  It specifies "cannot consume or ingest".  Imagine the lawsuits if a dead criminal's family found out the COP was taking prescribed allergy meds that day and can show a possible side effect is drowsiness, and the warning is to not operate heavy machinery while taking!

I think it needs to specify an intoxication amount such as with a DUI.  Any illegal substance should be a no go.  Prescription drug for valid treatment of ails OKed.

I think it needs to specify an intoxication amount such as with a DUI.  Any illegal substance should be a no go.  Prescription drug for valid treatment of ails OKed.

That's already covered in HPD policies btw.   If they just said, "No one should carry a firearm while intoxicated with an alcohol content of .08 or greater.  I don't think you would have anyone with a problem with that.

Hmm, disarming LEO's while just because they've consumed any amount of alcohol seems a bit too broad.  I'd think they'd need to be able to protect themselves at all times, even off duty and having a few drinks. 

There's gotta be a way to state it more like, LEO's shall not be intoxicated while carrying a firearm, defined by BAC above x percent.

This would still allow LEO's to be off duty, be armed, and responsibly consume alcohol.  At the same time, it would make them think twice about getting intoxicated while carrying around a firearm.  When they're intoxicated, they better not be caught with a firearm, because it might not just be a fellow officer taking their gun.  Heck, armed and belligerent/intoxicated LEO's put their non-LEO friends in danger of a felony if they disarm the belligerent off-duty LEO.

Also, if we ever get CCW for civs, I'm thinking the above statement is a reasonable to apply to CCW holders too.  This would make civs think twice about getting intoxicated and get sloppy with protecting their carry gun.  But at the same time, still allows law abiding civs to enjoy responsible drinking while carrying.

At the same time, it would make them think twice about getting intoxicated while carrying around a firearm. 

It's a well-documented fact that a substantial percentage of people who consume alcohol lose the ability to determine accurately their degree of "intoxication" and how their reflexes and judgment are effected. I'm sure you may have seen the videos of people who have had "just one or two drinks" and claim they are "perfectly capable of driving safely" then knock down lots of cones on a course that really isn't difficult or done at higher than average speed. See: DUI motor vehicle accidents, alcohol-involved domestic violence, etc. Law enforcement actually has a higher than average rate of domestic violence. Just sayin'.

yeah, i can see that happening.  poor driving performance however, isnt directly proportional to a person deciding to defend themselves or others.  although i see your point that alcohol has an effect, even with just a drink or two.  based on my 9 years of alcohol experience, i'm not convinced yet that all reasoning goes out the window with light (and responsibly managed) social drinking.  rate of consumption is what seems to have the most effect to degrade decision making, versus a non-zero quantity. 

Seems like just  another way to chip away at guns from both ends. At one side they are attacking the private citizens right to own and bear arms. At the other they are even trying to disarm the LEO's. Make no mistake that the objective is to disarm us all. How can anyone be for carry rights under the premise that it may save someone while supporting this?

No matter what laws are passed, they won't prevent the situation it seeks to guard against.  The best it can do is punish the law breaker AFTER the bad thing has already happened.

More often than not, a COP can routinely drink and carry without incident.  It's the one time he needs to draw his weapon that he gets caught.  The other instances are never punished, even though he was breaking the law then,too.

Unless there is a random BAC test of off duty COPs while carrying firearms (just like a DUI check point), COPs will be able to skirt the law undetected. 

No detection = No infraction.

There is no need for this law.  Cops are gun owners too, and there no reason to support it. 

This needs a set point of intoxication.  Which should be no different than what the standard limits are (.08).   You are still able to make good decisions even when drunk.  That is a fact.  So to say you can't touch your gun, and at a minimum provide no self-defense exception is stupid.

There is no need for this law.  Cops are gun owners too, and there no reason to support it. 

This needs a set point of intoxication.  Which should be no different than what the standard limits are (.08).   You are still able to make good decisions even when drunk.  That is a fact.  So to say you can't touch your gun, and at a minimum provide no self-defense exception is stupid.

What I see this coming down to is:  are off duty COPs permitted/required to carry for a reason?  (on-call, self-defense, public safety if something happens in their vicinity, etc.).  If so, then are those reasons negated when they go out and have a couple of drinks?  Then state that in the law.  COPs are not on call if they drink.  They are also not allowed to carry for self defense when drinking.  Public is not to depend on off duty COPs to help -- call 911 and wait! 

We need to quit talking about the mechanics of the rules and talk about the underlying justification for allowing/requiring COPs to carry off duty and the impact on those reasons when COPs drink.

What I see this coming down to is:  are off duty COPs permitted/required to carry for a reason? 

Yes.  They are required to carry as part of their duties.  Like military personnel, off-duty officers are never really "off the clock"  you are a law enforcement officer 24 hours a day.  This is why HPD officers received standards of conduct pay (and is what was increased recently for them.

