TexasCHLforum.com

What purpose does a bar have if it's illegal to be intoxicated there? I don't buy into the pre-emptive policing ideas, it's the same argument gun control advocates use all the time.

dolanp wrote:What purpose does a bar have if it's illegal to be intoxicated there? I don't buy into the pre-emptive policing ideas, it's the same argument gun control advocates use all the time.

I don't mean for this to sound glib or sarcastic, but... A publicly accessible establishment is just that; public. If you drink in such a manner to become intoxicated AND you are in a public place - you may be cited for public intoxication. Seems pretty simple to me.
And carrying a weapon at the same time only serves to make matters worse. Rightly or wrongly - the appearence only serves to give the ANTI-gunners more ammunition.
Just my .02

Obviously, public intoxication on the good-bad scale is bad. I appreciate the belief that public intoxication while carrying is on the bad end of the scale as well.

Let us examine this for a moment. Is it the fact that a person is armed or that he is publicly intoxicated? If a person is PI, is he more dangerous if he is eating a steak and using a big ol' steak knife?

I am not advocated intoxication in public at all. As stated previously, PI is a judgement call. Is your second ammendment right a judgement call as well? Does the constitution say that when I am at Gaido's in Galveston and want to share a realy nice sauvignon blanc over two dozen fresh gulf coast oysters with the wife on our 30th anniversary that I have to leave my firearms at home?

Placing generalized restrictions on carry just because you have some aversion to what others believe is normal behavior is the same thing the gun grabbers are doing on a daily basis. This no carry if a little alcohol is involved is bull. Hang a sign around my neck that says "Rob me I have been drinking" or hang one on my house that says "kick down the door, Jack Daniels on board. The DA will prosecute the homeowner if he shoots you".


Rights are rights, and maintaining these rights while you are doing something legal is what America is about. Or used to be.

anygunanywhere wrote: Placing generalized restrictions on carry just because you have some aversion to what others believe is normal behavior is the same thing the gun grabbers are doing on a daily basis. This no carry if a little alcohol is involved is bull. Hang a sign around my neck that says "Rob me I have been drinking" or hang one on my house that says "kick down the door, Jack Daniels on board. The DA will prosecute the homeowner if he shoots you".


Rights are rights, and maintaining these rights while you are doing something legal is what America is about. Or used to be.

I agree that you may have a very good point and you have every right to carry that forward for the rest of us as a perfect test case if the need arises.

Trainman wrote:I agree that you may have a very good point and you have every right to carry that forward for the rest of us as a perfect test case if the need arises.

A test case is not the issue here, Trainman. Restricting firearms owners just because they actually exercise their rights is the issue. The way the issue of firearms, arming oneself, and normal legal activities are treated, if you choose to arm yourself, you can not act like a normal free American. The whole point of this thread is what we as a group, individuals who must obtain a "license" to exercise our right, would like to see changed during the next legislative session. Okay, tell the legislature we, as a group, do not want to be trated as freaks, gun nuts, abnormalities, and a minority, who can not exercise our freedoms and liberties just because we do what we do.

It is not pre-emptive policing if someone is already intoxicated in public. Should we let these criminals get into their cars and then try and stop them. No.

I think I will not do any more "pre-emptive" policing to avoid being compared to a gun grabber. I will wait for the hold-up guy to shoot the clerk when I drive up on an armed robbery. I would hate to shoot him because he was pointing a gun at her, because that would be pre-emptive. I am just assuming he is going to kill her, and that would be way too pre-emptive.

If that sounds stupid, well it is. So is letting a drunk sit in a bar and not arresting him. Should I assume he is not going to get into his car and go N/B on SH-146 and kill three children that were with mother and father. Dead is dead. A drunk driver that kills someone is not any different from a person who kills someone in a robbery. At least the robber had the motivation of money, the drunk killed someone because he lacked self-control and was too lazy and cheap to get a cab.

