TexasCHLforum.com

LCP_Dogg wrote:Yeah there is no MINIMUM level of alcohol, so in other words if you are under 0.08, it doesn't matter because when you carry, there is no minimum level. If the LEO says you are intoxicated, YOU ARE.

Remember that the no minimum means you could have consumed NO ALCOHOL in the past FIVE YEARS and that's treated the same as having a beer an hour ago. Also I think it's more important if the JURY says you are intoxicated. If they say you weren't that overrides the opinion of the LEO.

Answer to the original heading of this thread...

No...

Story:

I had a beer (singular) at lunch yesterday during our regular weekly team building session...And you know what...Nothing happened...It was cold, tasty, and hit the spot in the right way...We all did, and it never seemed to effect our ability to go back to work, scream and holler, up and down the chain of command, and we still got stuff (work) done...

If we had consumed too much, we probably would have only screamed and hollered at each other...That has not happened, and never will...

This is really a personal judgement call...And one I really hope folks know that if you drink too much and become impaired (as defined in the law) enough to safely operate a motor vehicle, make error free mathmatical calculations, throw a dart and actually hit the target...I believe you would agree that doing anything with a firearm would be a big no-no till you sober up...

--end lecture--

stevie_d_64 wrote:.........to safely operate a motor vehicle, make error free mathmatical calculations, throw a dart and actually hit the target...--

uuuhhhh...how about one out of three on a good day


surv

mr surveyor wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:.........to safely operate a motor vehicle, make error free mathmatical calculations, throw a dart and actually hit the target...--

uuuhhhh...how about one out of three on a good day

Which one?

mr surveyor wrote:Most likely you are allergic to certain species of hops, if not all varieties.

It took me a long time to figure out that my aversion to beer was because I was allergic to hops. I hadn't realized there were multiple species of.....!

I went to a wedding last night and knew before hand I was going to be drinking (I was planning on getting a little buzzed). Therefore, I carried but after getting to the wedding I left the gun in the glove compartment (and since my wife is pregnant she was the designated driver).

This was on CNN this morning: http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/diet.fit ... index.html

From the article: It's not clear why even modest amounts of alcohol may shrink the brain.

Uh... Alcohol kills brain cells. Brain cells don't regenerate. Therefore the brain shrinks. Duh!

I was never a drinker anyways. For me getting a CHL didnt really affect anything in regards to alcohol. I will tell you (as Im sure will everyone else) that drinking while carrying is never an option for me.

I may have a beer with dinner, but outside of that I am not much of a drinker. A 6 pack of beer can/will last me 2 weeks. I never go out with the intention of getting wasted. If it happens, someone else drives. It hasn't happened since I got my CHL (and it probably won't) and it hasn't happened as I no longer go out due to a precious bundle of joy who makes me so tired, I'd rather sleep.

In answer to the original question-----No, but I did quit smoking

The CHL has not changed my drinking habits. While I was given the same misinformation ("can't drink at all!") when I first applied to get my CHL, that was cleared up nicely with the one of the multitude of carry/alcohol threads here. The law is quite clear that intoxicated means the same whether you are driving or carrying (it uses the same definition).

All of that said, I drink very infrequently (maybe once a month), limited to 2 drinks total (if I'm eating or have recently eaten; if not, just one). It generally takes me nearly an hour to finish a drink, so there's no sudden influx into my system anyway and much of the alcohol has already been processed by the time the drink is done. Above that, I weigh ~270 pounds with a large frame and lots of muscle - all factors that make a significant difference in the effect of alcohol in one's system. I carry wherever legal, and do not even come close to intoxicated at any time.

While I agree that carrying is a great responsibility, I think people should realize that driving under the influence of alcohol has more likely potential for serious consequences. A gun still requires deliberate action (drawing/firing or mishandling) to be dangerous in an intoxicated person's possession. Driving while intoxicated does not, beyond the decision to drive in such a condition. Please do not mistake this statement to construe that I do not believe carrying a gun while intoxicated is any less acceptable than driving while intoxicated. No one should carry a gun or drive in that condition.

My point is simply that you should understand how alcohol affects you and your physiology specifically, and whether you drive or carry should come from the same reasoning, as they are held to the same standard. If you choose not to carry when having any alcohol at all, then that is fine. I would challenge you to hold that same standard to driving as well. The standards of the law are the same, and driving while intoxicated has a vastly greater likelihood and potential to injure/kill yourself or someone else.

On the other hand, one drink does not cause a person who has a normal weight/metabolism to become intoxicated, short of some type of (prescription or otherwise) drug interaction. Blanketly not carrying because you are going to have one drink deprives you of your firearm when you may need it. Personally, I will not disarm simply because I'm going to have a beer with dinner. I may be the target of a robbery on the way back to the car, or any other number of scenarios that may require me to deploy my firearm. I follow the law on the very rare occasion that I go to a 51% establishment, but that does not change the amount and way that I drink. I always make certain that I will not be intoxicated, regardless of my carry status.

A LEO cannot just say "you are intoxicated" and you are. First there would have to be some sort of reason for an interaction requiring him to ask for ID, once you surrender your CHL the officer realizes that your eyes are bloddshot, your speech is slurred and you are swaying back and forth (reasonable suspicion your phsycophysical cabapilities are impaired) while you are carrying a firearm. From there the Officer asked you to perform Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (same ones as for DWI) and based on the pass/fail criteria will determine if clues exist that indicate you are intoxicated. From there the LEO can either ask you provide a breath sample for a PBT (portable breath test) or based on the tests arrest you on the suspicion of carry while intoxicated. From there he might ask you to provide a breath sample on the Intoxilyzer 5000 and collectively present all his observations, SFST results and breath results (if apllicable) to a DA for action. Much the same for PI or something of that nature.

NOTE: Unlike DWI, there is no implied consent laws in Texas for CHL as there is for a DL. You can refuse the SFST's, the PBT and the Intox. Leaving the officer(s) to rely on the initial observations, any spontaneous unterrances you might make, etc and present that to a DA.

From there it would be up to a Jury to convict you if you plead not guilty.

I would hope and pray this would never happen becuase I believe individuals who have gotten their CHLs are upstanding people and would not be in a position as mentioned above....TIme and time again it has been stated, Having a CHL is a huge responsibility and should be treated as such


Bryan