A Couple beers

[srothstein]

BKJ

Perhaps it would be easier to explain the answer to your question by putting it in another perspective. If the CHL is in the car, he is not carrying under his CHL authority. The law on car carry specifies that he could carry in his car if he is not committing another crime. If the person is legally too intoxicated to drive the car,he would be committing the crime of DWI, which would also make him CWI. If he is not too intoxicated to drive, he could carry in the car legally and the CHL wouldnot come into it.

Now, if we add the lockbox, we are changing the carrying and a court MIGHT agree that this is not "on or about his person." If this is true, then the intoxication level only matters for his DWI charge. The carrying is not illegal either way then since only carrying on or about the person would be illegal. In a pickup, the closeness to his body might be debatable, but if the lockbox is in the trunk of a car, he would be clear (except the DWI case).

[KRM45]

To each his own but if I am going to have a drink...even one, i don't carry. My concern is not so much for getting drunk as it is for having to use my handgun and then getting accused of being drunk.

This is where the logic fails for me. If I am in a position where I "have to use my handgun" and I left it at home that means I or one of my friends/family is likely to not survive the encounter. I am not willing to allow that over some fear that I might be arrested for PWI (Packing While Intoxicated)...

[UpTheIrons]

I've been looking for a place to post this question, and it seems that it fits here. I have it on very good authority that DPS is teaching adamantly in its CHL instructors' classes that the law is 0% alcohol if carrying while driving for CHL holders. I believe this is an enforcement directive by DPS, as I don't read the law this way. Section 49 gives the usual definition of intoxication when dealing with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, and Section 46 leaves the definition unstated, and does not refer to Section 49.

I took my class last month from an LEO. He made it very clear that .08 isn't the standard anymore for CHL. The new standard is 0.0%, as was said above. He DID NOT SAY those exact words, but he implied that impaired = intoxicated. That if you are under the influence of Nyquil or prescription Oxycontin or anything you have taken into your body that MAY cause impairment, you MAY be subject to penalty.

Others may be able to clarify this better -- it's been a long day and my recollection is a little fuzzy, but I think I remember that pretty well.

[03Lightningrocks]

To each his own but if I am going to have a drink...even one, i don't carry. My concern is not so much for getting drunk as it is for having to use my handgun and then getting accused of being drunk.

This is where the logic fails for me. If I am in a position where I "have to use my handgun" and I left it at home that means I or one of my friends/family is likely to not survive the encounter. I am not willing to allow that over some fear that I might be arrested for PWI (Packing While Intoxicated)...

This is where the logic fails me. I just simply abstain from drinking when I am out in public. I am willing to forgo intoxicating substances so that i am able to carry when out in public and protect my family. I learned long ago that life is about sacrifices. If skipping a beer with dinner is that big a deal, somebody needs to re-examine their priorities. Sometimes we can't have our cake and eat it too.

[KRM45]

To each his own but if I am going to have a drink...even one, i don't carry. My concern is not so much for getting drunk as it is for having to use my handgun and then getting accused of being drunk.

This is where the logic fails for me. If I am in a position where I "have to use my handgun" and I left it at home that means I or one of my friends/family is likely to not survive the encounter. I am not willing to allow that over some fear that I might be arrested for PWI (Packing While Intoxicated)...

This is where the logic fails me. I just simply abstain from drinking when I am out in public. I am willing to forgo intoxicating substances so that i am able to carry when out in public and protect my family. I learned long ago that life is about sacrifices. If skipping a beer with dinner is that big a deal, somebody needs to re-examine their priorities. Sometimes we can't have our cake and eat it too.

You'll get no argument from me on that. It has been many years since I had even a drop of alcohol.

[03Lightningrocks]

You'll get no argument from me on that. It has been many years since I had even a drop of alcohol.

I probably could have worded my first post different, but the point I was trying to make was "IF" I were planning to drink, I wouldn't carry. The choice I make in real life is to not drink in public...because I am always carrying.

[bdickens]

I took my class last month from an LEO. He made it very clear that .08 isn't the standard anymore for CHL. The new standard is 0.0%, as was said above. He DID NOT SAY those exact words, but he implied that impaired = intoxicated. That if you are under the influence of Nyquil or prescription Oxycontin or anything you have taken into your body that MAY cause impairment, you MAY be subject to penalty.

Others may be able to clarify this better -- it's been a long day and my recollection is a little fuzzy, but I think I remember that pretty well.

No offense, either to him or to you, but just because someone is an LEO doesn't necessarily mean he knows the law.

[Oldgringo]

03Lightningrocks wrote:

I probably could have worded my first post different, but the point I was trying to make was "IF" I were planning to drink, I wouldn't carry. The choice I make in real life is to not drink in public...because I am always carrying.

I have found, over the years, that ordering a drink/beer with a meal when eating out is an expense I don't need. The added benefit is that I don't have to concern myself with possible conflicts between my CHL, my DL and/or the LEO.

