Drinking While Carrying

[gigag04]

Good point, I forgot to add gender into the list (late night).

Gender too plays a role. A man of woman of ideal build will not process at the same rate.

[jimlongley]

As for how alcohol can affect people differently, let me offer our example here at home. My wife and I stand almost eye to eye, and are roughly of the same build and weight (a gentleman never asks, and a smart husband knows better!)

As I noted before, I can drink 6 or 8 over a long evening without anyone noticing any visible effect. My wife, on the other hand, will attempt a half glass of wine about once a year, but will curl up and take a nap before she finishes it.

We joke that she's a cheap date.

Kevin

I am not sure that we don't develop "tolerance" too. My late wife was 5'11" although she lied about it and said she was 5'10", and somewhat lighter than me. When we both drank a lot, she could put me under the table, and I could out drink most others. We were not a cheap date by any means, on our honeymoon a businessman we made acquaintance with treated us to dinner and drinks and we spent the whole evening together with him picking up the tab (I don't know if he thought he had a chance with the new bride, but that's a whole 'nother story, he didn't believe we were newlyweds.)

The next morning we ran into him at breakfast and he wanted to know how we felt. When we told him we felt fine he was flabbergasted, and then he showed us a copy of his bar bill for the previous night, and I had put away 16 drinks with my bride matching me one for one until the last round when I got ahead by one. Then we told him that when we went up to our room we had had room service bring us each one more, which was true but we didn't tell him that we never touched them.

He figured we had had enough alcohol to knock us out for a couple of days and have hangovers for a week. The drinks we were downing at such a pace were called "Foolish Virgins" in honor of the Virgin Islands where we were, and were a concoction of rum, curacao, triple sec, and a few other things. They tasted like fruit drinks.

Years later when I was having internal difficulties and the doctors couldn't figure out what was wrong, they asked if I drank a lot of beer, and I told them no. Of course they hadn't defined what "a lot" was and I didn't think a six pack per evening, every evening, was "a lot."

Nowadays I can even feel the first beer, which I shouldn't drink because of the internal problems that sometimes result (food allergies are such fun), and about a shot and a half of my drink of choice, vodka, gets me to the point where I feel as though I shouldn't drive.

So I designate myself as the driver and always carry (unless prohibited).

[NcongruNt]

As for how alcohol can affect people differently, let me offer our example here at home. My wife and I stand almost eye to eye, and are roughly of the same build and weight (a gentleman never asks, and a smart husband knows better!)

As I noted before, I can drink 6 or 8 over a long evening without anyone noticing any visible effect. My wife, on the other hand, will attempt a half glass of wine about once a year, but will curl up and take a nap before she finishes it.

We joke that she's a cheap date.

Kevin

Well, women in general have a much lower tolerance to alcohol because of their physiology. Muscle mass to fat ratio is much lower in women, and alcohol is not fat-soluble. That alcohol ends up staying in the blood and having a greater affect on the brain, instead.

[SRVA]

I never drink alcohol while I am carrying. I would not want to deal with the potential issues alchohol would add to a self defense situation.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I never drink alcohol while I am carrying. I would not want to deal with the potential issues alchohol would add to a self defense situation.

Which in my view are frequently exagerrated - unless you exercise bad judgement in shooting someone - or drink a lot.

If you want to have 6 or 8 beers while watching a ball game, as one person posted, you're better off staying at home.

But one beer or glass of wine? No problemo in my book. Unless you think your judgement could be so altered by that one drink that you would do something that you wouldn't normally do.

That's my take on it.

[HankB]

Drunks ought not carry a gun, any more than drunks ought to drive.

But I don't consider a drink or two at dinner to mean "intoxication."

Lawyers, please step in and cite the law if I'm wrong, but unless you are confronted by an LEO while driving a car, you are under no obligation to submit to a BAC or field sobriety test. Not if "made" while carrying, and not after a defensive gun use.

AFAIK, Texas' "implied consent" law only covers driving, not packing.

With no BAC or field sobriety test, it will be most difficult to prove intoxication.

[packina45]

Some interesting thoughts in this thread, for sure. Last week we had a friend here visiting and took him to Jefferson, Texas for lunch one day. (The Texas Club Cafe there makes the world's best chicken fried steak IMO, check it out when you're in the Piney Woods.)

I was carrying, as usual, and had a Shiner Bock with lunch. Not a big issue to me. One beer isn't an intoxication inducer. We finished lunch, spent some time browsing the shops, hit the road a couple hours later and headed back to Bossier.

[txinvestigator]

Drunks ought not carry a gun, any more than drunks ought to drive.

But I don't consider a drink or two at dinner to mean "intoxication."

Lawyers, please step in and cite the law if I'm wrong, but unless you are confronted by an LEO while driving a car, you are under no obligation to submit to a BAC or field sobriety test. Not if "made" while carrying, and not after a defensive gun use.

