TexasCHLforum.com

I'll have one beer with dinner while carrying. I'm also 6'5" and 330 lbs. Also, I keep my receipt in my wallet until I get home so that I can prove I'm not the inebriated guy on "COPS" who swears he just had a "couple beers". When I say one, I mean one.

I also take communion wine while carrying.

Armybrat wrote:Since the post about my visit to Pat O'Brien's (San Antonio) on the 1911 and Ruger boards undoubtedly inspired this thread, I'll reiterate:
I don't consider having one drink with my restaurant dinner once in a while as "going out and drinking". Apparently some of the teetotalers equate that with pub-crawling or fratboy binge drinking - which I NEVER do. I know what the law says, and it does not say "no drinking at all when carrying"....or driving, for that matter. (I wasn't driving in my case).

My original concern was the placement of the 51% sign at that Pat O'Brien's.


But hey, beat up on me all you like.

I'm not sure this thread is about your post but regardless, I don't think anybody here has been very critical of each others opinions on this. Most have just stated their personal choices and why. I feel drinking and guns don't mix, but I realize others who are very good people see it different and that is OK by me.

I've been looking for a place to post this question, and it seems that it fits here. I have it on very good authority that DPS is teaching adamantly in its CHL instructors' classes that the law is 0% alcohol if carrying while driving for CHL holders. I believe this is an enforcement directive by DPS, as I don't read the law this way. Section 49 gives the usual definition of intoxication when dealing with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, and Section 46 leaves the definition unstated, and does not refer to Section 49. Have there been any cases on point, or is there any legislation under consideration by the current session to clarify the definition of intoxication for CHL holders?

fickman wrote:I'll have one beer with dinner while carrying. I'm also 6'5" and 330 lbs. Also, I keep my receipt in my wallet until I get home so that I can prove I'm not the inebriated guy on "COPS" who swears he just had a "couple beers". When I say one, I mean one.

I also take communion wine while carrying.

Keith B wrote:

Armybrat wrote:Since the post about my visit to Pat O'Brien's (San Antonio) on the 1911 and Ruger boards undoubtedly inspired this thread, I'll reiterate:
I don't consider having one drink with my restaurant dinner once in a while as "going out and drinking". Apparently some of the teetotalers equate that with pub-crawling or fratboy binge drinking - which I NEVER do. I know what the law says, and it does not say "no drinking at all when carrying"....or driving, for that matter. (I wasn't driving in my case).

My original concern was the placement of the 51% sign at that Pat O'Brien's.


But hey, beat up on me all you like.

Unless you are bkj's son, I am not sure how you see this as being about your post?

We have had various opinions on the one or two beers question over and over again on this forum. There will never be an agreement by all members. The fact is some folks can have two beers and be buzzed, while others it may take a 3-4 or more. Now, while 2 beers in an hour may not make you .08, it could possibly be impairing you. That is different per individual. My wife doesn't drink, is a small person, and one beer or glass of wine WOULD impair her. Me on the other hand, as a 'beer every once in awhile guy' and a larger person, it doesn't impair me with just one.

The biggest issue is if you are stopped and have been drinking, it is up to the officers discretion as to if you are impaired. If he feels there is probable cause to show you were impaired, then you could potentially have a CUI charge to challenge. It also doesn't have to be booze. Right now, I won't carry because I am fighting a cold and I can tell you the medication is impairing me.

So, we are all adults (or should be) and when making the call, you need to take a lot of factors into consideration before you do or don't.

Just my 2¢.

It's not up to feeling. The officer needs to show specific evidence that you are impaired. Feeling may motivate him to do it, but evidence needs to back up his supposition. The officer needs to demonstrate a clear reasonable belief that you are intoxicated, and the only standardized way to do that is with observations of your performance during the FST or with a BAC/breathalyzer test. Without specific evidence demonstrating you were intoxicated, there is much less of a case against you.

Then again, I'm not a lawyer, and have never been through this process. The law, however, does have specific guidelines for determining intoxication, and "I just think he is" doesn't cut it.

Anyone more knowledgeable or experienced is welcome to correct me, as I don't have personal or professional experience in this matter.

My instructors were pretty adamant that you shouldn't even have one sip. . . although I'd bet they'd agree that communion is ok.

