“There’s a guy passed out in the drive-thru in his truck,” the 911 caller reported. “His truck is running as well.” In fact, Republican Ohio State Representative Wes Retherford’s pickup truck was running better than its owner.

The elected official (above) was three sheets to the wind. Drunk as a skunk. Trousered. Top-heavy. Plastered. GLOCKed? Yeah, that too. But first . . .

According to qsrmagazine.com‘s Drive-Thru Performance Study (which no longer names names), “overall speed of service across 23 [fast food] brands studied was 203.29 seconds.”

McDonald’s drive-thru is the worst of the worst. I once gave in to hunger and waited fifteen minutes to assault my arteries with a Royale with cheese.

If I’d been the operator receiving the 911 call, I would’ve guessed the drive-thru customer in question had passed out from hunger. Or boredom.

Now, back to guns, via dispatch.com:

The sheriff’s office says a loaded handgun was found on a vehicle seat . . .

The incident report states Retherford had a Glock model 23 with 15 40-caliber rounds in a magazine and one round in the chamber in his vehicle. The weapon was holstered inside a compartment underneath the center armrest.

Retherford has a concealed-carry license, according to the sheriff’s office.

Good thing the NRA A-rated Buckeye State rep didn’t have two rounds in the chamber of his 23.

I’m sure the discrepancy in reporting where the gun was discovered — which led to hysterical headlines like Ohio House Rep. Retherford found passed out in car, with loaded firearm — was a simple mistake.

I mean the sheriff didn’t purposely try and focus the media on the untouched, holstered, properly secured handgun being transported by the soused holder of a concealed carry permit, right?

Clearly, the dangerous weapon over which Mr. Retherford had control — until he didn’t — was his truck. Which makes Mr. Retherford an irresponsible drinker/driver/drink-driver who just happened to also be a gun owner. Still, I reckon he qualifies. Agreed?

Recommended For You

66 Responses to Ohio State Rep. Wes Retherford: Irresponsible Gun Owner of the Day

  1. Meh. Show me the victim. Drunk driving is one of the worst nanny state bullshit laws passed be shrieking harpies who can’t be bothered to look after their own business.

    • My wife was the victim of a drunk driver. Slammed into her head-on. I have no sympathy for idiots who drive while drunk or high.

      • Well, that’s terrible. It still doesn’t let you punish people because of, by definition, a victimless crime. In your case, the drunk driver committed vehicular homicide. Prosecute that.

        • A vehicular homicide that most likely wouldn’t have happened if the driver wasn’t drunk and high on heroin. A drunk’s ability to safely operate a vehicle is greatly diminished. Drunk driving is not a victim-less crime based solely on the fact that the drunk’s voluntary action of operating an automobile while impaired is putting the safety of everyone around him in jeopardy. Would you let your loved ones ride shotgun with somebody who is plastered enough to pass-out behind the wheel?

        • That won’t bring back his wife. It also won’t save the next person. You know what might? Locking someone up when they’re acting so recklessly that it’s just a matter of time before they kill someone. If someone is shooting into a crowd but someone managed not to hit anyone yet, will you insist that we wait until he kills someone?

          I get arguing that the legal consequences and stigma of DUI are too high. I get arguing that lowering the legal limit to .05 is too low. But the people that babble on about ‘muh victimless crime’ are about on the same level of denial as those arguing that possessing child porn should be legal.

        • Wow. Just wow. Did anyone here go to school or are you all making this up as you go?

          Drunk driving nothing short of planting IEDs along the road. Everyone here knows someone touched by a drunk driver. To play otherwise is a lie.

          So fighting a law’s existence because you have yet to kill anyone when breaking the law is wildly shortsighted.

          And until the pro-gun glitterati can wrap their collective brain around that fact, they will always be marginalized and unfortunately take my rights with them.

          Seems the first one to scream “common sense” these days is the one kid who never did his homework and has no idea how America works.

        • Yeah. Except that for that little “criminal intent” part. Planting an IED is directly intended to harm people. Drunk driving is directly intending to get home. Big difference.

      • If you allow for laws that punish people for what they might do, like drunk driving laws, you can’t justify opposition to laws that punish people for what they could do, like gun control laws.
        Drunk driving deaths are terrible. Gun deaths are terrible. But a free society will always be messier than an autocracy.