AFAIK, Texas' "implied consent" law only covers driving, not packing.

With no BAC or field sobriety test, it will be most difficult to prove intoxication.

You are correct that there is no requirement to submit to a breath test for other than DWI.

However, Intoxication is NOT difficult to prove. I have had DWI convictions where the person blew BELOW the presumed level, and where no blood alcohol sample was obtained, and I obtained plenty of Public Intoxication convictions.

And remember, to obtain a conviction for CHL carrying while intoxicated, being a danger to yourself or others is not an element of the offense. The burden of proof is less than for Public Intoxication.

BTW, under Texas law, there is no obligation to submit to Field Sobriety Tests either.

[O6nop]

Maybe we should all go to the range, bring a 12 pack and practice shooting while drinking, see how many it does take before you can't shoot straight (just kiddding)

Personally, I don't drink much anymore. I like iced tea with my meals. If I drink one beer or mixed drink now, I feel it. But, I can drink several, at a moderate pace, and never 'feel' more intoxicated than that first one. So, basically, I don't drink, unless it's a 'special occasion' and I have a ride home or a spare bed to stay in. And, in such a case, I wouldn't carry. If I am purposely carrying, I won't have any. It would be nice to have a DC, a Designated Carrier, when you go out drinking.

[seamusTX]

Maybe we should all go to the range, bring a 12 pack and practice shooting while drinking, see how many it does take before you can't shoot straight (just kiddding)

If someone is inclined to experiment in that direction, they can do it with video games. It might be quite enlightening.

- Jim

[frankie_the_yankee]

And remember, to obtain a conviction for CHL carrying while intoxicated, being a danger to yourself or others is not an element of the offense. The burden of proof is less than for Public Intoxication.

BTW, under Texas law, there is no obligation to submit to Field Sobriety Tests either.

I think you mean something more like "the standard for proof" than the "burden of proof" as you stated. Except for when the law requires one to mount an affirmative defense, the burden of proof is always on the state. And guilt must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt".

That having been said, can you expand a bit on just what is the standard of proof for carrying while intoxicated on a CHL? Do any of the elements normally associated with field sobriety come into it?

I would expect that to get a conviction for carrying while intoxicated, there would have to be SOME physically observable indications of impairment that would allow for proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the person was intoxicated.

If someone talks normally, walks normally, "looks" normally, and blows a low number, I think it would be quite a stretch to convict them for being intoxicated.

If a LEO attempted to pop me for carrying while intoxicated after having ONE beer or glass of wine, I would volunteer to take a breath or blood test. And if for some reason the LEO refused to cooperate, I would contact my lawyer at the first opportunity and have HIM arrange for me to be tested, WITH witnesses present who agree to swear out affadavits or do whatever might be necessary to legally establish that I was tested and blew whatever number I blew.

I don't lose any sleep over this.

[Jacob Staff]

The legal determination is ambiguous. It is up to each CHL holder to determine how much risk they want to take on this issue.

I have come to the conclusion that I will not drink any alcohol while carrying.

Everyone agrees that a drunk with a gun is a bad thing. The question is where to draw the line. Perception plays a huge roll if it becomes an issue.

Someone needs to ask Dick Cheney about this

1Th 5:22 "Abstain from all appearance of evil"

[KBCraig]

If someone uses deadly force in a "good shoot", and is found to be intoxicated, that incident doesn't turn into a "bad shoot" just because of the alcohol. It was either justified, or not.

The concerns about alcohol and CHL mainly center around the worry that the CHL's judgement will be affected, and he will use deadly force in an unjustified situation, where he might not have done so if not for the alcohol. For some people that might be a legitimate concern; for others, it's no concern at all.

Frankly, I don't like criminalizing people based on what someone might do.

Kevin

[stroo]

The issue with impairment under alcohol isn't whether or not you can shoot straight but is whether or not you can make a good decision to shoot or not shoot.

The standard for impairment while carrying a gun is lower than that for driving and can be proven by your conduct, by evidence as to how much you have drunk as well as through tests. However tests are not necessary.

Since I have never liked alcohol that much anyway and rarely drink, I don't drink and carry. If you do drink and carry, be careful because you are taking a risk of losing your CHL among other things.

[jimlongley]

It would be nice to have a DC, a Designated Carrier, when you go out drinking.

A couple of years back, riding with friends to Dallas Market Hall we got into a neighborhood that really bothered the wife of the other couple. Then she had one of those epiphany moments where you could almost see the lightbulb go on over her head, and she said "We're OK, Jim's got his gun."

Actually I probably would never have let her know that I was CHL, but my wife was so excited about hers and her new gun that she just had to tell her best friend, and that was years ago. Now they just assume that I am carrying, and it comes as a surprise when, on special occasions, I take a shot of Sambuca with my double expresso. On those occasions I plan ahead and am NOT carrying, but usually, again by pre-arrangement, my wife is "designated carrier."

I like the term, I think I'll steal it.