Drinking While Carrying

[Charles L. Cotton]

Q: Can I carry a handgun if I am drinking alcohol?
A: “Carrying� while drinking is not prohibited, but it is a criminal
offense to carry while intoxicated.

Now someone needs to tell all the CHL instructors to stop spewing the "not a drop" spiel and making people (such as myself) believe they will go to jail for just smelling a beer while carrying.

I think its a a pretty fuzzy line and one I think some instructors err on the side of safety. I've know alcoholics that think 1 or two means a 1 or two fifths. I know teatotalers that don't believe that a beer with a dinner will affect ones judgement and responcss. I also have a relative that gets totally silly after 2 glasses of wine. Many folks aren't aware of what their real limits are.
Drinking while carrying is not something that is advisable to test ones limits. Every officer knows that almost every DWI that they pull over claims they only had 2. Will the officer really believe you when you tell him you had 2. They won't give you a BAC and its apt to boil down to a subjective opinion of a LEO.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I think its a a pretty fuzzy line and one I think some instructors err on the side of safety.

That's no excuse. Instructors should give an accurate rendering of the requirements of the law.

I've know alcoholics that think 1 or two means a 1 or two fifths.

I don't care what some alcoholic thinks. They are not eligible for CHL's anyway. When I pay money to take a class, I want to get accurate information.

I also have a relative that gets totally silly after 2 glasses of wine. Many folks aren't aware of what their real limits are.

If someone has an abnormal response to alcohol that is their problem, not mine. If they want to carry a gun, they should make it a point to learn their limits, just as I have.

Drinking while carrying is not something that is advisable to test ones limits.

Irrelevent. We are talking about people who already know where their limits are.

Every officer knows that almost every DWI that they pull over claims they only had 2. Will the officer really believe you when you tell him you had 2?

Also irrelevent. We are not talking about power drinkers claiming they only had two. We are talking about someone who might have a glass of beer or wine while enjoying a meal.

No one with a normal response to alcohol who has one drink will be acting in any way that would meet the legal definition of intoxicated, nor will they give an officer any cause to think they are.

I live in the courtroom where perception rules the day. Most of the factors Liberty pointed out will be brought out in trial and may well determine the outcome. Your point in earlier posts about having a right to get correct information from a CHL instructor is absolutely correct, but shortly out of law school, I learned that what the law "says" and what happens in court are often miles apart.

Chas.

[BrassMonkey]

One should remember that instructors will try to pass along their wisdom/experiences during the class as well. Everyone I have seen have always been in the "Now this is the law, and this is my experience, or what I would do" format. Did ya ever wonder why the class is 10 hours for such a small amount of technical information? Hrmmmm?????

[frankie_the_yankee]

One should remember that instructors will try to pass along their wisdom/experiences during the class as well.

Sure, but unfortunately, "wisdom" seems to vary an awful lot. Some instructors have a lot less of it than they think they have. So instead of passing along wisdom, they end up shovelling out a lot of balony.

[BrassMonkey]

You are absolutely correct. Tis why I make my own decisions after culling as much info from others as I can. My decisions, my consequences. Hence the reason the chl eliginility laws have a certain amount of maturity required. As in a minimum age requirement :-)

One should remember that instructors will try to pass along their wisdom/experiences during the class as well.

Sure, but unfortunately, "wisdom" seems to vary an awful lot. Some instructors have a lot less of it than they think they have. So instead of passing along wisdom, they end up shovelling out a lot of balony.

[lrb111]

One should remember that instructors will try to pass along their wisdom/experiences during the class as well.

Sure, but unfortunately, "wisdom" seems to vary an awful lot. Some instructors have a lot less of it than they think they have. So instead of passing along wisdom, they end up shovelling out a lot of balony.

How many classes have you taken, that you have the experience to speak about?

[BrassMonkey]

3 Texas CHL. And a multitude of other law enforcement type classes.

One should remember that instructors will try to pass along their wisdom/experiences during the class as well.

Sure, but unfortunately, "wisdom" seems to vary an awful lot. Some instructors have a lot less of it than they think they have. So instead of passing along wisdom, they end up shovelling out a lot of balony.

How many classes have you taken, that you have the experience to speak about?

[frankie_the_yankee]

One should remember that instructors will try to pass along their wisdom/experiences during the class as well.

Sure, but unfortunately, "wisdom" seems to vary an awful lot. Some instructors have a lot less of it than they think they have. So instead of passing along wisdom, they end up shovelling out a lot of balony.

How many classes have you taken, that you have the experience to speak about?

I have taken two classes - my original in 2002 and my renewal this year. The original class was well taught by a knowledgeable instructor. He was a member of Austin PD as I recall. He provided a lot of good accurate information.

