TexasCHLforum.com

My personal policy is not to drink any alcohol, when I'm carrying - which is all the time. I don't believe the law should require absolute abstinence, I’m just concerned about perception and prejudice, if I were forced to shoot in self-defense in a restaurant. This is purely a personal choice. (For those at the seminar, remember the snapshot?)

I also believe it is prudent for the Legislature to prohibit carrying while intoxicated. However, defining public intoxication as “. . . intoxicated to the degree that the person may endanger the person or another� is far too subjective. I agree that it works for PI, as the consequences are relatively minor - a Class C misdemeanor. DWI on the other hand carries far greater consequences and we require a more objective standard of measurement; i.e. .08% blood-alcohol level. (Yes, I know a conviction can be had without a .08%, but it's difficult.) Since the consequences of carrying while intoxicated are far more serious (Class A misdemeanor) I think the .08% standard should be applied.

I’m not worried about Glenn, or most LEO’s for that matter, but a politically motivated officer or Chief could misuse the far more subjective PI standard, when dealing with CHL’s. I was present in Austin in 1995 and heard an HPD Sgt. (name withheld) testify under oath against SB60 (CHL bill) and say he didn’t know of a single officer’s wife, or any other family member, who carried a handgun. All of the officers, Troopers and deputies in the audience roared with laughter. Are such officers few in number? You bet! Can they wreak havoc on your life if you encounter them? You bet!

I absolutely agree that carrying a gun while you are intoxicated should be against the law. I would simply like to see a more objective standard applied.

Regards,
Chas.

tomneal wrote:

"Carrying under the influence?"

Has anyone been charged or convicted of this?
Were they over the leagal driving limit?

Unfortunately, you don't have to meet the legal threshold for DWI (.008), only for PI and that's very subjective. Baytown can comment more on this, but basically a LEO saying something to the effect of "I smelled alcohol . . . slurred speech . . . bloodshot eyes . . . staggered . . ." or some combination will do it. In my opinion, this is wrong and the standard should be the same as for DWI. PI is just to subjective.

I don't know if anyone has been convicted, but with this very low threshold, I suspect so.

Regards,
Chas..

dolanp wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:2. Copy Florida's "Castle Doctrine" law.

This is a big one too, I hope the NRA starts pushing it here.

I think you can count on it!
Chas.