        • That’s nowhere near the same thing and you know it. Pumping yourself full of your mind altering poison of choice, then getting behind the wheel and taking to the public streets is completely different from possessing a firearm and your full faculties. You’re willfully subjecting the rest of us to your lethal recklessness whose outcomes are inordinately probable. You can’t say the same about any given peaceful firearms owner, one in a zillion of whom might, some day, maybe, initiate violence against someone else.

          Really, may I come over to your neighborhood and fire my guns in random directions? As long as no round slams into your face and turns your skull into a red chunky stew, we’re cool, right? Good F’ing grief. This is why people hate libertarians. 95% of that school of thought is just anarchy and selfishness masquerading as a political philosophy.

        • @Jonathan

          You’re right about the irresponsibility and damage that drunk driving inflicts, but the state’s interest is never, ever to protect you or your family.

          I don’t like drunk driving laws because is the cutting edge of violating the constitution.

          If the police chose, they could easily pop this fellow for drunk if they cared to take witness statements and follow up with those in court.

          However, it’s easier to make up some bullshit that possession of a car key while intoxicated = drunk driving.

          My car parked on the side of the road was brushed by a drunk driver. They found him parked in an apartment complex nearby. He confessed to drunk driving in the back of the cruiser.

          The police would not do their duty because they couldn’t locate his keys.

          Their were broken-off serialized parts of his car next to my damaged vehicle, that’s how we told the cops to look for the model, make, and color of the perpetrator’s car.

          I watched part of the video in which he confessed to hitting a car, and driving drunk. We had the car pieces. Anyone could have glued it together and matched them with his missing mirrors and headlight. Shut and done. Any jury in the state would have found him guilty. That was too much trouble, apparently, and they let him go.

          The police do not care about you or their family, they care about their salary, benefits, and #1 #1 #1.

          There is much and more they could do to limit the human tragedies associated with drunk driving, and they will cherry pick the ones that are most convenient for them, not the ones that would serve the public the best.

          I don’t trust them, and when they argue for arresting people in parked cars, they are not seeking the ones would are truly driving drunk and have passed out behind the wheel, they are trying to punish the ones who will not pay bribes to the taxi cab lobby and opt to sleep in their vehicles. That’s where the money is. They want the innocent, and always have. That’s where most of the money resides which they want to steal.

      • It depends on what you mean by drunk and driving. I got conviction for driving under the influence for sleeping in my car in a parking lot near my house after drinking a six pack. The car didn’t move an inch from the moment I started drinking until it got towed away. Just who was I endangering? Since I knew I was going to be over the limit I didn’t take my gun with me. I don’t have much respect for such laws or the people that advocate for them.

        • They nailed you because technically, you were in control of the vehicle.

          This is something that needs to be explored as driverless cars (Along the lines of how Tesla cars auto-drive) become more commonplace.

          They need to have something like if your drunk ass is buckled in the back seat and it’s driving you home that should be cool…

        • You can have all or as little respect for the law as you want.
          The problem comes when you violate the law, as you found out.
          If you want to try to make a case out of your disdain for the law you’d better bring lots of cash.
          It’s always good to know how the law affects your actions; even if you don’t agree with the law. Especially if society has determined your problem (get drunk? You are a problem drinker) is bad enough to have laws made about it.

        • @BigBill

          Stalin, in whatever hell he occupies, is applauding you at this moment.

          The law is the law, back down, bend over (unless you’re important or rich enough) and accept whatever the petty tyrant in charge of your case thinks is appropriate.

          Your attitude sucks. It treasonously sucks.

        • The cop who arrested me, and to whom I was exceedingly polite and compliant, used that the excuse that cops use for most of their crimes against others – ‘just following procedure’ which is actually “just following orders”. “Just following orders” is not an excuse for immoral behavior. Nor does 50% plus 1 of voters make something unethical magically ethical. What is immoral for the individual is still immoral for the group.

      • I’m sure I can find a gun-control advocate who would say the same thing about carrying a firearm. And I can probably find one that would say the same about simply owning a firearm.

