Speaking strictly from the law as written (morality and good sense aside), your instructors were wrong.aggie_wes wrote:We were taught zero tolerance in my class as well.kjolly wrote:"but the idea that you can have zero amount of alcohol while carrying is a myth."
We were taught zero tolerance in our class.
IANAL either, but nope.XtremeDuty.45 wrote:It has been a LONG time since I have had to worry about this but if my memory serves me right the key word is intoxicated. I believe that even if you are .001 you are still technically intoxicated and therefore it is a crime. I also believe that for driving it specifically states .08 so that would be the difference. Again it has been a long while and I could be mistaken.
IANAL
The key word is “intoxicated,” and the statutes pertinent to CHL holders are GC §411.171(6) and PC §49.01(2). As for getting behind the wheel, it’s Health and Safety Code, Title 6, Subtitle C, and PC §49.01(2). Note that as defined in PC §49.01(2), “intoxicated” doesn’t require alcohol. And as hirundo82 once pointed out, an average person can exceed a .001 BAC just due to natural fermentation by bacteria in the stomach.
It seems that, year after year, the legality of carrying and alcohol continues to confuse more CHLers and instructors than any other issue. BAC measurement is just one way to prove intoxication. If someone pops a couple of Quaaludes and straps on his gun, he can be just as guilty of carrying—or driving—while intoxicated as the guy who’s pounded back a few beers.
Since this comes up every few months, here’s a short cheat-sheet of some past topics that discussed this in detail:
Alcohol and CHL: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=31111" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
CHL and Alcohol: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=31475" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Alcohol and Carrying Question: viewtopic.php?f=53&t=29504" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Carrying and Drinking Clarified: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=42233" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
No Drinking While Carrying?: viewtopic.php?f=92&t=26256" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Case Law for “Intoxicated” Limit While CC: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=41908" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
As to the OP’s question, I think you’ve already been hit with “It doesn’t sound like you should be driving, anyway” comments. So I’ll just note again that PC §49.01(2) makes no distinction between one criterion for intoxication when it comes to carrying a firearm, and another when it comes to operating a motor vehicle. And having a “few” beers would certainly cause impairment. The .08 BAC thing is nothing more than one point of absolute proof of intoxication the State of Texas has established; it isn’t a guideline level under which you’re good to drive.
Regarding locking a firearm, I don’t like the glove compartment at all. First, that’s always an immediate target for a smash-and-grab. Second, since the glove compartment is within reach from the driver’s seat, locked or not I wouldn’t want to try to convince a LEO that the gun had been locked in there all night, that I hadn’t just popped it in when he lit me up.
My preferences are hardened, lockable cases that you can secure directly to the chassis, or to a seat rail or other fixture that’s difficult to remove. There are a wide variety of these, from expensive, bolt-down biometric jobs to inexpensive portable ones that use a key and a double-ended cable to tie it to a fixture in the truck. I use one of the latter, have it hooked to the seat rail on the driver’s side, and slip in underneath the seat. If I have to go into a 30.06 business, that’s where I lock up my gun. A determined thief can still get to it, but he’s gonna have to find it first, and then it’s gonna be a way more difficult proposition without a good bolt cutter than is popping a glove compartment.
I think the lock boxes are a good investment, even if you never drink and carry.