TexasCHLforum.com

bkj wrote:Thank you for all the responses. A lot of the posts got into drunk driving and drinking problems. That is my fault I guess. I should have said “occasionally” and not “habit.” As he has a friend that was hit by a drunk drive, my son is very aliment about not driving under the influence.

So try this scenario
A person has a CHL and is carrying. This person stops to visit a friend. And he consumes one (1not 2 but more then 0) or two (1 more then 1 but less then 3) beers over a reasonable period of time so as to no exceed the .08 limit. Upon leaving he locks his firearm in a lock box under the front seat of his pickup truck.

In respect to the firearm and CHL is this person legal?

If the person is not in a restricted place (like a bar), he has no reason to disarm in the first place. If he's good to drive, he's good to carry. If he wants to, he can do what you describe, but I see no purpose in it.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

bkj wrote:My son is getting ready to take a CHL class. As he has a habit of stopping for a beer or two I mentioned that would have to stop when he is carry.

If he does this habitually, then he has a problem that needs to be addressed. Doing it once in a while is a non-issue; but if he does it every day, then he should be re-examining his priorities - and possibly even seeking help if it is not something he can stop. If that is the case, then he should not carry. Period. In fact, he would be in violation of that part of the CHL law which says you cannot be dependent on alcohol.

Being in the habit of having a beer or two a day does not automatically qualify someone as having a problem. I can remember my brother having a beer (or sometimes two) when he got home from work every day. This was never a problem by any stretch of the imagination, unless you consider enjoying good beer some sort of problem. He never drank to excess. Determining that someone has an alcohol problem because they drink once a day is dangerous, IMO. There may be individuals that this may be a problem for, but sweeping generalizations should not apply here.

If the OP stated that his son was in the habit of drinking daily to excess, that would be a different matter. Nothing I can read into his post qualifies that.

anygunanywhere wrote:I still hold that if you have to ask then you have a problem.

Given that the OP and his son were misinformed about a fictional ambiguous zero-tolerance law, I do think they have to ask, and that it doesn't necessarily indicate that he has a problem.

Keith B wrote:

Armybrat wrote:Since the post about my visit to Pat O'Brien's (San Antonio) on the 1911 and Ruger boards undoubtedly inspired this thread, I'll reiterate:
I don't consider having one drink with my restaurant dinner once in a while as "going out and drinking". Apparently some of the teetotalers equate that with pub-crawling or fratboy binge drinking - which I NEVER do. I know what the law says, and it does not say "no drinking at all when carrying"....or driving, for that matter. (I wasn't driving in my case).

My original concern was the placement of the 51% sign at that Pat O'Brien's.


But hey, beat up on me all you like.

Unless you are bkj's son, I am not sure how you see this as being about your post?

We have had various opinions on the one or two beers question over and over again on this forum. There will never be an agreement by all members. The fact is some folks can have two beers and be buzzed, while others it may take a 3-4 or more. Now, while 2 beers in an hour may not make you .08, it could possibly be impairing you. That is different per individual. My wife doesn't drink, is a small person, and one beer or glass of wine WOULD impair her. Me on the other hand, as a 'beer every once in awhile guy' and a larger person, it doesn't impair me with just one.

The biggest issue is if you are stopped and have been drinking, it is up to the officers discretion as to if you are impaired. If he feels there is probable cause to show you were impaired, then you could potentially have a CUI charge to challenge. It also doesn't have to be booze. Right now, I won't carry because I am fighting a cold and I can tell you the medication is impairing me.

So, we are all adults (or should be) and when making the call, you need to take a lot of factors into consideration before you do or don't.

Just my 2¢.

It's not up to feeling. The officer needs to show specific evidence that you are impaired. Feeling may motivate him to do it, but evidence needs to back up his supposition. The officer needs to demonstrate a clear reasonable belief that you are intoxicated, and the only standardized way to do that is with observations of your performance during the FST or with a BAC/breathalyzer test. Without specific evidence demonstrating you were intoxicated, there is much less of a case against you.

Then again, I'm not a lawyer, and have never been through this process. The law, however, does have specific guidelines for determining intoxication, and "I just think he is" doesn't cut it.

Anyone more knowledgeable or experienced is welcome to correct me, as I don't have personal or professional experience in this matter.

Just so we're clear on this:

46.035(d) :

(d) A license holder commits an offense if, while intoxicated, the
license holder carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H,
Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is
concealed.