    • Tell that to the families of innocent people who are killed by drunk drivers. Go ahead. If it weren’t for ‘nanny state’ laws, they would bludgeon you to death.

      • Having suffered a loss or being angry doesn’t add to the strength of an argument. Yours was also non-sequitor and not even an argument really.

        • It is just a point about society, is all. We as a society have decided that we don’t give a crap about your ‘right’ to get blasted on cheap beer and drive your El Camino like an idiot up until the moment you run someone over. This ‘victimless crime’ blather is nonsense. How many victims do you have to see put up in front of you before you get that? This isn’t someone smoking pot in their living room.

          If you make the selfish choice to get drunk and drive, and you get caught, don’t ask society to feel sorry for you. Because like he said, if not for the lawful nature of society they might just decide to take a little mob justice on you instead.

        • Germany also made a choice “as a society” circa 1930 or so… How did that work out?

          Malus lex est null lex.

    • Wow, seriously, “show me the victim” when someone is literally passed-out drunk behind the wheel of their running car? You know they just came off the street driving that way? So…no crime there, eh, not until he hurts or kills someone?

      SOME “pre-crime” doesn’t take a psychic to foresee before it can be called. Driving blind drunk is a slam dunk member of that club.

      • Show me the data. Betcha there’s whole heck of a lot more people driving drunk on any given night than getting into DUI involved accidents.

        • I agree with you and I’d lay serious cash on that bet because all it takes is going to one popular bar on a Saturday night to know that is the case.

          I know people who can’t walk straight when they are drunk but couldn’t be better drivers if they were sober.

          I view drunk driving laws like any other laws that make doing something illegal. It doesn’t stop the people that need to be stopped from doing anything.

    • My mother has a hell of a drinking problem, and on several occasions drove my baby sister around while drunk. Fuck you and your “victimless crime” bullshit.

    • 33,000 people died in car accidents last year caused by drunk driving. Tell me again about “victimless crimes.” Drunk driving is an accident/felonious homicide waiting to happen. Funny thing, it is usually not the drunk who dies, but I don’t know why. And if drunk driving, which is a threat to not just the drunk but to anyone else on the ,is prosecuted, tell me how this differs from other “victimless” crimes like speeding, running red lights, etc. It doesn’t. If you want to get drunk, stay home or take a cab.

      • “Funny thing, it is usually not the drunk who dies, but I don’t know why.”

        It has been speculated that the more skeletal muscles are relaxed at the moment of impact, the less chance of bone breakage and injury there is…

      • “Now comes a study in the current issue of the Journal of Patient Safety that says the numbers may be much higher 2014 between 210,000 and 440,000 patients each year who go to the hospital for care suffer some type of preventable harm that contributes to their death, the study says.”

        “That would make medical errors the third-leading cause of death in America, behind heart disease, which is the first, and cancer, which is second.”

        So looks to me that doctors and hospitals should be outlawed as well. Just say’n, there are a lot of things that cause death. Not a proponent of drunk driving, but the crime is when damage is done, or if a person is noticeably impaired for an activity they may be doing, driving, shooting a firearm, flying an airplane, what ever. Passing a law doesn’t stop non-optimal human activity, it only inhibits those of us that are not criminals.

      • Holy crap [CITATION NEEDED] The largest number I could find for 2016 was about 1/3 of that and that’s from a shrilling harpy advocacy group.

      • “tell me how this differs from other ‘victimless’ crimes like speeding, running red lights, etc.”

        The difference is the punishment and consequences related to conviction attached.

        Most traffic violations are categorized the least serious of all crimes (Class C Misdemeanor in Texas). Applications that ask about convictions specifically exclude them. I’ve never heard of a drunk driving law that wasn’t at least at the level of a Texas Class B Misdemeanor. Most would be Class a or felonies.

    • Pwrserge is half right but only half. Having a glass of wine or a beer with dinner is not the same as driving home because you are too drunk to walk. (Retherford was beyond the latter.)