I think they're playing it close to the vest on this one. They're afraid if they give you an inch you'll go a mile. Drinking is so hard to quantify. It's so different in so many people, and you get different personal interpretations of "buzzed", "taking the edge off", "drunk", "impaired", that they don't want to start down the slippery slope. There are so many variables involved that no two situations are ever exactly the same. . . even for the same person.

The people who are cavalier about drinking put all of us at risk. . . not just our safety but the reputation of the CHL program. I know a few guys who drink too much and think they're fine, or forget that if you order the big draft beer in a restaurant, that's 23 oz. or so - two of those is just shy of four 12 oz. beers!

I think the same thing is going on here. A lot of people are afraid of a misinterpretation of their words and do not want to come away encouraging any sort of risky behavior. The easy standard to clearly communicate with no chance of misunderstandings is total abstinence.

I'm afraid if I tell you "1 beer is OK" - that you might be an 80 lbs. woman consuming alcohol for the first time and ordering a 32 oz. stein of a 9% alcohol-by-volume brewsky in a German restaurant. Or you might be a college party animal who thinks "1 beer for the general population is like 12 to me - I'm so awesome".

We can all agree that you should avoid even the possibility of the accusation of being irresponsible, dangerous, careless, or borderline in your actions. Perception is important when your fate is in somebody else's hands. Better to err on the side of caution. And, it's true, if you completely abstain while carrying, this issue will never come up.

That's all well and good, but I don't think it is the law. I simply asked about the status of the law. I'm concerned that DPS is proselytizing under cover of authority, and if it is an enforcement directive, are placing the cost burden on some poor citizen to get the law corrected, which is the job of the legislature.

fickman wrote:My instructors were pretty adamant that you shouldn't even have one sip. . . although I'd bet they'd agree that communion is ok.

I think they're playing it close to the vest on this one. They're afraid if they give you an inch you'll go a mile. Drinking is so hard to quantify. It's so different in so many people, and you get different personal interpretations of "buzzed", "taking the edge off", "drunk", "impaired", that they don't want to start down the slippery slope. There are so many variables involved that no two situations are ever exactly the same. . . even for the same person.

The people who are cavalier about drinking put all of us at risk. . . not just our safety but the reputation of the CHL program. I know a few guys who drink too much and think they're fine, or forget that if you order the big draft beer in a restaurant, that's 23 oz. or so - two of those is just shy of four 12 oz. beers!

I think the same thing is going on here. A lot of people are afraid of a misinterpretation of their words and do not want to come away encouraging any sort of risky behavior. The easy standard to clearly communicate with no chance of misunderstandings is total abstinence.

I'm afraid if I tell you "1 beer is OK" - that you might be an 80 lbs. woman consuming alcohol for the first time and ordering a 32 oz. stein of a 9% alcohol-by-volume brewsky in a German restaurant. Or you might be a college party animal who thinks "1 beer for the general population is like 12 to me - I'm so awesome".

We can all agree that you should avoid even the possibility of the accusation of being irresponsible, dangerous, careless, or borderline in your actions. Perception is important when your fate is in somebody else's hands. Better to err on the side of caution. And, it's true, if you completely abstain while carrying, this issue will never come up.

Yes. If they're too drunk to carry, they're too drunk to drive.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

bkj wrote:My son is getting ready to take a CHL class. As he has a habit of stopping for a beer or two I mentioned that would have to stop when he is carry.

If he does this habitually, then he has a problem that needs to be addressed. Doing it once in a while is a non-issue; but if he does it every day, then he should be re-examining his priorities - and possibly even seeking help if it is not something he can stop. If that is the case, then he should not carry. Period. In fact, he would be in violation of that part of the CHL law which says you cannot be dependent on alcohol.

Being in the habit of having a beer or two a day does not automatically qualify someone as having a problem. I can remember my brother having a beer (or sometimes two) when he got home from work every day. This was never a problem by any stretch of the imagination, unless you consider enjoying good beer some sort of problem. He never drank to excess. Determining that someone has an alcohol problem because they drink once a day is dangerous, IMO. There may be individuals that this may be a problem for, but sweeping generalizations should not apply here.

If the OP stated that his son was in the habit of drinking daily to excess, that would be a different matter. Nothing I can read into his post qualifies that.

anygunanywhere wrote:I still hold that if you have to ask then you have a problem.

