In fact it IS IDENTICAL as the definition refers by section to the statutory definition used for DWI.Jumping Frog wrote:
IIRC, the statute language is virtually identical for being intoxicated with a firearm and being intoxicated while driving.
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).