TexasCHLforum.com

I think the state should run an FBI background check, run you for wants and warrants, and issue the CHL. That should take about 15 minutes per application.

I've purposefully have stayed clear of the direction this thread has taken, but I have to say a couple of things. Let me start by saying that I do not drink at all but I realize that drinking in and of itself is not a sin, drunkenness is. That said there is a legal and a moral definition of drunkenness. The legal is now .08% BAC, however I've known plenty of people who could exceed that handily without any loss of judgment, my father was one. He was real quick to refrain from driving when he was at that level.

The argument has been made (in response to one's position that drinking and gun carry are a matter of personal responsibility) that under that logic we should allow psychotic people and those on LSD to carry if we allow people to carry while drinking. This is a progressive fallacy (slippery slope, boiling frog argument) in that it is presumed that one degree is the same as or must necessarily lead to the next degree. I.E. One who drinks and/or reaches a level of intoxication must necessarily be dangerous if they have access to a firearm. Then it is presumed that allowing this person to have one we must allow those that have a disconnect with reality and/or are delusional. Surely, we can see the fallacy of a progressive, qualitative comparison from one who consumes an intoxicant vs. one who is either psychotic or under the influence of a psychoactive hallucinogen.

The argument has been made that operating a motor vehicle while above the legal limit and carrying a weapon present the same level of danger to the public at large. This is clearly fallacious, one can be of sound judgment but have poor reflex and coordinated responses. Using the same logic we can say that a person who suffers from Cerebral Palsy, advanced Parkinson's or MS that may not be allowed to operate a motor vehicle do not have the right to carry. The ability to operate a complex piece of equipment hurdling down the road cannot be rationally compared to the carry and use of a firearm. Judgment is a function of experience, maturity and wisdom. If one is of sound judgment, it will not be easily unsettled by consumption of alcohol. I would posit that in fact, one who possesses sound judgment will be the first to realize their impairment and take appropriate action.

I will agree that consumption of alcohol MAY effect one's judgment, mood and inhibitions. But denying one the right to protect themselves when they have had a few drinks because they MAY react and use it carelessly is presupposing an event that has not occurred will necessarily follow. Also, poor judgment exists without the use of alcohol and there are those that would make me nervous with a firearm (short tempered, belligerent, etc.) but I would not want them judging my fitness to be armed, so nervous as I may be, I will not judge theirs. So judgment is the issue, not whether one has had anything to drink,. I would suggest that if one was intoxicated enough to be a danger to themselves or others, than a PI would be chargeable...maybe "aggravated" if carrying.

I would hope that we CHLers would know ourselves well enough to know when not to carry or when to hand it over to someone else. Also, for the time being the laws are what they are and these arguments are largely academic.

But we cannot logically compare driving with carrying, drinking with drunkenness or for sensibility's sake; drinking with psychosis or hallucinogenic use.

chabouk wrote:

Keith B wrote:

chabouk wrote:See where I'm going? The argument is the same. Some of those things are illegal in Texas, while others are illegal in other states. Where do you draw the line? I draw it at personal responsibility and accountability for your own actions, instead of punishing or restricting people based on what someone else might do.

I don't see consistency at all. I am stating that carry while intoxicated should be illegal (as it is) and no different than operating a motor vehicle.

The difference is that having a gun is not the same as operating a gun. To be consistent, you should want people charged with DWI for having car keys in their pockets even if there's no evidence they intended to drive.

Another illogical analogy. A drunk with car keys is the same as a drunk with bullets. Without the car/gun, you're not going to do much damage with either.

And I was always taught that as soon as you load a firearm and place it in your hands (or holster), you are in effecting "using" the firearm until you unload it and/or store it. People who find out for first time that I carry concealed often ask "wow, have you ever used you gun?" and I always answer "I use it every day".

This active mindset - I am USING a gun right now - is what keeps me safe while carrying a deadly weapon on my person.

austinrealtor wrote:

chabouk wrote:

Keith B wrote:

chabouk wrote:See where I'm going? The argument is the same. Some of those things are illegal in Texas, while others are illegal in other states. Where do you draw the line? I draw it at personal responsibility and accountability for your own actions, instead of punishing or restricting people based on what someone else might do.