    • No, that’s demonstrably wrong.
      I would agree with you IF we were able to assign a watcher to every drunk driver, who could somehow instantly stop the drunk’s driver if (when) he starts to immediately threaten someone. But we can’t.
      Because drunks account for so many accidents/injuries/deaths, society (not you) has decided that drunk drivers pose such a threat to society in general that they must be punished when found, whether or not they actually caused any harm. The POTENTIAL to cause harm, through an act (drinking) that is not only voluntary, but intentional, is great enough that, indeed, something should be (and is) done.
      Sorry if this interferes with your idea that until and unless someone actually causes harm they should be free to do whatever they want, but society disagrees with you. With good reason.

      • I happen to disagree very strongly with the OP, however, I figured I’d jump in here and play devil’s advocate. So, driving drunk needlessly and severely endangers the public, and thus should be illegal, right? Couldn’t you make the exact same argument in favor of gun control?

        I don’t personally believe that, not one bit. However, it does make for an interesting thought with regards to principle and where you draw the line, plus I’ve had antis make that argument at me, and I didn’t have a good comeback other than to insist that those are two different things. The distances between driving drunk then hitting someone and owning a gun then it being used to hurt someone innocent (negligently or intentionally) are pretty different, but I couldn’t formulate that into a strong counter argument. Thoughts?

        • I don’t think the comparison really works until politicians start pushing to ban cars due to drunk/irresponsible drivers.

    • Good lord look at everyone losing their shit about someone speaking some truth on the issue. Before everyone loses their minds again, I personally think people who DUI/DWI should have their nuts nailed to wall (literally, metaphorically, and legally), the simple fact is that throwing someone is jail for being sauced does NOTHING to prevent another death to drunk driving.

      Furthermore, many of the arguements you guys are throwing out against Serge and are the same statist bs used by anti’s. Just replace “drunk driving” with “owning a firearm” or “carrying a firearm”…

    • Ok… To the “but muh’ fee fees” brigade. Taking DUI off the books doesn’t get rid of things like reckless driving.

      Though I do find it ironic that a drunk woman is considered to not be able to form the mental intent to consent to sex, but a drunk man is considered to be able to form the criminal intent necessary to commit a DUI.

    • Sounds to me like maybe you’ve been known to get shitfaced and get behind the wheel and it pisses you off that it’s not legal. I have absolutely ZERO sympathy for you.

      • Son, I fought through a severe concussion and a cracked skull. A bit of alcohol doesn’t bother me and even if it did, you wouldn’t be able to tell without an unconstitutional warrantless search of my person.

    • I had a sergeant when I was at Ft. Ord. He liked to drink and SWORE that the problem with drunk drivers was that they didn’t have enough practice driving while loaded! He told me many times that since he drove almost every weekend while entirely soused he had plenty of practice and it was never an issue for him.

      We gave him a very nice military funeral after he drove full-speed on I-5 in Monterey into the rear of a Chevy van parked in the break-down lane. CHP said there was no indication of any attempt to stop or slow down.

      Driving while physically and/or mentally impaired is NOT a victimless crime, even if you happen to get away with it through pure dumb luck often enough.

  2. His booking picture shows a weight gain. Maybe he should eat better by laying off the shit-food and get some exercise, the tub of lard! Oh, alcohol has a ton of calories also.

    I’d say something snide about GLOCKS, but that’s too easy.

    • Rather than mocking it, I think we should commend this report’s terminology.
      Magazine, not clip.
      Round, not bullet.
      40-caliber, not .40mm or 40mm.

  3. Since he’s fat and serves in the Ohio House of Representatives, he would literally be a round in the Chamber.

  4. ““There’s a guy passed out in the drive-thru in his truck,” the 911 caller reported.”

    I came across one of those about 30 years back.

    Coming back home from out of town at about 2AM, I was behind someone when the light turned red in front of us. We stopped. The light soon turned green. The guy in front of me didn’t move. I tapped the horn. Nothing. I gave him a good blast from the horn. Nothing.

    Fuckit, I backed up a few feet and drove around him. Looking in his car, his head was leaned back on the seat, passed out (or dead, I suppose) *cold*.

    About two blocks down the road, a cop car passed me heading towards him.

    I trust ‘Officer Friendly’ woke his ass up for him… 🙂

    • When I was in high school, a local kid pulled up to a stop sign around 2 am, passed out, woke up around 7 am, and when he tried to pull away, his car ran out of gas. His eternal fame was assured. Obviously, now I think of it, that was early ’60s. Drunk driving was not illegal then, but he wasn’t old enough to drink, anyhow.

