TexasCHLforum.com

Oldgringo wrote:

Crossfire wrote:

BrianSW99 wrote:I don't think you can say that 1 or 2 beers would definitely be illegal. Since the definition of intoxicated is left vague, I think it ultimately would depend on the demeanor of the person with the officer and whether they "act" intoxicated or give the officer reason to suspect they are.

I think that shouting out in a crowded restaurant bar that "I have my gun!" is probably evidence enough of intoxication.

The Second Amendment and ability to pay the fees notwithstanding, not everyone has the maturity and judgment to have a CHL.

True, but it wasn't established that that guy was a CHL, a special investigator/off duty FBI agent/US Marshall/Personal Protection Officer/judge or justice/arson investigator/Game Warden/etc etc etc.

He was probably one of the "Men in Black" alien investigators from Washington. (From movie, Men in Black)
Probably there investigating the low flying jets used to cover the alien ship noises viewtopic.php?f=83&t=38273" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Conversation which probably has never in history happened before:
(I'm positive no officer ever heard this before,,,)

"Officer ,,,I only had one"
LEO : "Ok, I believe you"



(just kidding)

I may be misunderstanding a statement made ...
"excluded during discovery" ?????

I'd contend it is certainly should be discoverable, even though possibly it may or may not be admissible later.

IANAL, but I handled discovery for a law firm, in literally thousands of both State and Federal cases as Senior Legal Assistant for for almost 25 years prior to retirement.

I'd state it is necessary in particular in determine what an impaired actor "believes" or "reasonably believes" while impaired.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... m/PE.9.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

glbedd53 wrote:I made up my mind that the best cut off number is 0. I know if I ever have to use that gun there will be too many challenges for my little brain already without throwing alcohol into it. .

And the Grand Jury and following trials would be sure to hear testimony on what effects even a little bit of alcohol have on reflexes and judgment .... Like the commercials ... "Buzzed driving = drunk driving"
Just not a situation to be in.
I wouldn't want to have to prove "justification" under impaired judgment.... even a little bit.
That's just asking for both a criminal and civil trial.