Do you know the amount of complaining people did when officers used to watch drunks get into their cars and wait for them to drive before they stopped them?

Glenn

I will continue my rant if I still have anyone reading.

If you want a glass of wine with dinner and carry a gun, great, I can live with that. It should be noted though, when we choose to carry a gun and not be a sheep, we have added responsibilities and sometimes we have to alter our conduct as well. There is nothing that says you have to have a beer or wine with dinner, but if you choose to do so, do not drink so much that you will be a danger to yourself or others in the opinion of an LEO.

How can someone make the argument they are carrying a gun for self defense, but yet voluntarily, induce a substance into your body that dulls your senses? If you are that concerned with personal safety, don't handicap yourself from the start.

Glenn

Well my problem is the whole 'opinion of the LEO' part. There should be a legal definition that is not subjective. Too much room for abuse or mistakes.

There is a legal definition:

PC 49.02 Public Intoxication

(a) A person commits an offense if the person appears in a public place while intoxicated to the degree that the person may endanger the person or another.



We depend on officers to use their judgment and opinion on all sorts of situations. These officers receive training as to what intoxication is and learn more through experience. There are scientific tests - horizontal gaze nystagmus, and standardized field sobriety tests that can be conducted.

How many here would object to implied consent to SFST's or portable breath test? I bet most people would. There is even someone on here that was talking about breath test being illegal searches, etc...

Bottom line is, if you don't drink more than ONE DRINK, than you have nothing to worry about. If you drink more than ONE DRINK, then you are wrong, and you are on your own.

Glenn

Baytown wrote: Bottom line is, if you don't drink more than ONE DRINK, than you have nothing to worry about. If you drink more than ONE DRINK, then you are wrong, and you are on your own.

Glenn

NOT SURE HOW THIS QUOTE THING WORKS.

Baytown, I was glad to hear your opinion on one drink with a meal, it's in line with what I suggest to questions about limits and the limit I use for myself.
I'm not much of a drinker but I do enjoy a single shot of good Tequila before a special meal and have alway's felt OK with that. In my defense this happens about six times a year and only if they have Patron, Sauza Tres Generaciones or some thing on that order, I like the song but don't drink Jose.
Tomcat

My personal policy is not to drink any alcohol, when I'm carrying - which is all the time. I don't believe the law should require absolute abstinence, I’m just concerned about perception and prejudice, if I were forced to shoot in self-defense in a restaurant. This is purely a personal choice. (For those at the seminar, remember the snapshot?)

I also believe it is prudent for the Legislature to prohibit carrying while intoxicated. However, defining public intoxication as “. . . intoxicated to the degree that the person may endanger the person or another� is far too subjective. I agree that it works for PI, as the consequences are relatively minor - a Class C misdemeanor. DWI on the other hand carries far greater consequences and we require a more objective standard of measurement; i.e. .08% blood-alcohol level. (Yes, I know a conviction can be had without a .08%, but it's difficult.) Since the consequences of carrying while intoxicated are far more serious (Class A misdemeanor) I think the .08% standard should be applied.

I’m not worried about Glenn, or most LEO’s for that matter, but a politically motivated officer or Chief could misuse the far more subjective PI standard, when dealing with CHL’s. I was present in Austin in 1995 and heard an HPD Sgt. (name withheld) testify under oath against SB60 (CHL bill) and say he didn’t know of a single officer’s wife, or any other family member, who carried a handgun. All of the officers, Troopers and deputies in the audience roared with laughter. Are such officers few in number? You bet! Can they wreak havoc on your life if you encounter them? You bet!

I absolutely agree that carrying a gun while you are intoxicated should be against the law. I would simply like to see a more objective standard applied.

Regards,
Chas.

dolanp wrote:What purpose does a bar have if it's illegal to be intoxicated there? I don't buy into the pre-emptive policing ideas, it's the same argument gun control advocates use all the time.

This reminds me of that "designated decoy" joke I saw floating around these forums a while back...

