CHL and having a drink

[oohrah]

AFAIK, the law does not specify a legal limit, as it does for DUI, so I interpret that as any BAC is illegal while carrying. And while CHLers as a group are more law-abiding than average, statistics show that the two top offenses of CHLers are 1) DUI, and 2) illegal carry - you do one, they automatically get you on the other.

Regardless of the law, drinking and guns do not mix, ever, imo, and I do like my single malts.

[android]

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.

[Keith B]

AFAIK, the law does not specify a legal limit, as it does for DUI, so I interpret that as any BAC is illegal while carrying. And while CHLers as a group are more law-abiding than average, statistics show that the two top offenses of CHLers are 1) DUI, and 2) illegal carry - you do one, they automatically get you on the other.

Regardless of the law, drinking and guns do not mix, ever, imo, and I do like my single malts.

Wrong, it does. See my post above. Intoxicated for CHL is referenced in government code 411 Subchapter H, which clearly points to 49.01 which is the same for DWI. And, in Texas, DUI is for minors, DWI is for adults.

[anomie]

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).

[anomie]

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

[pancho]

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.

Including a computer.

[Teamless]

The reason I have the policy of no alcohol, is not that I cannot handle it, quite the contrary, I can handle it.

Its simply that if I had the need to use my weapon to legally defend myself, then when they test my breath or blood, and the slight amount of alcohol shows up, that could (or would) give some reasonable doubt that the shoot was not clean.

I am not going to jeopardize that outcome with the need for a single beer, wine or mixed drink.
its just not worth it.

[The Annoyed Man]

The reason I have the policy of no alcohol, is not that I cannot handle it, quite the contrary, I can handle it.

Its simply that if I had the need to use my weapon to legally defend myself, then when they test my breath or blood, and the slight amount of alcohol shows up, that could (or would) give some reasonable doubt that the shoot was not clean.

I am not going to jeopardize that outcome with the need for a single beer, wine or mixed drink.
its just not worth it.

This. ^

[Shoot_First]

Having seen the previous posts on the subject along with the current ones, I can understand the rationale for abstinence while carrying as a CHL holder. That said, let me put forth two scenarios for your consideration: (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? (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?

I have carefully considered these and other scenarios where I have had one or two beers over time and I'm far from being legally impaired either to drive or to respond to a threat to me or my family and my decision has been and will continue to be to remain armed. I am prepared to suffer the consequences of my decisions because I believe the prospect of such scenarios, while possible, is very remote. It's a personal decision that each of us will have to make.

Dave

[E.Marquez]

The reason I have the policy of no alcohol, is not that I cannot handle it, quite the contrary, I can handle it.

Its simply that if I had the need to use my weapon to legally defend myself, then when they test my breath or blood, and the slight amount of alcohol shows up, that could (or would) give some reasonable doubt that the shoot was not clean.

I am not going to jeopardize that outcome with the need for a single beer, wine or mixed drink.
its just not worth it.

And I applaud your informed decision.

I dislike, those instructors and self appointed guardian CHL'ers that refuse to cite the law as it is,,, not as they think it should be based on personal opinion.

Sorry for the soapbox...

But to me,,, instructors and self appointed guardian CHL's that refuse to discuss the law as it is because they know better than the rest of us.. ie it's for our own good.. are as bad as the nanny statist in our city, state, federal government that try and take anything THEY perceive as bad away from the masses... and not just educate us and let the adults make the decision for themselves.

[Dirthawking]

AFAIK, the law does not specify a legal limit, as it does for DUI, so I interpret that as any BAC is illegal while carrying. And while CHLers as a group are more law-abiding than average, statistics show that the two top offenses of CHLers are 1) DUI, and 2) illegal carry - you do one, they automatically get you on the other.

Regardless of the law, drinking and guns do not mix, ever, imo, and I do like my single malts.

Wrong, it does. See my post above. Intoxicated for CHL is referenced in government code 411 Subchapter H, which clearly points to 49.01 which is the same for DWI. And, in Texas, DUI is for minors, DWI is for adults.

Thank you! I just learned something usefull. My CHL instructor taught us that the law did not give a number. Now I see it does.

Again, thank you!

[Keith B]

AFAIK, the law does not specify a legal limit, as it does for DUI, so I interpret that as any BAC is illegal while carrying. And while CHLers as a group are more law-abiding than average, statistics show that the two top offenses of CHLers are 1) DUI, and 2) illegal carry - you do one, they automatically get you on the other.

Regardless of the law, drinking and guns do not mix, ever, imo, and I do like my single malts.

Wrong, it does. See my post above. Intoxicated for CHL is referenced in government code 411 Subchapter H, which clearly points to 49.01 which is the same for DWI. And, in Texas, DUI is for minors, DWI is for adults.

Thank you! I just learned something usefull. My CHL instructor taught us that the law did not give a number. Now I see it does.

Again, thank you!

Yes, the number exists. .08 or greater and you are automatically considered intoxicated. Less than .08 BAC and you are at the discretion of the officer. If they decide you are intoxicated by definition, then you are going to have to prove that their evaluation of you was not correct in front of a judge or jury in court.

[ErnieP]

:iagree:

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

:iagree:


I don't remember what the CHL instructor said during my training, but in my mind, I "heard" him say is that the only acceptable blood-alcohol level is 0.00.

[anomie]

(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.

(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.

[EEllis]

sounds like there are really two separate scenarios for the zero tolerance crew. Those that choose not to drink because they are carrying and those that disarm because they want a drink. I don't think anyone is pushing for anyone to drink some are just saying if you decide you are going to have a drink, not get drunk or even tipsy, but have a drink it seems a bit much when compared to some of the rhetoric from other threads. Do all the threats that are so dire suddenly stop when you drink? Mind you I can see having the tea instead of the beer with dinner, but I have trouble understanding disarming so you can just have the one beer.