TexasCHLforum.com

miajaipi wrote:

Bob in Big D wrote:Drink what ever you think your limit is at the Bar.....Just remember that the LEO that stops you will determine if you are intoxicated not a breathtest or anything else. So the burden will be on you to prove that you were not.....good luck with that and say bye bye to your CHL.

http://www.donotblow.com

That forwards to http://www.tylerflood.com/, the website of a DWI law firm.

Are you advertising?

Embalmo wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:

Embalmo wrote:I'm using the phrase "Verbally show" to mean verbally indicating one's carry status as armed; to tell someone that there is a gun in your pocket. To raise ones shirt to reveal the gun shaped bulge in one's bicycle shorts would be to physically show.

I agree that it doesn't say anything in the book about telling someone in friendly conversation that you're armed (where others may hear you), but I do think that it's a little gray when you consider that bicycle pants and loose lips yield the same results; that you gotta' gun in your pants. And you've also, naturally, got to be careful in places where LEOs and shopkeepers may not get the concept of non-compliant signs.

Embalmo

While imprudent, it is not illegal. Is that what you mean by calling it a gray area? That you might be legally OK, but that it might not be worth the potential hassle, fallout, or fright to do so?

Sorry-I never answered your question. Yep-That's what I meant.

Well, anyone who carry a gun in a pair of spandex bicycle shorts is arguably exhibiting "intentional failure to conceal....."

....and might be a bit of a perve to boot.

A clear and well argued post, and I agree in princple! That said, I don't think that a prosecutor is going to avoid the chance to try and throw alcohol into the mix if defense counsel isn't sharp enough to get that excluded.

Also, I think that there needs to be clarity on what "impaired" means. There's "legally impaired," or "judgmentally impaired," which are standards that might be looked at in a court of law. But then there also is the reality that one might not be judgmentally impaired, but that a single beer might make the difference in one's own reflexes and the ability to deploy a weapon in time to a legitimate threat. That has to be a personal standard that each person must set for him/herself. The presence of one beer's worth of alcohol in your blood, particularly after a big dinner, is not likely enough to be judged any kind of legal impairment. But it really is up to the individual whether the smallest amount of physical impairment is a standard you can live with and you cut yourself a little slack and not worry about it; or do you set for yourself an absolute Zero standard. It's up to each to make that decision

BrianSW99 wrote:I agree, the guy at the bar sounds like he was either intoxicated or a total moron.

Agreed. I think Brian's rule is good: If I'm OK to drive, then I'm OK to carry. And I'm pretty discriminating about whether I'm OK to drive or not. Working in an ER for 5 years will do that to you. In fact, I rarely ever consume any alcohol in public at all. (The 3 or 4 friends on this board who have seem me do so, have witnessed a very rare event. You should feel privileged. ) About the only time I even drink at home is if I'm having a barbecue and I invite friends over. But even then, 2 or 3 beers over the course of an afternoon and evening is about my limit. Love the taste. Don't like the buzz. I've stuck a 6 pack in the fridge before, and 8 or 10 months later it will be still mostly untouched.