Police found a loaded and cocked .45-caliber pistol on a 41-year-old Norwalk man who was arrested on drunken driving charges at a sobriety checkpoint this weekend.A point raised by the Grand Prince is that being a big shot banker is the reason this guy got off so easily. Do you think he may have received preferential treatment?Peter Mullen, 41, of 22 Princess Pine Ave., Norwalk, was charged early Sunday with driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol and carrying a firearm while under the influence of alcohol, a misdemeanor offense. Police said Mullen had a permit for the weapon, but state law prohibits individuals from carrying loaded guns while having an elevated blood alcohol content.
Mullen told officers he worked for UBS, police said. According to the company's Web site, Mullen is a first vice president of investments for its private wealth management offices in Stamford. Calls to a home number listed as belonging to Mullen were not answered. The number was not attached to an answering machine.
Police say around 11:30 p.m. Saturday, officers stopped Mullen at a sobriety checkpoint set up on Elm Street. They asked him routine questions, and then for his registration, said police Sgt. Richard Phelan. He allegedly flipped past his registration twice, which led police to ask him to step out of his Audi. He failed a field sobriety test, and while being arrested, told police he had a firearm in a holster on his hip, Phelan said.
Officers found a .45-caliber Wilson Combat Pistol on his hip, Phelan said. It was loaded with eight bullets and had a round in its chamber. The gun's hammer was pulled back, police said.
Mullen initially told police he was driving from Rye, N.Y., but when pressed about not having a New York state permit for his pistol, told officers had was coming from a Stamford strip club.
He was released after posting a $2,500 bail and is due in court Feb. 10 for an arraignment.
One thing that struck me is that pro-gun folks are often complaining about the "draconian" gun laws they have to contend with. Is this an example?
...driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol and carrying a firearm while under the influence of alcohol, a misdemeanor offense.
Isn't this exactly where we can identify unfit gun owners? Aren't guys who do stuff like this likely to repeat the dangerous behavior, or worse?
Finally, I wonder about the "loaded and cocked" idea. How does that work with a .45? Is it possible to have the gun cocked and the saftey on? Would that make firing the weapon a bit faster? Is there any good reason to have a gun like that in your holster while driving in the car?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
"One thing that struck me is that pro-gun folks are often complaining about the "draconian" gun laws they have to contend with. Is this an example?"
ReplyDeleteNo.
"Is it possible to have the gun cocked and the saftey on?"
Yes.
"Would that make firing the weapon a bit faster?"
Yes.
"Is there any good reason to have a gun like that in your holster while driving in the car?"
Yes. Like you said, it would make firing the weapon faster.
It sounds like he was carrying a 1911 and most people carry 1911s in that fashion.
The Wilson Combat is indeed a 1911.
ReplyDeleteCarrying it "cocked and locked" is standard fare.
"One thing that struck me is that pro-gun folks are often complaining about the "draconian" gun laws they have to contend with. Is this an example?"
ReplyDeleteNo, not at all. The draconian part of the story is that in that part of the country, you almost have to be a rich banker or the like to get a concealed carry permit. They are not handed out to the peasants, only "worthy" people like that drunk.
Too much is being made out of the mode of carry of that firearm. It is a single action pistol and a 100 year old design that was made to be carried "cocked and locked".
I don't see anywhere in your quoted part of the article that says he had a CCW.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that struck me is that pro-gun folks are often complaining about the "draconian" gun laws they have to contend with. Is this an example?
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely not. I'm perfectly happy with the laws saying that you should not carry while drinking, just as I am fine with the law that says you cannot drive after drinking.
Isn't this exactly where we can identify unfit gun owners? Aren't guys who do stuff like this likely to repeat the dangerous behavior, or worse?
Sure. Take away his concealed carry permit along with his driver's license.
"He was released after posting a $2,500 bail and is due in court Feb. 10 for an arraignment."
ReplyDeleteThis is getting off easy or "preferential treatment"? Compared to what?
I agree w/ RuffRdr. This guy was driving drunk and carrying drunk. He should be punished (and it's a foregone conclusion that he will lose his CCW)
ReplyDeleteThere are laws on the books everywhere about carrying while drunk. This guy broke that law AND DUI laws. Having a permit/license didn't keep him from carrying drunk, just as having a drivers license (and registered car) didn't keep him from driving drunk.
Hmm, he was a licensed driver driving a registered vehicle and yet licensing/registration did nothing to prevent this crime.
Licensing / registration of firearms would be just as marvelously *effective* at lowering firearms-related crime.
Was his permit a CCW? The article doesn't say.
I don't have a problem with laws that make it a crime to carry while intoxicated, but the penalty should fit the crime, which means it should be a misdemeanor at most. It's certainly far far more dangerous to operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated, and any system of law that makes the penalty higher than for driving drunk has its priorities out of whack.
ReplyDeleteFishy Jay,
ReplyDeleteThe legal system in the US seems to favor people with wealth like it does in most countries. However, for fines and punishment, I think the fine should be calculated differently and take into consideration of different income levels.
It seems unfair if the same fine amount is given to a honest hard working guy making 30K a year and a guy making million dollars.
Justice should be blind and in each case, the punishment is supposed to discourage the behaviour in the future.
il principe: "The legal system in the US seems to favor people with wealth like it does in most countries."
ReplyDeleteFavor? Okay, that's true, difficult to eliminate, and as you say is that way in most countries.
il principe: "However, for fines and punishment, I think the fine should be calculated differently and take into consideration of different income levels."
I'm not opposed. I believe that in many cases the judge does have that option.
il principe: "It seems unfair if the same fine amount is given to a honest hard working guy making 30K a year and a guy making million dollars.
Justice should be blind and in each case, the punishment is supposed to discourage the behaviour in the future."
Agreed.
Prince, That does sound like a better system, fining people according to their income.
ReplyDeleteSebastian, Thats an interesting idea, prioritizing between the risks of gun ownership and car driving for problem drinkers.I'd say after the first offense the guy loses his guns forever and only gets the drivers license back after a year of good behavior.
Interesting article.
ReplyDeleteIn my state, Oregon, there are no laws on the books that specifically make it illegal to carry a firearm while consuming alcohol or intoxicated.
I'm okay with this law not being on the books, because it doesn't prevent anyone from drinking alcohol while carrying a concealed handgun unless you're a law abiding citizen.
How does one enforce this law? The bartender doesn't know if a person is carrying a CONCEALED handgun.
If they're acting recklessely, then there are laws already on the books for that. Examples include menacing, assault, and robbery to name a few.
If you want to take a step further, look at Vermont. There are no formal licensing requirements. If you're 18-years-old, 16 if you have your parents permission, and are legally able to possess a handgun then you can carry it concealed. The same goes for carrying a gun while drinking, and they don't have higher crime rates then other states.
If you're a criminal, you'll still break some law, but if you're law abiding citizen then you have to wait at the mercy of some government employee or politician to give you permission to protect yourself which is a individual right. On top of that, if you have formal licensing with training requirements you make NRA instructors like me rich. So everybody looses if you have tougher ristrictions to include licensing to begin with.
Just my two cents.
Thanks Samuel Wiley for your two cents. I think I still prefer New Jersey's laws to your state's or Vermont's.
ReplyDelete