I don't see consistency at all. I am stating that carry while intoxicated should be illegal (as it is) and no different than operating a motor vehicle.

The difference is that having a gun is not the same as operating a gun. To be consistent, you should want people charged with DWI for having car keys in their pockets even if there's no evidence they intended to drive.

Another illogical analogy. A drunk with car keys is the same as a drunk with bullets. Without the car/gun, you're not going to do much damage with either.

And I was always taught that as soon as you load a firearm and place it in your hands (or holster), you are in effecting "using" the firearm until you unload it and/or store it. People who find out for first time that I carry concealed often ask "wow, have you ever used you gun?" and I always answer "I use it every day".

This active mindset - I am USING a gun right now - is what keeps me safe while carrying a deadly weapon on my person.

Okay, think we have the drunk thing covered. Basically dont drink and carry, and your chances of having problems with the law will go way down. Do you really want to be in court and the officer on the stand says "...and he had the smell of Beer on his breath"

marksiwel wrote:SO
What if?

What if you are drunk as a skunk at home, a Bad guy breaks into your house, and attacks you, you manage to grab your gun and shoot him.
The cops show up, and you are still pretty drunk.

What happens then?

Then you have a lot of explaining to do most likely. Not saying it wouldn't all end up as a "good shoot" for you, but you've opened yourself up to a huge pile of potential problems, criminal and civil action, etc. When it's a "he said" vs "dead men don't talk" scenario and the only one talkin is drunk, you gotta know you're in for a very long interrogation, detention, and possibly even arrest until the police can get a DA to decide if charges are warranted. Does same thing happen to sober people? Certainly. But I'm willing to guess you all but guarntee that scenario if you're a drunk shooter.

mr.72 wrote:

austinrealtor wrote: There is simply no way you can legitimately compare some supposed "right" to get drunk and do stupid things (like driving and carry a gun) with the well established right to keep and bear arms.

I think the point is being missed altogether but that's because when it comes to drinking, for most of us it becomes an emotional argument that has little to do with logic.

Actually it has everything to do with logic. It's very logical to assume that someone under the influence of mind-altering drugs (of which alcohol is the most widely used in the country) will be less able to perform even basic tasks correctly, and more complicated tasks involving dangerous machinery should be avoided.

mr.72 wrote:People have every right to do stupid things, including getting drunk and doing stupid things, as long as those stupid things don't wind up harming another person.

BUT THE PROBLEM with drunk driving laws and the assault on carrying a gun while drinking is that you are not prosecuting someone for actually harming another person, but you are prosecuting them because you have identified that they are in a state wherein they may potentially harm someone else. But folks, every person on earth may potentially harm someone else. Being drunk doesn't guarantee you are going to hurt somebody.

This is asinine that we prosecute people for their potential crimes. Haven't we seen "Minority Report"?

That argument is the same as saying I can't shoot a bad guy who points a gun at me and says "give me all your money or I'll kill you" because he hasn't actually harmed me yet.

Pre-emption of dangerous activity is not necessarily always akin to the death of liberty and freedom. By pre-empting drunk driving and drunk gun use, you're trading one liberty for another. The drunk loses his freedom, but I gain/retain my right to life.

If stopping a threat before it happens is always negative, then why do we arrest terrorists who are planning attacks? They haven't hurt anyone yet. It's a free country, keep on making your plans to build bombs, hijack airplanes, etc.

KD5NRH wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:Drunk driving laws have reduced drunk driving and drunk driving related deaths.

And banning cars would reduce them even further. Banning guns might even reduce gun deaths. Then again, there are some of us who don't like the idea of giving up rights for safety.

But now you're making a huge leap from those of us who're against banning drunken carrying of firearms are saying. I'm not saying ban alcohol or its consumption. I'm not saying ban guns or their use. I'm saying make it illegal to be drunk while possessing a firearm. Period. The fine print of how authorities determine if you're too drunk to carry is more detail than is necessary at this point.

