Pros and Cons of CHL

[Skiprr]

You all missed one other point. It doesn't have to be an illegal or controlled substance.

Absolutely. We've talked about that before, too. That's why it's always important to me to go back to the actual wording of the law in PC §49.01: "...the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body." (Emphasis mine).

Some people go nuts over the lack of specificity or ambiguity but, when you seriously consider it, there's really no other route the legislature could take on this. No one can predict what substance du jour might be used intentionally by someone wanting to become intoxicated, so there is absolutely no way to legislate against it. To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld: in this case, there are known unknowns.

Heck, a few years ago a new term even had to be coined just because of this: SLIDs (Synthetic Legal Intoxicating Drugs). There are "incense" products (aka "Spice") that contain synthetic cannabinoids that have elicited seizure-like conditions. And who could have predicted that idiots would take products marketed as "bath salts" and snort them in order to induce psychotic-like states...and go chew on people's faces. I even remember, many years ago, a trend that popped up that had other idiots take a Vick's inhaler, smash the plastic casing, then swallow the insert in order to get high.

And Steve brought up the "Twinkie defense." Can you become intoxicated on sugar? Or sugar combined with caffeine? My vote is yes. I've been around too many software coder types that I swore had to be on more than that, but simple sugar and caffeine can be a potent combination.

How 'bout this one: ever heard of "water intoxication?" Yep; you can actually drink too much water too quickly and display symptoms of intoxication, including fatigue, nausea, vomiting, and mental disorientation. The condition is actually "hyponatremia," or excessive dilution of the blood. No small matter: the condition can also be deadly, and has resulted in a number of publicly-reported deaths, including a young woman in California who pumped water down herself as part of radio station's on-air contest.

Now, would a DA prosecute over having consumed too much water? Dunno. Probably would depend on what the person did after "water intoxication." If a LEO pulls that person over after witnessing erratic driving and the driver is throwing up and can't stand or walk properly? Gonna take the ride; the LEO has no choice. And a breathalyzer won't detect bath salts, sugar, or hyponatremia.

The subject has also come up about conditions which might exhibit symptoms of intoxication, but that did not result from the "...introduction of...any other substance into the body." These could range from severe migraine headaches, to hypoglycemia, to petit mal epilepsy, to a minor stroke (TIA), to even hyperventilation.

My interpretation--and I'm no lawyer; always read my signature line: I really have no idea what I'm talking about at any given time--is that the law does not consider any of these internally-occurring conditions, despite whatever symptoms are displayed, to be "intoxication." And with good reason: they are involuntary (well, if you ignore one obscure yoga practice that purposely induces hyperventilation).

The subject of alcohol, intoxication, and CHLs comes up constantly, and we'll see a new thread about it started in, oh, about six or eight weeks.

But that's not a terrible thing. At least it's on people's minds. And although there seems to be a lot of misinformation about what is a relatively straightforward law--some of the misinformation coming from CHL instructors--the misinformation leans toward "you cannot have even one drink and carry"...and that's better, IMHO, than if it leaned the other direction.

When these threads pop up, though, they tend to become long and obfuscated because there seems to be difficulty in making the distinction between "legal" and "best."

Is it legal to have a glass of wine with dinner if you have your CHL and are carrying? The law says absolutely nothing to the contrary.

Is it the best personal choice to drink alcohol--or take an antidepressant or pop 6mg of melatonin or have too much sugar and caffeine--while carrying? IMHO, no, it is not. But that's a personal and ethical choice that the individual needs to make for himself or herself.

The law is pretty simple. The pertinent statute in PC §49.01 is only 75 words long. The personal decision about the best thing to do is more complex.

My advice: Do the right thing. In this case, that means a stricter code than called for by the letter of the law. YMMV.

[Liberty]

To get back to original Question.
I originally pursued getting my CHL so that I c ould legally carry while in my car. While the original travel provisions made it clear except to the most ignorant of LEOs prosecuters and judges, that it was perfectly clear to carry in ones car. Soon it became clear to me that keeping a gun in the car solved only part of the problem. The issue is we mostly expose ourselves to the bad guys whjen we get out of the protective cocoon of neighborhoods. Living in a remote small town might seem safer, but there is crime there also. They like building the meth labs away from the big city. The bad guys like leaving the big city to cause havoc in the smaller towns. The Hells Angels made their claims to fame by taking over and terrorizing the smaller towns, they knew better than to mess much with the big city and their better manned police departments.. If I had to make a choice I would rather be armed outside my car than inside my car. Even while just getting gas, going from the back of the vehicle to the front of the car takes time one doesn't usually have during these occasions.

Pro: you can take your gun with you when you pretty much whenever you want to.
Con: you have to pay the government the instructor and the fingerprint taker: