TexasCHLforum.com

Lets say after a night of drinking (not carrying while drinking) you go out to eat with some friends and its after midnight. You are a bit buzzed or drunk even and you stupidly decide to carry your gun into the restaurant. A bad guy comes in to rob the place and starts shooting random people and you pull out your gun and shoot and kill the bad guy. What would happen now?

Order dessert?

Too many variables. it would depend on what city/state you were in and the local DA.

Do a tactical reload in case he has friends.

SIA

roff wrote:Lets say after a night of drinking (not carrying while drinking) you go out to eat with some friends and its after midnight. You are a bit buzzed or drunk even and you stupidly decide to carry your gun into the restaurant. A bad guy comes in to rob the place and starts shooting random people and you pull out your gun and shoot and kill the bad guy. What would happen now?

I think your statement there says it all.

You would probably be arrested for carrying while intoxicated. Also, your case for it being a righteous shoot would be highly jeopardized because of your inebriated condition and lack of decision making capabilities.

Bottom line, don't go drinking (not the 'one with dinner' argument, but out drinking to go drinking) and carry.

mymojo wrote:Too many variables. it would depend on what city/state you were in and the local DA.

texas.
what variables would change it?

roff wrote:

mymojo wrote:Too many variables. it would depend on what city/state you were in and the local DA.

texas.
what variables would change it?

Off the top of my head:
BAC
Media attention (Spin: a good kid makes a bad decision and is killed by a drunken vigilante)
DA's attitude on guns (Is it an election year?)
location (different populations have different takes on guns)
etc.

I don't believe drunks ought to carry guns any more than they ought to drive cars while under the influence, but in the scenario outlined . . .

While there is an "implied consent" provision in the law for driving while intoxicated, I'm not aware of any such provision the law requiring you to submit to a BAC, breathalyzer, or field sobriety test while carrying.

Keep your mouth shut and DO NOT do anything that would PROVE your lack of sobriety.

(Usual caveat - if there's a lawyer reading this who says I'm wrong, I'll gracefully accept correction.)

roff wrote:What would happen now?

More than likley you'd be excited to talk to the police and say something even more stupid than you might normally when you were sober.

"Sorry Ah only brought a 9mm Ociffer, mah Forty Five is home with tha whiskey..."


"Why did you shoot him 13 times?"
"I was seeing double, and had to get both of'em!"

"Why did you shoot him 13 times?"

That's all the bullets I had with me.

HankB wrote:I don't believe drunks ought to carry guns any more than they ought to drive cars while under the influence, but in the scenario outlined . . .

While there is an "implied consent" provision in the law for driving while intoxicated, I'm not aware of any such provision the law requiring you to submit to a BAC, breathalyzer, or field sobriety test while carrying.

Keep your mouth shut and DO NOT do anything that would PROVE your lack of sobriety.

(Usual caveat - if there's a lawyer reading this who says I'm wrong, I'll gracefully accept correction.)

Why? I bet you get two different answers from two different lawyers. Not to disparage lawyers, of course. Just been my experience.

A lot of things can get overlooked if the outcome is righteous, but your scenario is asking a bit much.

I would guess you would find out where Coffield unit is located.

Well, what I think would happen first is there would be a determination as to the justifiability of the 'shoot'. Assuming that you weren't charged with unjustifabily using deadly force, a number of things might happen. First, I'd guess if there was an allegation of you being intoxicated somebody would have to prove that if you weren't charged with that at the time. Second, you perhaps could be sued in civil court, but I actually thought the "make my day" law limits the ability to sue if you weren't charged/convicted.

I think the mostly likely scenario is nothing would happen to you if the you were found to have been justified using deadly force. Since you were in control enough to use deadly force to protect somebody, maybe you'd even have demonstrated that there shouldn't be a 'carrying while intoxicated' prohibition.

(and of course I am not serious about there not needing to be an intoxicated carry restriction)