[gregthehand]

I have had a beer or two while carrying. The other day I sat in a resturant with my parents and had a margarita. It's not illegal and it's not dangerous. I was not imparied. I didn't even feel any affects for the alcohol. I'm sure some people will shake their finger at me and say "impairment starts at consumption." They are right too. However the differance is the level of impariment that your deeling with. I feel more impaired and clumsy when I'm talking on my phone then when I have one drink. Infact I feel NO impairment when I have one drink. That's me though and you're you. If you haven't had a drink in years that's great and I feel like I could stop drinking right now and not miss it at all. However saying that you shall not drink while having just one or two beers as a blanket statement.

Your son will be just fine and perfectly legal. He doesn't even have to lock up his pistol. He doesn't even have to disarm. Now some people say you didn't give enough information. I think you gave enough. If your son had some condition where drinking half a beer turned him into a warewolf I'm sure you would have stated it.

Let's not try to over analyze everything to death here folks. I'm not attacking anyone here either just airing my opinion so please don't blast me too bad.

[FTBL]

Just make a choice drink or carry!

[barres]

I've been looking for a place to post this question, and it seems that it fits here. I have it on very good authority that DPS is teaching adamantly in its CHL instructors' classes that the law is 0% alcohol if carrying while driving for CHL holders. I believe this is an enforcement directive by DPS, as I don't read the law this way. Section 49 gives the usual definition of intoxication when dealing with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, and Section 46 leaves the definition unstated, and does not refer to Section 49.

I took my class last month from an LEO. He made it very clear that .08 isn't the standard anymore for CHL. The new standard is 0.0%, as was said above. He DID NOT SAY those exact words, but he implied that impaired = intoxicated. That if you are under the influence of Nyquil or prescription Oxycontin or anything you have taken into your body that MAY cause impairment, you MAY be subject to penalty.

Others may be able to clarify this better -- it's been a long day and my recollection is a little fuzzy, but I think I remember that pretty well.

The problem, as I understand it, is, if you're not driving, then there is no recourse for a BAL test. BAL tests are only required if the person being accused on intoxication was driving. That blows the .08 limit for intoxication out the window. Now, the only standard by which you can be judged as to whether or not you are intoxicated is whether or not the officer can articulate (and show evidence supporting his statements with field sobriety tests or similar) that you were impaired by the ingestion of an intoxicating substance. For some people that could be a mighty fine line to try to walk. Because of this, the safest statement for an instructor to make is that the only absolutely safe amount of alcohol to drink and be within the limits of the law is 0. Of course, when you paint with a broad brush, you're not going to hit the details very well at all, and, in actuality, as many have said, most people could drink a moderate amount of alcohol without being impaired.

Those that don't drink when they carry, that's great; I applaud you! Those that drink in moderation and carry only when they're not impaired, that's great; I applaud you! Those that drink to excess and carry when impaired, that's incredibly stupid; I hope you're prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law!

[03Lightningrocks]

I have found, over the years, that ordering a drink/beer with a meal when eating out is an expense I don't need. The added benefit is that I don't have to concern myself with possible conflicts between my CHL, my DL and/or the LEO.

No doubt about it.

[DoubleJ]

didn't a wise man say something about "Don't drink your calories?"

I'd like to not have hard arteries and heart disease...

[03Lightningrocks]

Something to ponder. I have hunted for years....like 45 of them...LOL. I have hunted in many places with many different hunters. I have never known a hunter to say he would have a beer or drink just before going out to hunt. Drinking while hunting is nothing short of stupid. You could shoot a cow, your hunting buddies or even yourself. This policy has never been don't get "drunk" while hunting. It is an all or none policy. If I were hunting with you and saw you swilling a brewski while sitting in the stand, i would leave, just after beating you down like your momma should have done...LOL.

So here we are in a CHL forum discussing drinking while carrying. Interesting contrast to me. Maybe it is because some CHLers first exposure to firearms was reading cool magazines and interweb stuff. Fellers....i wish I could tell you how many times I have watched a guy claim he can handle his booze and end up looking like a fool.

[WildBill]

Something to ponder. I have hunted for years....like 45 of them...LOL. I have hunted in many places with many different hunters. I have never known a hunter to say he would have a beer or drink just before going out to hunt. Drinking while hunting is nothing short of stupid. You could shoot a cow, your hunting buddies or even yourself. This policy has never been don't get "drunk" while hunting. It is an all or none policy. If I were hunting with you and saw you swilling a brewski while sitting in the stand, i would leave, just after beating you down like your momma should have done...LOL.

So here we are in a CHL forum discussing drinking while carrying. Interesting contrast to me. Maybe it is because some CHLers first exposure to firearms was reading cool magazines and interweb stuff. Fellers....i wish I could tell you how many times I have watched a guy claim he can handle his booze and end up looking like a fool.

Your experience with hunters is contrary to what I have observed.