Customer Outs Himself

[ScottDLS]

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.

The same could be said for driving w/o CHL since the legal standard for intoxication is the same. The LEO may present evidence as to whether you were intoxicated, but ultimately a judge or jury would determine the facts using the evidence, including that from a breath test.

[OldCannon]

He shouted, "Hey ____! You got your gun? I got mine!" while patting his side.

That's not "concealed" and it's against the law. Says right here:

§ 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN[0] BY LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.

Drinks or not, if somebody called 911, he would get a trip to the "Free Photos and Overnight Stay" place, and would likely permanently lose his privilege to carry.

Too bad that didn't happen.

[Keith B]

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)

Yeah, he could be telling the truth.

[Teamless]

That's not "concealed" and it's against the law. Says right here:

I would have to disagree.

While I agree he should not have done that, verbally saying I have a gun, to me anyway, is not failing to conceal (it is moronic however), unless when he said "its right here", he exposed the weapon itself.
Concealed, as I understand it, is covered, not showing. failure to conceal is to have the weapon show, unholster it, pull it out, etc, but the weapon itself has to be seen.

[Ameer]

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.

You're right about that and some of those people can legally carry when they're drunk as a skunk.
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=35390" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They should change the law in 2011. Alcohol and guns don't mix, even if you use a badge to stir.

[Dave01]

I have a problem with both sides on this one. There is no doubt the guy acted stupidly shouting his (and his friends) carry status across a bar. There is also no doubt that the "0" limit is the best rule when carrying.

However, you and your boss were the ones who were ill informed about the law. The act of drinking while carrying is not illegal. Being intoxicated while carrying is. This line is perhaps too thin for most, which is probably a good thing. The thought of calling the police on this guy had at least crossed your mind, but you admit to not knowing how many beers he had. Also, while he exclaimed to the bar he was carrying, do you know for a fact he was or could it simply have been bravado? Or, as others have mentioned, was he carrying under some other authority? I wasn't there, but it seems kinda thin to consider bringing the police into this guys life.

Asking him to leave the premises however, would seem a legitimate course. It should at least communicate the point that his behavior is unacceptable.

[KC5AV]

I have a problem with both sides on this one. There is no doubt the guy acted stupidly shouting his (and his friends) carry status across a bar. There is also no doubt that the "0" limit is the best rule when carrying.

However, you and your boss were the ones who were ill informed about the law. The act of drinking while carrying is not illegal.

§ 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.

Ultimately it will be up to a LEO to determine whether you have 'normal use of mental or physical faculties', but make no mistake. You CAN be arrested for carrying if there is any alcohol in your system.

[olafpfj]

A possible explanation of this idiot could be that he was trying to make fun of his friend. This happened to me in San Francisco with a co worker. We happened to run into each other while out shopping in the clothing section of a store. While we we were friends at work, he was rabidly anti gun and knew I wasn't. He said hi and quite loudly said "make sure you get those shirts large enough to hide your gun...I know I am". Needless to say about every head within earshot turned in alarm. Being California I did not have a gun on me and he was obviously giving me grief and trying to embarass me. I was not amused.

I'm inclined to think that this is what this moron was doing and not actually drinking and carrying. I've seen this type of mocking "humor" from many an anti.

[74novaman]

Had a similar incident at a bar. Went to watch the US-England game with a british friend.
He's cheering a bit loud for England and we're getting some dirty looks. Though he doesn't say it loud, he turns to me and says "You've got your gun on you right?".

Of course, I didn't have it on me because we were at a BAR.

Seems to reinforce the "be careful who you let know you carry" rule.

[OldCannon]

That's not "concealed" and it's against the law. Says right here:

I would have to disagree.

...
Concealed, as I understand it, is covered, not showing. failure to conceal is to have the weapon show, unholster it, pull it out, etc, but the weapon itself has to be seen.

If you say you have a gun, pat the place where it's at, and I can see the outline when you've patted it, that falls into my book as _intentionally_ failing to conceal. It's the act of drawing attention to the fact that you have one and where it's at.

Perhaps a jury would disagree, but I think that dum-dum needs a trial of his peers to teach him a permanently sobering lesson.

[Teamless]

and I can see the outline when you've patted it,

With that, I agree, the outline of the weapon (to me) is the same as the weapon showing.

But no-where in the OP's info did she say that you could see the outline (unless I missed that part)
I actually assumed the guy was sitting, and unless someone was staring at his hip when he made the motion, it is doubtful it was seen.

[randomoutburst]

To clarify, the guy who shouted out stood up as he did so, while patting his hip. I couldn't discern whether that guy or his friend were carrying.

Dave01 - It's not a crime to drink while carrying, but as I stated in my original post, I suspected he had had more than one beer. He was not behaving soberly and was flushed. Since I serve alcohol for my job, I have a good idea of when someone's had too much. If he was indeed carrying, I think an LEO would have found him just under or at the legal limit. But you don't even have to be at that limit for it to be illegal - you only need to demonstrate impaired function.

[Purplehood]

As noted previously, it is not a crime to out yourself either. It might be criminally stupid, but it is not a crime.
From what I read of the "incident", calling 911 would be a waste of a dispatchers time.

[randomoutburst]

As noted previously, it is not a crime to out yourself either. It might be criminally stupid, but it is not a crime.
From what I read of the "incident", calling 911 would be a waste of a dispatchers time.

I agree on both counts here.

And, further responding to Dave01, I didn't say that I wanted to call the police. I simply said that I anticipated someone on the board saying that's what should have been done. There wouldn't have been a reason to call the police unless he was being threatening or had actually produced a gun.

[Jumping Frog]

"Carrying" while drinking is not prohibited, but it is a criminal offense to carry while intoxicated.

If anyone has a reference to case law involving a successful prosecution of a person for "intoxicated carry" after they had a normal beer or two, especially with a meal, please post it.

IIRC, the statute language is virtually identical for being intoxicated with a firearm and being intoxicated while driving.

As such, people tend to overthink "what is the definition of intoxicated" as if each police officer is going to make up his own judgment about what "intoxicated" means.

However, I would submit that there is already TONS AND TONS of case law on intoxicated driving, and there have been more court cases on that subject than you can shake a stick at. DUI defense is a breads and butter item for defense attorneys, and they already know what constitutes probable cause, standards of proof, LEO training requirements, impairment test procedures --- all of that stuff. I don't think an intoxicated firearm case would reinvent all those wheels.

One of the reason they added 0.08% alcohol is statutorily considered proof of impairment is because it closes that door to defense attorneys. It was a LOT easier to get people off on drunk driving charges before that law was passed. Proving intoxication is more complicated than you think.