TexasCHLforum.com

I think if one has a CHL and has to ask this question (everyone has their own self righteous opinions outside of the law), your CHL instructor owes you a refund but worse, you haven't done your own homework and are relying on a few hours in a class to dictate personal responsibility. So slap yourself on your own hand. :D

To the OP - Why would you want to drink and carry? Just as the same as why anyone wants to drink and drive? Someone else ends up paying for a stupid act.

OldGrumpy wrote:To the OP - Why would you want to drink and carry? Just as the same as why anyone wants to drink and drive? Someone else ends up paying for a stupid act.

OldGrumpy wrote:To the OP - Why would you want to drink and carry? Just as the same as why anyone wants to drink and drive? Someone else ends up paying for a stupid act.

Just because you lose all self control after one beer doesn't mean everyone else has the same problem.

Ameer wrote:

OldGrumpy wrote:To the OP - Why would you want to drink and carry? Just as the same as why anyone wants to drink and drive? Someone else ends up paying for a stupid act.

Just because you lose all self control after one beer doesn't mean everyone else has the same problem.

Bawahahahaha... That was funny... I don't care who you are.

Ameer wrote:

OldGrumpy wrote:To the OP - Why would you want to drink and carry? Just as the same as why anyone wants to drink and drive? Someone else ends up paying for a stupid act.

Just because you lose all self control after one beer doesn't mean everyone else has the same problem.

I resemble that remark as it has been close to 30 years since I have consumed beer. I'm sure it wouldn't take much to make me very silly.

Heck, I probably shouldn't even smell the cork! ...if beer cans had corks.

My two cents. I do not drink. I am a former LEO and have lots of experience in dealing with those that do. I am one that subscribes to the fact that one drink impairs you somewhat. I believe if you carry a weapon you should not be consuming any amount of alcohol. NONE.

Under current law the decision on if you are impaired is a judgement call on the part of the LEO. The law does not specify a level of impairment such as it does for DWI, .08. I am very pro police, but I know when things are not specified that bad judgement can at times prevail. I would like to see the law contain a level of impairment such as .04.

Just my opinion.

dac1842 wrote:My two cents. I do not drink. I am a former LEO and have lots of experience in dealing with those that do. I am one that subscribes to the fact that one drink impairs you somewhat. I believe if you carry a weapon you should not be consuming any amount of alcohol. NONE.

Under current law the decision on if you are impaired is a judgement call on the part of the LEO. The law does not specify a level of impairment such as it does for DWI, .08. I am very pro police, but I know when things are not specified that bad judgement can at times prevail. I would like to see the law contain a level of impairment such as .04.

Just my opinion.

I realize this brings the thread to full circle again but you just brought up my concern. All it takes is one police officer with a low tollerence for drinking and we can find ourselves fighting a bad situation. It would be nice if there were some kind of actual number attached.

Politically, it may not be possible. The public in general might get an image in their head of guys with guns drinking all over town. To establish a lower limit would in essence have the same appearance as the government saying it is OK to drink and carry. The way it sits now covers both situations. The government is not saying it is OK to drink and carry but they aren't exactly saying it is illegal either.

I am not saying I agree or disagree. I am just posing a possible reasoning for the way the law was originally worded.

gigag04 wrote:The second post should've ended the thread IMO...

Just to keep the thread going beyond the 6th page....

Can I carry after I drink a 17oz sugary drink a.k.a. Coca Cola (tm)...? Unlike the 99.9999999999% of the posters (as self reported) I do drink alcohol. I also drink significant amounts of coffee, which occasionally leave me impaired. I don't drink large sugary drinks... I did when I was younger and stupider, but I stopped in my 20's.

I also eat trans-fats...I understand that this can cause hardening of the arteries and potentially lead to heart attack and stroke. Would this mean if I was carrying and had a stroke, I could be charged with Carrying While Impaired (CWI)? What if the paramedic took me to a 30.06 posted hospital? Is there any level of trans-fats that mean you're impaired, or is it up to the LEO?

My total cholesterol is just over 200 (201). According to my doctor under 200 is better. He is not ready to prescribe statins yet, but if he did, could I carry while taking Zocor? Is there a BZC that is automatically impaired?

dac1842 wrote: The law does not specify a level of impairment such as it does for DWI, .08. I am very pro police, but I know when things are not specified that bad judgement can at times prevail. I would like to see the law contain a level of impairment such as .04.

Just my opinion.

I second what you subscribe to, but...

The law DOES specify a level of impairment as has been posted in this thread. Also, the .08 is one of TWO choices in determining intoxication. That's why there is a choice A OR a choice B.

CHAPTER 411. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS
Subch. H. LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN
GC §411.171. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:
...
(6) “Intoxicated” has the meaning assigned by Section 49.01, Penal Code.

CHAPTER 49. INTOXICATION AND ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE OFFENSES
Sec. 49.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(2) "Intoxicated" means:
(A) not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of 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; or
(B) having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.

Nowhere does it say it only applies to DWI.

LOL... The thread that would never die!

03Lightningrocks wrote:LOL... The thread that would never die!

What, no "bacon" reference. I'm disappointed in you.

If alcohol is such a problem, you really have to wonder why the law applies only to concealed handgun license holders and exempts peace officers.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

bayouhazard wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote: Just to be sure I am not confused. It is OK for me to get catter walling drunk and carry... Just so I am not intoxicated? Correct?

As long as you're not brandishing in a post office bathroom while wearing a CHL sash and tiara.

I mean no disrespect but do you have one of them there fancy code and section numbers so I can verify this information. You know, like a 63.05 or something. I am also curious about whether or not this law covers the size of my tiara and what happens if I am also wearing a bunny rabbit costume.

Your head is at least as big as mine, and I require a 4XL tiara. If your butt is as big as mine, they don't make bunny rabbit costumes to fit us. You have to go up in class to a Pooka costume......although unless you're 6' 3.5" tall like Harvey was, it will be a bit droopy in the drawers.