Given that the OP and his son were misinformed about a fictional ambiguous zero-tolerance law, I do think they have to ask, and that it doesn't necessarily indicate that he has a problem.

NcongruNt wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

bkj wrote:My son is getting ready to take a CHL class. As he has a habit of stopping for a beer or two I mentioned that would have to stop when he is carry.

If he does this habitually, then he has a problem that needs to be addressed. Doing it once in a while is a non-issue; but if he does it every day, then he should be re-examining his priorities - and possibly even seeking help if it is not something he can stop. If that is the case, then he should not carry. Period. In fact, he would be in violation of that part of the CHL law which says you cannot be dependent on alcohol.

Being in the habit of having a beer or two a day does not automatically qualify someone as having a problem. .

I agree, which is why I added (as per above), "and possibly even seeking help if it is not something he can stop." Perhaps I should have said at the top, "If he does this habitually and cannot stop."

jamullinstx wrote:That's all well and good, but I don't think it is the law. I simply asked about the status of the law. I'm concerned that DPS is proselytizing under cover of authority, and if it is an enforcement directive, are placing the cost burden on some poor citizen to get the law corrected, which is the job of the legislature.

I agree, it's not the law. I wanted to make my "I see why others err on the side of caution and say not to have any" case in the context of knowing that I boldly proclaimed my willingness to have a beer with dinner while carrying and not think twice about it.

The law is that you cannot be intoxicated. . . which would include being impaired. Intoxicated can be proven, impaired is often a matter of discretion.

It is disconcerting if DPS is telling their officers to enforce a standard other than the law, but hopefully CHLers aren't even getting close to the line of doubt.

fickman wrote:My instructors were pretty adamant that you shouldn't even have one sip. . . although I'd bet they'd agree that communion is ok. I think they're playing it close to the vest on this one. They're afraid if they give you an inch you'll go a mile.

I don't see anything wrong with an instructor saying that "you shouldn't even have one sip" as long as they state that is their belief and don't try to tell you that is the law. If the student thinks that they will get a pass if they tell an LEO, "my CHL instructor taught us that two beers was okay" they are mistaken.

If I were an instructor I would not tell my students that it's okay to have a glass of wine with dinner or having two beers after work. I would explain the law to the best of my ability as it is written. Period.

Whatever the student decides to do after getting their CHL is a personal decision that they have to make. Again, they should know that their actions have consequences and they should be willing to live with them.

WildBill wrote:I don't see anything wrong with an instructor saying that "you shouldn't even have one sip" as long as they state that is their belief and don't try to tell you that is the law.

Same if an instructor tells students they shouldn't go somewhere that has a sign.

Thank you for all the responses. A lot of the posts got into drunk driving and drinking problems. That is my fault I guess. I should have said “occasionally” and not “habit.” As he has a friend that was hit by a drunk drive, my son is very aliment about not driving under the influence.

So try this scenario
A person has a CHL and is carrying. This person stops to visit a friend. And he consumes one (1not 2 but more then 0) or two (1 more then 1 but less then 3) beers over a reasonable period of time so as to no exceed the .08 limit. Upon leaving he locks his firearm in a lock box under the front seat of his pickup truck.

In respect to the firearm and CHL is this person legal?

bkj wrote:Thank you for all the responses. A lot of the posts got into drunk driving and drinking problems. That is my fault I guess. I should have said “occasionally” and not “habit.” As he has a friend that was hit by a drunk drive, my son is very aliment about not driving under the influence.

So try this scenario
A person has a CHL and is carrying. This person stops to visit a friend. And he consumes one (1not 2 but more then 0) or two (1 more then 1 but less then 3) beers over a reasonable period of time so as to no exceed the .08 limit. Upon leaving he locks his firearm in a lock box under the front seat of his pickup truck.

In respect to the firearm and CHL is this person legal?

If the person is not in a restricted place (like a bar), he has no reason to disarm in the first place. If he's good to drive, he's good to carry. If he wants to, he can do what you describe, but I see no purpose in it.

bkj wrote:In respect to the firearm and CHL is this person legal?

There's not enough information to say. If someone doesn't have "normal use of mental or physical faculties" because they drank alcohol, they're intoxicated, even if their BAC is under the limit. That's true for 49.04 and 46.035 equally.

IANAL