For my renewal class I went to a different company, mainly because they were located a little closer to where I live. The instructor was a blowhard who dispensed far too much of his misguided "wisdom" during the class. This extended both to use of force issues and drinking while carrying. I found the class to be almost useless, and just sat through it to get my renewal.

In addition, supervision of range activities at this class was very poor. Some people obviously did not know how to operate their semi-auto pistols, and got no help from the staff. One guy in particular did not know how to lock the slide back on his pistol, and while trying POINTED IT AT ME. I had to push the muzzle into a safe direction MYSELF. Then I showed the guy how to lock the slide.

Furthermore, I have read accounts of several people on this forum who have recounted things told to them by their instructors (related to drinking while carrying) which were obviously baloney.

Read through this admittedly lengthy thread and you will see what I mean.
I think the people who were taking the class for the first time were ill-served.

[KBCraig]

I live in the courtroom where perception rules the day. Most of the factors Liberty pointed out will be brought out in trial and may well determine the outcome. Your point in earlier posts about having a right to get correct information from a CHL instructor is absolutely correct, but shortly out of law school, I learned that what the law "says" and what happens in court are often miles apart.

Chas.

No offense, but that's quite an indictment against your profession.

The priorities of all parties to any court action should be that, one, justice prevails; and, two, that the law is applied equally. Sadly, the priority of all parties is to win, even if it means twisting "perception" so that the facts of the case, the law, and justice are all secondary.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I live in the courtroom where perception rules the day. Most of the factors Liberty pointed out will be brought out in trial and may well determine the outcome. Your point in earlier posts about having a right to get correct information from a CHL instructor is absolutely correct, but shortly out of law school, I learned that what the law "says" and what happens in court are often miles apart.

Chas.

No offense, but that's quite an indictment against your profession.

The priorities of all parties to any court action should be that, one, justice prevails; and, two, that the law is applied equally. Sadly, the priority of all parties is to win, even if it means twisting "perception" so that the facts of the case, the law, and justice are all secondary.

No offense taken. But that's not the product of my profession, it's the system of justice, both civil and criminal, that we have is this county.

The American system of justice is an adversarial one. The "truth" is found by the battle of opposing sides before an unbiased trier of fact, either a judge or a jury. My job is to present my client's case in the best possible light and to make my opponent's case look weak. Of course I want to win, as does my client. That's how an adversarial system works.

Remember too that what you believe is the "truth" or what the law requires may very well be different from the person standing next to you. That's why the adversarial system is the best possible approach, albeit imperfect.

Chas.

[rm9792]

I live in the courtroom where perception rules the day. Most of the factors Liberty pointed out will be brought out in trial and may well determine the outcome. Your point in earlier posts about having a right to get correct information from a CHL instructor is absolutely correct, but shortly out of law school, I learned that what the law "says" and what happens in court are often miles apart.

Chas.

No offense, but that's quite an indictment against your profession.

The priorities of all parties to any court action should be that, one, justice prevails; and, two, that the law is applied equally. Sadly, the priority of all parties is to win, even if it means twisting "perception" so that the facts of the case, the law, and justice are all secondary.

The law cant be applied equally in all cases. There has to be room for interpretation. Otherwise, for example, little girls get sent home for having Midol at school. Zero Tolerance policies are a prime example of why applying the law equally in all cases wont work. Problem is different people are interpreting and playing politics as well so you end up with the lesser of 2 evils. I do think the system is abused and the State has a virtual unlimited budget against the common man so it is unfair to begin with.

[KBCraig]

The priorities of all parties to any court action should be that, one, justice prevails; and, two, that the law is applied equally.

The law cant be applied equally in all cases. There has to be room for interpretation. Otherwise, for example, little girls get sent home for having Midol at school. Zero Tolerance policies are a prime example of why applying the law equally in all cases wont work.

That's a prime example of why those laws are wrong. If the law, read and applied literally, produces an injustice, then the solution is not to make an exception, but to change the law.

Situational standards has lead to many injustices in the past, such as a member of one groups getting a $10 fine, while a member of another group goes to the penitentiary.

The best way to point out the absurdity of bad laws is to enforce them equally. That's why we now have "zero tolerance" -- to avoid accusations of discrimination. Suburban middle-school girls with Midol now get treated the same as their urban counterparts with a few grams of marijuana.

The problem is not equal application of the law. The problem is the law.

Problem is different people are interpreting and playing politics as well so you end up with the lesser of 2 evils. I do think the system is abused and the State has a virtual unlimited budget against the common man so it is unfair to begin with.

I absolutely agree! The solution is to take that power away from them. Slash their budgets, vote them out of office, and overturn bad laws.

Kevin