TexasCHLforum.com

anygunanywhere wrote:I always heard it was drunker than Cooter Brown.

You know how sometimes you hear/see/learn something new and it starts popping up everywhere, because now your head is set to notice it where you wouldn't before?

I sometimes put "Cops" on while I'm working. Not ten minutes ago I hear this:

Guy the cop stopped: "I didn't do nothin' wrong sir"
The cop: "You nearly wrecked, driving drunker than Cooter Brown"

I definitely know more ways to say it than "three sheets to the wind" now :)

I am curious now how coot owls have this reputation for being drunk. Am I liable to disturb avian twelve step programs if I wander the woods at night?

(edit: I went and googled the history of the phrase and that led to other neat expressions. love it)

Big picture, I'm a responsibility/consequences kind of guy. If somebody has a single drink, isn't drunk, and nothing happens - nothing happened (the point where we prohibit by law should be the point where we collectively decide the risk of a bad decision, and the benefit having legal consequences, actually justifies the prohibition). If something does happen - they own the consequences. (This is true for good consequences as well as bad)

I wouldn't support a "0.00 or no carry" law. I just think guaranteeing you're not intoxicated is simply and easily achieved by not drinking, so that's the choice I make. (I've probably talked about this too much already but I wanted that to be clear)

Shoot_First wrote:(1) If you left your pistol at home or locked in your car trunk while having dinner at a restaurant with your family, had a beer during the meal, and just before you paid your check a BG entered the place and opened fire killing a number of patrons including your wife and wounding one of your two kids would you regret your decision to go unarmed?

For that situation - out for dinner with my family - I'm choosing to not have the drink, not to not carry. That moots the question, at least for me.

Shoot_First wrote:(2 if you sit at home at night and have a beer or two while in the family room watching TV with your wife with a pistol within easy reach, would you reach for it if your home were invaded by a BG?

Honestly - at home, with a home invader - I think I'd go for it even if I were legally intoxicated. (which shouldn't be taken to mean I sit around at home legally intoxicated all the time, I'm just taking the hypothetical there - and I'd have put the gun away before I started drinking). At home, though, are you carrying under the authority of your CHL?

To me it's really a question of - is alcohol that worth it to me? The answer is ... not really. I'm not a teetotaler by any means, I just decided that I don't really care if I don't drink in public, and I didn't really drink that much to begin with, so what am I losing by having tea instead? Not much.

A consequences/benefit analysis here seems pretty clear to me. Low probability/high cost is the same situation I chose to carry for, so how can I dismiss a different low probability/high cost situation on the basis of low probability, when there's something I can do about it (i.e., not drink), especially when the 'high cost' of the second situation includes inability to legally carry to attempt to prevent the high cost of the first situation?

To word that in a more straightforward way: If I got busted and convicted for carrying while intoxicated, that's a Class A misdemeanor, right? License revocation, no legal carry for five years (I am ignoring the jail and fine here, but they count in 'cost' too - which is less than loss of life or limb but still high impact). I decided to carry because I want a means to defend myself and my family in an event that is not actually very likely to occur, but has terrible consequences - a carrying while intoxicated conviction is low probability (off one or two beers) but also has huge consequences ... consequences that impact the ability to legally carry.

android wrote:Seriously people, if you can't be around a firearm after one drink, I'm not sure I can trust you around ANYTHING after one drink.

It's not that I can't. In fact, through no fault of my own, I actually know I can with *more* than one drink. (Long story short, I was at a party at a house that wasn't mine, someone took a gun out of cabinet that was lockable but not locked - I cleared it (it was already unloaded), put it back, locked the cabinet, hid the key - all while I was in a condition I would describe as 'tipsy'. The next morning I told my friend where I'd hidden the key and gave him an earful for not having the cabinet locked in the first place. I am pretty sure I could go on an all out raging drunk, handle firearms until I passed out, and not shoot anyone, including myself, but that doesn't mean I'm going to *try* it or that I'd consider it a 'good idea'. Edit: part of the reason I think I *could* is that I think it's a bad idea and wouldn't do it unless I had to

So, yeah - it's not that I can't be around a firearm after a drink. It's that I don't want the hassle, so I won't put myself in that spot.

Under the law Keith B posted, being under 0.08 doesn't mean you're automatically free and clear, it means that if you're under 0.08 (i.e. you don't meet B) they can argue "not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties" (i.e. argue you met A) due to the or between A and B. Whether they're successful or not will depend on the specific circumstances.

However my instructor taught it (I don't remember exact words) I understood that he wasn't saying any BAC at all would break the law, just that he thought the best idea was 'don't drink' (which I agree with).

Apologies, for some reason when I'm on this computer posts always double tap. I should probably post from a different computer :)

MaxBerlin wrote:My solution so far is to unload the gun and separate the ammo from the gun prior to drinking. (gun center console, ammo and clip in glovebox)

If you have a trunk, lock the gun in your trunk, keeping the ammo separate. This might just be that I lived in California for a long time, but I wouldn't be surprised to see gun in console and loaded magazine in glove box treated as it still being on or about your person if you landed in a spot where they really wanted to hit you with some kind of charge.

Again, I think the best advice is, carrying == don't drink, driving == don't drink ( i think i read somewhere that the leading reason for chl suspension/revocation is DUI charges and convictions - so why risk it?)

My understanding is the law says 'intoxicated' but does not reference a legal limit as driving does.

My response to that is "I'll have a iced tea, thank you" any time I'm carrying.

(I don't think a single beer would cause loss of my faculties or control - but I'm not going to put myself in a spot where I wouldn't blow 0.00 if I'm carrying. My wife can have the glass of wine or two with dinner, I'll live vicariously through her )