TexasCHLforum.com

Jumping Frog wrote:
IIRC, the statute language is virtually identical for being intoxicated with a firearm and being intoxicated while driving.

In fact it IS IDENTICAL as the definition refers by section to the statutory definition used for DWI.

Jumping Frog wrote: As such, people tend to overthink "what is the definition of intoxicated" as if each police officer is going to make up his own judgment about what "intoxicated" means.

However, I would submit that there is already TONS AND TONS of case law on intoxicated driving, and there have been more court cases on that subject than you can shake a stick at. DUI defense is a breads and butter item for defense attorneys, and they already know what constitutes probable cause, standards of proof, LEO training requirements, impairment test procedures --- all of that stuff. I don't think an intoxicated firearm case would reinvent all those wheels.

One of the reason they added 0.08% alcohol is statutorily considered proof of impairment is because it closes that door to defense attorneys. It was a LOT easier to get people off on drunk driving charges before that law was passed. Proving intoxication is more complicated than you think.

Now that said, you don't have to be at 0.08 to be convicted of DWI either, but it isn't any different standard for 46.035 than for 49.04 (DWI).

randomoutburst wrote:To clarify, the guy who shouted out stood up as he did so, while patting his hip. I couldn't discern whether that guy or his friend were carrying.

Dave01 - It's not a crime to drink while carrying, but as I stated in my original post, I suspected he had had more than one beer. He was not behaving soberly and was flushed. Since I serve alcohol for my job, I have a good idea of when someone's had too much. If he was indeed carrying, I think an LEO would have found him just under or at the legal limit. But you don't even have to be at that limit for it to be illegal - you only need to demonstrate impaired function.

The issue I took with your original post is that it appears the guy was told that drinking while carrying was illegal. I understand that it is up to the discretion of the of officer to determine impaired ability, and that can happen below 0.08 BAC. There is however a difference between drinking and being intoxicated. If it were illegal to drink while carrying, then I could be arrested for taking 1 sip of a beer and walking away. However, that sip would not impair my abilities by anyone's definition. That's why I said it's a thin line....the act itself is not illegal, but the logical consequence of that act may very well be.

If I misunderstood what your boss was referring to as being illegal, then I retract my statement.

Dave01 wrote: The issue I took with your original post is that it appears the guy was told that drinking while carrying was illegal. I understand that it is up to the discretion of the of officer to determine impaired ability, and that can happen below 0.08 BAC. There is however a difference between drinking and being intoxicated. If it were illegal to drink while carrying, then I could be arrested for taking 1 sip of a beer and walking away. However, that sip would not impair my abilities by anyone's definition. That's why I said it's a thin line....the act itself is not illegal, but the logical consequence of that act may very well be.

If I misunderstood what your boss was referring to as being illegal, then I retract my statement.

Since he was the one serving him, my bartender knew how many drinks this guy had had, so I think he assumed (based on how many drinks he had had) that the guy was becoming impaired. Obviously his actions weren't based on discretion, so that's another indicator that he might have had too much. Otherwise, I don't think the bartender would have said anything. And though sometimes I wish he was, the bartender isn't my boss, so he didn't have the authority to ask the guy to leave. It's unfortunate that the employees can't simply request that a customer leave in a situation like this, because it would have been appropriate.

No harm, just wanted to clarify for the sake of others reading the thread. These things can sometimes turn into a game of "telephone" and if someone hasn't read every reply, things get twisted around. :-)

randomoutburst wrote:

Dave01 wrote: The issue I took with your original post is that it appears the guy was told that drinking while carrying was illegal. I understand that it is up to the discretion of the of officer to determine impaired ability, and that can happen below 0.08 BAC. There is however a difference between drinking and being intoxicated. If it were illegal to drink while carrying, then I could be arrested for taking 1 sip of a beer and walking away. However, that sip would not impair my abilities by anyone's definition. That's why I said it's a thin line....the act itself is not illegal, but the logical consequence of that act may very well be.

If I misunderstood what your boss was referring to as being illegal, then I retract my statement.

Since he was the one serving him, my bartender knew how many drinks this guy had had, so I think he assumed (based on how many drinks he had had) that the guy was becoming impaired. Obviously his actions weren't based on discretion, so that's another indicator that he might have had too much. Otherwise, I don't think the bartender would have said anything. And though sometimes I wish he was, the bartender isn't my boss, so he didn't have the authority to ask the guy to leave. It's unfortunate that the employees can't simply request that a customer leave in a situation like this, because it would have been appropriate.

No harm, just wanted to clarify for the sake of others reading the thread. These things can sometimes turn into a game of "telephone" and if someone hasn't read every reply, things get twisted around. :-)

Not sure how I got it in my head he was your boss. Reading too many threads I guess. My apologies. I would have thought bartenders had the authority to ask people to leave considering they have to potentially deal with the rowdiest of customers. If they don't have this power, then I agree they should.

Bob in Big D wrote:Drink what ever you think your limit is at the Bar.....Just remember that the LEO that stops you will determine if you are intoxicated not a breathtest or anything else. So the burden will be on you to prove that you were not.....good luck with that and say bye bye to your CHL.

There it is! Drink up, you can rectify any misunderstandings with money...your money.

Dave01 wrote:Not sure how I got it in my head he was your boss. Reading too many threads I guess. My apologies. I would have thought bartenders had the authority to ask people to leave considering they have to potentially deal with the rowdiest of customers. If they don't have this power, then I agree they should.