Baytown wrote:I will continue my rant if I still have anyone reading.

If you want a glass of wine with dinner and carry a gun, great, I can live with that. It should be noted though, when we choose to carry a gun and not be a sheep, we have added responsibilities and sometimes we have to alter our conduct as well. There is nothing that says you have to have a beer or wine with dinner, but if you choose to do so, do not drink so much that you will be a danger to yourself or others in the opinion of an LEO.

How can someone make the argument they are carrying a gun for self defense, but yet voluntarily, induce a substance into your body that dulls your senses? If you are that concerned with personal safety, don't handicap yourself from the start.

Glenn

Harrumpf...I read everything...

I think its safe to say that those who have commented on this thread are not going to act in an unsafe manner when it comes to alcohol/driving/carrying a firearm issue...

I for one will not tip a glass of an adult beverage while carrying...And I carry just about everywhere I can...So that means I'm mostly off the wagon...Does that make me less of a person??? No...

I did used to think it was a dead givaway early on in my carrying career that I would refuse a beer, or other alcoholic drink and that those who knew me and knew my stance on issues could assume I was actually carrying then...So for some reason I felt insecure...I still refused the drink of course, but then figured out that it shouldn't really make me feel "exposed" for some reason...

I'm sure deep down we all know better, and that it may be unofficially acceptable to have one (for social purposes) to blend in...Its an individual judgement call...

I think it shows good character on all of you to discuss this serious subject and get your personal ideas on the table to talk about it...

The overall thread points are good goals to see if we can get implemented in 2007...

I can't poke a lot of holes in them at all...

Baytown, I couldn't agree more with everything you said. And I'd like to add...

Anyone who is carrying a firearm should not have even a single drink of alcoholic beverage. When you drop that firearm into your holster you are making a statement. That statement is that you are of the most sound mind and judgement you can have. You are in a mode of heightened awareness about your surroundings. You are taking proactive personal responsability for your safety and for the safety of your loved ones and possibly even a third party. Alcohol even in small quantities will impair your judgement, awareness, and abilities.

You can probably guess how I feel about carrying in bars.

My wife and I rarely drink and when we do, it is usaully at home. If out at a resturant and I or my wife have a drink, which is unusual, the other will not drink and will be the driver. Yes even after only one drink. Further, it is usually decided before we go if one of us wants a drink. If it is me, then I won't carry. If it is her, then she won't carry. Either way one of us is still armed.

As far as Bars are concerned, I wouldn't have a problem with having a breathilyzer at the door. Coming and going! I know "violation of civil rights", "illegal search". Blah, Blah, Blah

I read another post about someone who was aggravated about being stopped for not dimming his headlights. Would I be aggravated? You bet. But, the officer issued a warning and basically explained the reason for the stop. The Bar. Maybe they have had problems with drunk drivers from that Bar. Do you think the stop might have gone differently if the driver ,with his CHL, had a drink while waiting to pick up his wife and the officer smelled alcohol? Would the officer believe the CHL'er when he said "no I haven't' been to that bar."? Maybe, but I bet the stop would have taken a different tone and would have lasted alot longer.

Thanks for letting me ramble

Eric

We need a number of firearm laws passed or statutes changed in the 2007 session.

1. Range Protection Bill
2. Employee parking area exemption or protection despite company policy
3. Civil Suit Exemption if No Billed or Exonerated in Self Defense Action
4. Removal of restriction in Universities, Sporting Evens, LCRA Property

Dreaming…

1. An Advanced Level CHL that includes much more training, higher skill level and mental evaluation, that would remove all restrictions of where one could carry. Schooling 40+ hours, skill level about that of an Air Marshal, and mental stability evaluation and interviews with co-workers, friends, relatives, etc.
2. No sales tax on any firearms, ammunition, or related equipment for anyone with a CHL
3. CHL would also authorize carrying of other normally prohibited weapons such as; dirks, daggers, Bowie knives, switch blade knives, etc.