  5. Please explain, preferably someone with 1st hand knowledge.

    OK, I’m licensed with a state authorized CPL.

    I go with my office staff for a 4 hour lunch meeting at the local watering hole, or better yet, I take the wife out after work for dinner.

    Either way, I realize I’m not legal for Concealed Carry.

    So, I lock my UNLOADED Gat in the secure safe bolted into the bed at the back of my SUV. I remove the ammo to the forward glove compartment box.

    Am I legal, if we get stopped for speeding, or a broken tail light? Mind, you, I’ve given the keys to my wife, who hasn’t had a drop to drink.

    • I’d verify state laws in your area, but here in Colorado, I was advised that would be legal as far as carrying anyway. As long as the firearm is unloaded and out of “your direct control”, such as in a locked bx in the trunk, you’re not considered carrying. Here, the law states you may also carry your firearm in a bar or restaurant that serves alcohol, even have a beer (not that I would advocate carrying and drinking) as long as you are not intoxicated while carrying. A friendly law for the designated CC buddy when out on the town unlike some of our neighbors in surrounding states.

    • You are more than legal, at least with respect to the weapon. Your BAC may be a different story. The federal law only requires that the weapon be unloaded and in a locked container. Other than that, it says nothing about the ammo. There is nothing in federal law (or California law for that matter, although I’ve had any number of arguments with people about it) requiring the ammo to be stored separately from the weapon or even stored in a locked container. For example, I don’t know about you, but if I go to the LGS or WallyWorld and buy ammo, I don’t typically toss it into a lockable container, I just dump the bag on the floor. This is perfectly legal (except in New Jersey perhaps, if they are HPs). You?

    • It depends on where you are (what law are you under) and what definition of possession the courts go with.

      As a practical note, never consent to a search. You have a gun in your car that is locked up. How do the cops no it’s there? Especially when you are the suspect, never tell the cops anything unless you have an affirmative duty to do so. The “do you know why I pulled you over” question is the cop asking you to confess.

  6. Not one ounce of sympathy for people who drink & drive, including the so called ‘buzzed’. Been in THREE accidents caused where the drinking driver caused the accident; the last one the Police Officer told me “we just don’t interview people after the accident you just had”. This was the 1st time the victim was not dead. Remove him from office, jail for one year & revoke his CC.

      • The answer to your question, if you read any further, was stated: This was the 1st time the victim was not dead. What this means is that the accident was so horrifically violent that it was ALWAYS a non survivable accident. Of the many violent accidents of this type, I was the ONLY one not to be deceased. By the way, the drunk that caused the accident made a full confession. Any one that drives drunk, buzzed or whatever euphoniumism you want to call it get what the get; NO SYMPATHY.

  7. More like Irresponsible Driver of the Day

    If someone passes out in possession of a gun, it’s pretty unlikely to hurt someone. A car? Not so much.

  8. Legal for what? Possessing a firearm while intoxicated? I guess it depends on your particular state laws, but with the measures you describe I can’t imagine what you could possibly be charged with.

    • The DUI will suffice, but it doesn’t grab the same headline space. I’s because he is a Republican in a Republican majority state where the press and the City political elite are massively anti-gun. I think it was Cleveland that got slapped down by the State Supreme Court–TWICE–for passing local gun laws in violation of state statutes.

  9. Yep, agreed but, sorry, I was trying to respond to Lightfoot a few comments above – dang smartphone and fat fingers.

  10. I don’t get where one part of the story states that the weapon was found on the seat, and another part of the story states it was in the center console compartment, holstered. You’d think a journalist would, I don’t know, get the facts straight.

    • “You’d think a journalist would, I don’t know, get the facts straight.”
      You would think so, and be right in doing so, but, unfortunately, where looks and diction trump accuracy, you’d be wrong.

  11. Interesting about taking a nap in your legally parked
    car while intoxicated
    You know that you are in no shape to drive so you lay down in the backseat
    Car is not moving, no one is in any danger
    As long as you do not decide to move the car, that seems like it should not be a crime

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *