TexasCHLforum.com

Jim88 wrote:I haven't seen anyone mention the worst case scenario of having to shoot someone in self-defense after "a couple" of beers. It probably wouldn't take much of a lawyer to convince a panel of wishy-washy jurors that your judgement was impaired. Short of having a dozen witnesses with cell phone video to exonerate you, at the very least you'll probably be re-thinking your decision after spending a lot of money on your own attorney.

Personally, if I shoot someone it will be because this was the last resort to protect the lives of myself or my family. So I won't be second guessing my decision to carry on that night where I planned to have a couple drinks at dinner. If it comes down to it, I will be happy that I am broke from lawyers fees and spending a couple months in jail instead of being dead.

74novaman wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:
My bet is that he's had a few beers while off-duty. AND I bet he did NOT disarm prior to doing so.
Comparing his drinking ON-DUTY to a CHL'er drinking at dinner is not (IMO) a comparable situation.

Yup!

I don't drink before work either.

I don't want him drinking while on duty regardless of whether he has a gun.

Keep in mind questions are asked on the test about the use of alcohol, and regardless of what we think, there is only one answer they want.

wgoforth wrote:Keep in mind questions are asked on the test about the use of alcohol, and regardless of what we think, there is only one answer they want.

Not trying to be a wise elleck here but, what answer do they want? I can't remember the test.

I am amazed at how many of you can afford to order adult beverages. Good night nurse... They are getting almost three bucks for a darned ice tea these days. What does a real drink cost? Five or ten bucks? I don't do beer... It taste like urin. But I do like a good mixed drink or even a single malt served neat. I bet I would have to spend fifty bucks to get a buzz. Yep... Economics keeps me from having to be worried with this issue.

Last time I did go out to drink... I left the ole weapon at home. I didn't want to get caught with it if I got in a bar fight... Lol.

I better add in... The bar fight comment was a joke. I'm one of those guys that get drunk and want to be everyone's buddy.

03Lightningrocks wrote:I am amazed at how many of you can afford to order adult beverages. Good night nurse... They are getting almost three bucks for a darned ice tea these days. What does a real drink cost? Five or ten bucks? I don't do beer... It taste like urin. But I do like a good mixed drink or even a single malt served neat. I bet I would have to spend fifty bucks to get a buzz. Yep... Economics keeps me from having to be worried with this issue.

Last time I did go out to drink... I left the ole weapon at home. I didn't want to get caught with it if I got in a bar fight... Lol.

I better add in... The bar fight comment was a joke. I'm one of those guys that get drunk and want to be everyone's buddy.

So, alcohol changes your personality for the BETTER!!
(Just teasing.)

03Lightningrocks wrote:

wgoforth wrote:Keep in mind questions are asked on the test about the use of alcohol, and regardless of what we think, there is only one answer they want.

Not trying to be a wise elleck here but, what answer do they want? I can't remember the test.

I certainly can't tell the question or answer to the test... but the material covered in class states simply there is no legal limit for a CHL holder.

wgoforth wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

wgoforth wrote:Keep in mind questions are asked on the test about the use of alcohol, and regardless of what we think, there is only one answer they want.

Not trying to be a wise elleck here but, what answer do they want? I can't remember the test.

I doubt they want me to post any test questions and answers... but they do want you to be able to say there is no legal minimum of alcohol you may have and carry, and that is simply in my instructors manual as to what to teach in that portion.

And, that is technically correct. The definition is 'intoxicated', BUT, a legal limit DOES exist. And if you want to see the EXACT definition of what 'intoxicated' is for a CHL holder is, then look here in
Texas Government Code 411.171 (Subchapter H) (6)

SUBCHAPTER H. LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN
Sec. 411.171. DEFINITIONS.
In this subchapter:
(6) "Intoxicated" has the meaning assigned by Section 49.01, Penal Code.

And

Penal Code 49.01 says:

§ 49.01. DEFINITIONS.
In this chapter:

(2) "Intoxicated" means:
(A) not having the normal use of mental or
physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a
controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of
two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the
body; or
(B) having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.

So, while you can be intoxicated and not have a specific limit of alcohol in your system, there is a threshold of .08 BAC where you ARE defined as intoxicated, no matter.

That's also true for driving. The definition of intoxication is the same.

Lambda Force wrote:That's also true for driving. The definition of intoxication is the same.

Yes, 49.01 is the Texas definition of intoxicated for multiple statutes.

Keith B wrote:

Lambda Force wrote:That's also true for driving. The definition of intoxication is the same.

Yes, 49.01 is the Texas definition of intoxicated for multiple statutes.

We're in agreement. I was responding to the comment from wgoforth.

Funny that we're on page 8 and some people still don't (refuse to?) understand the law,
even though the correct answer was posted way back on page 1.

Lambda Force wrote:

Keith B wrote:

Lambda Force wrote:That's also true for driving. The definition of intoxication is the same.

Yes, 49.01 is the Texas definition of intoxicated for multiple statutes.

We're in agreement. I was responding to the comment from wgoforth.

Funny that we're on page 8 and some people still don't (refuse to?) understand the law,
even though the correct answer was posted way back on page 1.

Might suggest if we think it needs clarifying, contact your legislators.

No matter who is to "blame" for falsehoods being taught in Texas classes, I can't in good conscience tell friends and coworkers to pay $100 to take a class that doesn't teach the actual law. I feel much more comfortable giving them a PDF cheat sheet distilled from the CHL-16 file of actual laws, and suggesting they save some money by getting a VA or FL license.

Lambda Force wrote:No matter who is to "blame" for falsehoods being taught in Texas classes, I can't in good conscience tell friends and coworkers to pay $100 to take a class that doesn't teach the actual law. I feel much more comfortable giving them a PDF cheat sheet distilled from the CHL-16 file of actual laws, and suggesting they save some money by getting a VA or FL license.

"...teach the actual law".

Good Grief! You expect to be a learned and qualified trial lawyer...with a Texas CHL for $100?

.