I'm not sure I see any issue with this. The way I see it: altercations are more likely to take place when alcohol is involved. I mean, the three times (since I got out of primary school) that I've had to resist the urge to fight someone, alcohol has been involved, and I wasn't necessarily intoxicated. If you take someone to a bar with you who is a DD, then it makes sense that they're also the DCC (designated conceal carry). It also makes sense to place a law that you can't carry over a certain BAC (Blood Alcohol Content).
This is what always bugged me with the CCW laws: say I went to a resturant with my friends in Chicago (if infact Chi-town was CC legal), and this resturant served alcohol, my CC would immediately be "illegal" because they served liquor. That makes no sense! Now, say I went to this fine Italian restaurant while carrying and enjoyed a couple of Peronis while I had some calamari while chatting it up with some friends: it's suddenly illegal that I'm carrying, but I could climb into a 1/2ton steel frame and drive that around?! I never understood that. Well, I do, but it seems odd to me.
-liberal gun nut = exception to the rule-
-1.24274238 miles, because Russians don't need scopes-
-Gun control was the Klan's favorite law, how can you advocate a set of laws designed to allow the denigration of a people?-