If so, then are those reasons negated when they go out and have a couple of drinks? 
I don't believe that those reasons are negated for a few reasons.  First -  there is a huge difference between having a few drinks and going out to party.  I don't care what the guys above say, but there are very likely more responsible drinkers than irresponsible drinkers. I go out to dinner with my wife and see dozens and dozens of people drinking a drink or two and then stopping and switching to water / coke etc.  If you go out to diner and have a wine pairing with your family it doesn't make you instantly impaired.  Moreover, even if you had a few drinks, you are indeed capable of making good decisions.  Just because judgement is affected, doesn't automatically remove your ability to make a reasoned and thoughtful decision.  Could it guide you down the wrong path? Certainly.  But, the presence or likelihood of bad judgement doesn't remove the presence or capability of good judgement.

Now,  people do need to understand that your judgement can indeed be called into question.  But, that doesn't mean you didn't make the right choice.  If you were drinking and saw someone getting being subjected to an armed robbery, and responded with lethal force - does it mean you made a bad choice? No.  The requirements for lethal force are met and you could do so.  Do you have some increased liability in this type of instance - hell yeah you do.  You better have self-defense insurance.

COPs are not on call if they drink.
I'm not sure why you would think that.  Let's say there is a police party - and something bad goes down, do you think that they would not respond?  Do you have something that says they are not on duty? 

They are also not allowed to carry for self defense when drinking.
As far as I know, HPD standards are not they not be intoxicated.  If they read "under the influence" then, well yes, I would agree that it could be interpreted that any drink would.  Currently .08 is the threshold for operating a vehicle under the 'influence' of intoxicants, so there is something to say that their may be a measure for 'influence' as well.   

Public is not to depend on off duty COPs to help -- call 911 and wait! 
Legally, the public is not to depend on the on-duty police either.  That doesn't matter, as we know, generally, they will what they can to assist people in need.  However, in the case of off-duty officers, they normally stay out of things unless there is imminent danger or harm. If there is not imminent danger or harm, then even they should call for on-duty individuals to assist / respond.   Citizens are also never on duty (Unless reserve), but in many - many incidents respond to situations or events, such as active shooters, robbery, and so forth. 

We need to quit talking about the mechanics of the rules and talk about the underlying justification for allowing/requiring COPs to carry off duty and the impact on those reasons when COPs drink.
How is this really a big deal? We have had one incident from an off-duty officer that by most accounts was ruled a justifiable self defense shooting.  What is the problem there?  Why would you really want to bind or tie an officers hands in being able to respond to an imminent threat or danger to citizens just because he had a mai tai at The Shack?

Now, your stuff aside, I think alcohol consumption and possession of a firearm warrants consideration.  I do not think at any given time a person should carry a firearm, under any circumstance, outside of immediate need for self-defense, while having consumed liquor to the point of intoxication.  Moreover, if they do decide to carry and drink - you really - need to be on top of your 'drinking responsibly'; this is really not that hard to do, when my wife and I go out, I will have (2) smalls beers or (1) large beer max, or (1) mixed drink.  After that, I'm done. No questions. No excuses. 

COPs are not on call if they drink.
I'm not sure why you would think that. 

The last part of my comments, starting after "If so, then are those reasons negated when they go out and have a couple of drinks?    are not me thinking this is the way it is.  It was an "IF", meaning these details should be included IF the reasons for carry are negated by drinking, that's all.

The Oakland Police Department has launched an internal investigation into the arrest of an off-duty police officer who is accused of flashing a gun at a server at a San Francisco restaurant last weekend, officials said.

"Apparently, a young lady he was talking to, it appeared that he was trying to impress her by letting her know he was a police officer," said San Francisco police Sgt. Eric O'Neal, a department spokesman. "He brandished a gun. He briefly pointed it in her direction, and he pointed the weapon in an upward position, pointing it at the ceiling of the restaurant. That caused the young lady some concern, enough to call SFPD officers."

Kelly, a Marine Corps veteran, told officers that he had been drinking Saturday night. "It was unknown what level of consumption the off-duty officer had," O'Neal said.

I wonder what he'd have said if you'd asked him prior to the incident if he thought he had drunk enough alcohol to impair his judgment? Or is this just "boys being boys" and totally cool? Lucky for him that the people "investigating" the incident just so happen to be fellow cops. Wonder how that will turn out? 

From:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/02/robert-farago/irresponsible-gun-owner-of-the-day-oakland-pd-officer-kevin-kelly/#more-295131

Original story:

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Oakland-officer-arrested-by-S-F-police-in-IHOP-5212851.php

And now you fire him and charge him.  No different than if I were carrying and doing that.