And I do not take lightly giving up liberty for safety. I know the Benjamin Franklin quote by heart and have used it often. But unlike an infringement of my rights that I will resist - like banning all guns all the time - illegalizing CCWI has a discernable cause and effect and narrow focus. To say "it's too dangerous for regular citizens to walk around with guns" is to assume, with no basis, that all citizens are incapable of properly carrying guns." But to say "it's too dangerous for drunk citizens to walk arond with guns" is based on very sound discernable cause and effect evidene and a narrow focus of only removing the RKBA when someone makes the conscious decision to get drunk.

You don't have to drink, folks. If you want to carry, don't drink. If you want to drink, don't carry.

Keith B wrote:OK, this has really gone off topic (and I must admit i contributed to the off-topic portion). Let's get this back to how to improve the CHL program with constructive posts.

I, for one, think the fees should be lower and allow for earlier application on renewal.

oops, sorry Keith. I think I just fanned the flames with about 5 consecutive DWI-related posts before seeing your post.

It should be good for life, with a reasonable extra fee. Like Indiana.

Here's an easy test. Does the rule apply to cops?

If cops are prohibited from drinking while carrying, that's evidence the lawmakers believe alcohol and guns don't mix. If cops are not subject to the same rule, that's evidence they don't believe the rule makes sense.

Oh no!

Please don't open the 'legal for the government, should be legal for the populus' Pandora's box!

Kevinf2349 wrote:Oh no!

Please don't open the 'legal for the government, should be legal for the populus' Pandora's box!

Isn't that the best way to improve the Texas CHL program and gun laws in general?

Yes it probably is but it just ain't going to happen.

I actually believe that we should be able to own anything the government can (I even have that poster over my desk) but I just don't think it will happen any time soon.

What gets me is the way that some people (the antis and some judges) cherry pick which amendments they think apply and which don't. If one applies then all apply.
If the 1st and 13th Amendments count, so do all the others....including the 2nd.

Kevinf2349 wrote: What gets me is the way that some people (the antis and some judges) cherry pick which amendments they think apply and which don't. If one applies then all apply.
If the 1st and 13th Amendments count, so do all the others....including the 2nd.

Amen.

mr.72 wrote:

frazzled wrote: Cut the garbage. Guns and booze don't miz just as cars and booze don't mix. If you think you should be able to drink while caryring you need to stay home and not endanger the rest of our families-just your own.

I can say the same thing about "booze" mixing with all kinds of other of your rights, those protected by the Constitution as well as those you might hold dear that are not protected by the Constitution, and the argument will be just as valid.

Let's have a sobriety checkpoint at the entrance of a polling place.

Howabout you cannot exercise your freedom of speech after you have had a drink.

Or maybe you cannot be free to choose your own religion while you have been drinking.

Maybe your right to a fair trial only applies if you do not drink. Or maybe your right to raise your own children ends where your right to drink alcohol begins. Maybe even your very right to reproduce should be restricted to only those who don't drink.

This is a ridiculous argument. Drinking and driving, as an issue, has enjoyed some special status of broad and sweeping rights infringement in this country for decades. You can do anything to bend the Constitution into a complete spiral and ignore the rule of law as long as it has the intent of reducing "drunk driving". We are spreading this idealism of special-status infringement to other things as well, such as hate crimes and now even those who claim to support our right to keep and bear arms are supporting this infringement when it comes to carrying a gun. Why don't we just outlaw drinking instead? Of course, if we criminalize alcohol, then only the criminals will have alcohol.

Point is that rights infringement, overreaching government efforts to control behavior and special-class laws do not work, period. Drunk driving laws are not stopping drunk driving. Banning alcohol didn't stop the sale of alcohol. Banning carrying and drinking is not going to stop the practice. If you've ever known an alcoholic, you know good and well that stopping them from drinking from some external influence is impossible, and they are going to drink first and then add on every other thing they do in their lives. Drinking and anything doesn't really mix. But if drinking and <insert anything here> can mix, then you dang well better be able to drink and do the things that you have a Constitutionally-protected right to do. Drinking does not require one to waive their rights before they can take a drink.

I hope people soon realize what horrible precedent they have set with DWI/DUI laws