I think bartenders at actual bars they may have this power, since most bars are privately owned. Chili's, however, is a corporate owned chain and primarily a restaurant. They're trying to cover their rears by telling us not to take anything into our own hands...but that just means there's more opportunity for things to escalate while we're trying to track down the manager, who often cannot be found quickly. Stupid policies...but then, most people don't go to Chili's to drink. Our drinks are expensive compared to, say, Applebee's, and our bar area is tiny anyway.

The bar I worked at let any employee throw anyone out for any reason. If they were bigger than the bartender he'd ask the bouncers for assistance. The managers/owner thought it was funny and never really bothered to listen to the people who got thrown out. 99% of the time they deserved it.

The bartender should have quietly said, "You've said something that could could cause many people in this room to panic and I'm betting that someone has already dialed 911; so instead of arguing law with me, you should probably leave quietly before the police arrive."

Embalmo

What's the legality about that? I'm not up to pulling the book out, but isn't it illegal to out yourself (tantamount to open carry)? I often neglect to to find out if something that I would NEVER do is illegal. I've outed my CHL status in conversation with CHL/gun friendlys, but that's not the same as outing one's carry status.

Embalmo

I have never read any law saying you can or cannot "out yourself"
if it were illegal, then even you outing yourself with other "gun friendly" people would also be illegal

Teamless wrote:I have never read any law saying you can or cannot "out yourself"
if it were illegal, then even you outing yourself with other "gun friendly" people would also be illegal

Isn't that the same as revealing that you have a driver license instead of revealing that you have a car. So it's perfectly legal to walk around telling people that you have a gun in your pocket? I thought it wasn't legal to even answer the question, "Do you have a gun in your pocket?" I'm gonna' need to blow the dust off the little white book tomorrow. Ahh-Doesn't matter. I won't real my carry status anyway.

Embalmo

Embalmo wrote:

Teamless wrote:I have never read any law saying you can or cannot "out yourself"
if it were illegal, then even you outing yourself with other "gun friendly" people would also be illegal

Isn't that the same as revealing that you have a driver license instead of revealing that you have a car. So it's perfectly legal to walk around telling people that you have a gun in your pocket? I thought it wasn't legal to even answer the question, "Do you have a gun in your pocket?" I'm gonna' need to blow the dust off the little white book tomorrow. Ahh-Doesn't matter. I won't real my carry status anyway.

Embalmo

It is not legal to reveal the weapon unless you have reason to use it. What you say is not what you do.

Purplehood wrote:

Embalmo wrote:

Teamless wrote:I have never read any law saying you can or cannot "out yourself"
if it were illegal, then even you outing yourself with other "gun friendly" people would also be illegal

Isn't that the same as revealing that you have a driver license instead of revealing that you have a car. So it's perfectly legal to walk around telling people that you have a gun in your pocket? I thought it wasn't legal to even answer the question, "Do you have a gun in your pocket?" I'm gonna' need to blow the dust off the little white book tomorrow. Ahh-Doesn't matter. I won't real my carry status anyway.

Embalmo

It is not legal to reveal the weapon unless you have reason to use it. What you say is not what you do.

So this guy did break the law?

Embalmo wrote: So this guy did break the law?

-By 'Intentionally Exposing' his gun?
No. He did not actually 'expose' any handgun, so it would not be illegal under that section.
I can run into a bar and say "I've got my Gun! Do you?" even if I was completely unarmed.
How can you expose something you don't even have?

-By Potentially breaching the peace by shouting he had a gun?
Maybe, I don't know what the laws are on breaching the peace. If someone felt threatened, possibly. Perhaps one of the LEO's here can expound further here.

-By Carrying Intoxicated?
Possibly, depending on if he was intoxicated or not, and if he was actually carrying or not.
No one actually saw a gun, so we don't know if he was really carrying.

dicion wrote:

Embalmo wrote: So this guy did break the law?

-By 'Intentionally Exposing' his gun?
No. He did not actually 'expose' any handgun, so it would not be illegal under that section.
I can run into a bar and say "I've got my Gun! Do you?" even if I was completely unarmed.
How can you expose something you don't even have?

-By Potentially breaching the peace by shouting he had a gun?
Maybe, I don't know what the laws are on breaching the peace. If someone felt threatened, possibly. Perhaps one of the LEO's here can expound further here.

-By Carrying Intoxicated?
Possibly, depending on if he was intoxicated or not, and if he was actually carrying or not.
No one actually saw a gun, so we don't know if he was really carrying.

So it is legal to expose that you're carrying a gun? If a person say she has a gun, you gotta' believe it regardless of his intentions. Since the bartender hadn't cut the guy off at the bar, one must assume that he was either not intoxicated or the bartender was incompetent.

Sooo let's hijack the thread jussst a little. I love to chat guns and I sometimes do in HEB and Academy with strangers who I've just met. One of my favorite things to say is, "I think everyone in Texas should get their CHL, especially women who are more vulnerable to predators." Now if I were to tap my hip and say (where everyone at the crowded deli or binocular counter can hear), "That's why I've got a loaded gun righhhhht here to keep me and my family safe." My tone is very friendly and conversation, there is no 30.06, I haven't touched a drop of alcohol since 2004, and I've specifically announced that my intentions are for personal protection; and based on the context of the conversation, there is no question as to whether or not I'm really carrying. Laws broken?

Embalmo