GC 411.171

GC 411.171. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:
(1) "Action" means single action, revolver. or semi-automatic
action.
(2) "Chemically dependent person" means a person who
frequently or repeatedly becomes intoxicated by excessive indulgence
in alcohol or uses controlled substances or danaerous druas so as to
acquire a fixed habit and an involuntary tendency to be&me intoxi-
cated or use those substances as often as the opportunity is
presented.
(3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of
which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reason-
able person.
(4) "Convicted" means an adjudication of guilt or , except as
provided in Section 411.1711, an, order of deferred adjudication
entered against a person by a court of competent jurisdiction whether
or not the imposition of the sentence is subsequently probated and
the person is discharged from community supervision. The term does
not include an adjudication of guilt or an order of deferred adjudication
that has been subsequently:
(A) expunged; or
(8) pardoned under the authority of a state or federal official.
(4-a) "Federal judge" means:
(A) a judge of a United States court of appeals;
(8) a judge of a United States district court;
(C) a judge of a United States bankruptcy court; or (D) a mag-
istrate judge of a United States district court.
(4-b) "State judge" means:
(A) the judge of an appellate court, a district court, or a county
court at law of this state; or
(B) an associate judge appointed under Chapter 201, Family
Code.
(5) "Handgunn has the meaning assigned by Section 46.01,
Penal Code.
(6) "Intoxicated" has the meaning assigned by Section 49.01,
Penal Code.
(7) "Qualified handgun instructof means a person who is certi-
fied to instruct in the use of handguns by the department.
(8) ' '[mpealedbyAds 1999,76VI Leg.. ch. 62, Seclion 9.02.1

49.01:

Sec. 49.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:

(1) "Alcohol concentration" means the number of grams of alcohol per:
(A) 210 liters of breath;
(B) 100 milliliters of blood; or
(C) 67 milliliters of urine.
(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.
(3) "Motor vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section 32.34(a).
(4) "Watercraft" means a vessel, one or more water skis, an aquaplane, or another device used for transporting or carrying a person on water, other than a device propelled only by the current of water.
(5) "Amusement ride" has the meaning assigned by Section 2151.002, Occupations Code.
(6) "Mobile amusement ride" has the meaning assigned by Section 2151.002, Occupations Code.

It is the same standard as driving.

Russell wrote:bkj: Others may disagree with what I am about to say, including you.

I have never been a big drinker myself. But I have done my fair share of partying and drinking, both before and after receiving my CHL. Whenever I am going out with friends and I know we are going to be drinking, the gun stays home, period, end of story. No compromises, no "what if's", and no "how can I get away with it and still be technically legal?" I don't want a gun anywhere near me if I end up having to defend myself and I have been drinking. I will say this one thing, and hopefully you might agree and can pass it on to your son:


If you have to ask if you are legal when drinking, then you don't belong carrying a handgun. Your priorities are not where they need to be.


Please do not allow him to have a gun on him if he has a habit of stopping for "1 or 2" beers. Not only for his own safety, but for the safety of everybody around him. If he has to use it in self defense, it is going to be very hard to keep him out of jail if he has been drinking. He is not grown up enough if he has to ask questions on how he can be legal and still stop for some beers.

I am going to disagree. I am also not a big drinker - in fact I average less than one month.

I have no issue with a CHL stopping to have a beer or two. For a normal person, that will not cause intoxication unless the drinks are chugged in short succession. Even then, it would take a person who weighs considerably less than 100 pounds drinking two "light beers" in quick succession to break .08 BAC, according to the online BAC I'm reading ( http://www.ou.edu/oupd/bac.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ). Alcohol affects people differently, and intoxication could be at a lower BAC for some people. In your description, stopping and having a couple of beers over the period of an hour or two is not a recipe for impairment or intoxication. Your son needs to understand the gravity of the use of alcohol, but I'm not going to join the folks that think this is a terrible idea.

I'm going to disagree strongly with Rusell's statement: "I don't want a gun anywhere near me if I end up having to defend myself and I have been drinking." If I have to defend myself, I want a gun as close as possible. I do not drink to excess, or really what most would consider moderation. The most I ever have is 2 drinks in one sitting, and even then it is only when I am eating and/or staying for a couple of hours at minimum. Generally, I have one drink - when I do drink. The fact that I enjoy something to drink with friends should not deprive me of my most effective tools for self-defense. I'd much sooner have to defend myself in court and be well within my rights than be dead and have the tragedy of my death at someone else's hands weigh on my family and loved ones for the rest of their lives. I have intimate first-hand experience dealing with the consequences of a family member's inability to effectively defend herself against a violent, heinous, and deadly crime. I will not have that kind of tragedy hang over the hearts of my loved ones if there's anything I can do about it, and am determined to go about armed and prepared to defend myself whenever possible and within the bounds of the law.

I will say that you should advise your son to behave responsibly. You know him better than any of us can speculate. If he lives responsibly and a "couple" really does mean one or two, then I see no issue with him carrying to and from whatever establishment he has chosen. I also see no issue with him holstering back up when he returns to his vehicle. If he is not intoxicated and can legally drive, then he's just as good to carry.