TexasCHLforum.com

57Coastie:

I agree in practice, but again, it's my choice. It's what I believe any responsible CHL holder should do, but I don't wish to impose by statute this standard on anyone. Do we need a zero percent BAC? I think not. Assigning a number that is significantly lower than the BAC for driving simply hurts our cause in the eyes of our anti-gun opponents. It simply raises a red flag saying we're too feckless to be trusted with a gun and alcohol. Basically, my point is leave the law alone and let's all agree to be responsible and prove (to the extent possible) that gun owners, and CHL holders in particular, are a responsible group.

Liberty wrote:...and typically women were involved.

You just HAD to go there...

57Coastie:

While I agree with you in principle, I have to question the ramifications of imposing a zero-tolerance 'anything greater than zero' blood alcohol content.

Many would argue, and some rightly so, that their judgment is unaffected by a .01 or .02 BAC. If we compare this to driving an automobile, most states have adopted the somewhat arbitrary number of .08 percent. I call it 'arbitrary' because not every individual reacts identically to alcohol in equal amounts. It can be demonstrated through statistics, however, that this number is the average minimum for which a driver might be considered too impaired to drive a motor vehicle safely. I don't believe there is any similar statistical evidence quantifying one's level of impairment related to carrying a firearm.

Here's where I'm going with this: I, like most of you, am an ardent supporter of our Second Amendment rights and cringe at anything that puts our right to carry in a bad light. I believe setting a lower BAC limit for carrying a firearm does just that. When arguing gun violence and gun death statistics, we seem to always find ourselves comparing gun deaths to deaths as a result of automobiles. As you know, automobile deaths are considerably higher than gun deaths, and we pro-gunners then concede that there are more cars on the road at any given time than guns, etc., etc. However, assigning a number, especially zero, to determine a concealed weapon carrier incapable of sound judgment bolsters the anti-gunner's argument that guns are unsafe in any hands at any time.

I, personally, don't mind the law as it stands. Taking my chances with an officer's discretion is preferable to adding fuel to the anti-gun left's belief that we are inherently unsafe, and may become murdering lunatics after a single beer. It really makes no difference to me, as I seldom ever drink while carrying; and in the unlikely event that I do, I never have more than one, and the firearm is unloaded and locked away.

Again, I agree with you in principle, but I believe that we, as licensees, should be responsible enough to behave properly without the need for a zero BAC limit.

We visited Comal Dry Creek near Austin last week. They are not posted as 51%, but contrary to someone's comment, the tasting 'samples' are not free. You pay about $20 or $25 for a full tasting. They do sell wine for on-premise consumption, as well. There is a similar establishment in Gruene (not a vineyard, but a tasting room) that IS posted 51%, although I had to look for the sign for about 10 minutes before I found it behind some bottles in a glass case on the back wall.

I'd say it's a fine line. Definitely look for the posting, but I'm not sure the absence of a posting means you're in the clear.