Alcohol & your CHL

[Keith B]

He was under the impression that it was the same as drinking while driving(.08 BAC). I showed him the penal code where it said 'impaired' not intoxicated

It is the same. Same penal code, 49.01 for CHL and DWI.

[tommyg]

When I go out drinking I leave home on the bus. I put enough money for a cab in
my boot and the phone numbers for three cab companies in my pocket
along with my cell phone. I leave my gun at home and my pocket knife
at home and car and motorcycle in a shed behind my house.

[sunny beach]

When I go out drinking I carry a shotgun so I don't have to worry about the 46.035 restrictions.

Or double vision.

[srothstein]

He was under the impression that it was the same as drinking while driving(.08 BAC). I showed him the penal code where it said 'impaired' not intoxicated

Could you tell me which section you showed him? My copy of the Penal Code says carrying while intoxicated is illegal. It is in section 46.035(d). And intoxicated has the meaning given by section 49.01, which makes it the same as DWI.

[mewalke]

To try and get past what seems to be some confusion, .08 BAC is only the hard line that makes you automatically "intoxicated" by law. You do not have to have a BAC of .08 to be arrested for DWI or carrying intoxicated if the arresting officer deems you to be intoxicated by the following language:

Sec. 49.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(2) "Intoxicated" means:
(A) not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body; or
(B) having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.

Emphasis added.

[ralewis]

If this was a forum for car enthusiasts, and somebody posted a question about drinking and driving, would the answer to the question "would you have a few drinks with dinner" be different?

[hillfighter]

If this was a forum for car enthusiasts, and somebody posted a question about drinking and driving, would the answer to the question "would you have a few drinks with dinner" be different?

I have seen 12 hour bottle-to-throttle posts on motorcycle forums but 'm trying to picture somebody on a car forum saying they left their car at home so they could have a single glass of wine with dinner.

[birdman253]

If your friend was imparired by his drinking, then he was illegally carrying. Personnally, I may have one beer with a meal while carrying, but that is the limit for me, and that is a rare instance. And that will depend on my personal condition at the time of the consumption. If a person is tired or not feeling up to par, even one beer can potentially impair them and cause them to be illegally carrying.

I'm in your court on this one, Keith. My wife and I went to dinner last Friday, and I ordered a spicy dish. It just begged for an ice cold beer to wash it down. So, yes, I committed what is to many a cardinal sin, and enjoyed said cold beer with my spicy shrimp creole. And yes, I did this horrible thing with a Glock concealed on my hip.

I have now donned my flame retardant clothing, and am bracing myself for the chastising, criticizing, and flat out abuse that I fully expect to be thrown this way.

[gigag04]

After studying impairment from alcohol at great depth, I think for the right person, a couple of drinks spread out across a filling meal, would keep most people within the law and safe.

But each of you knows your bodies and response to alcohol.

For me, it is not as much about being .002 seconds slower on my reactions because I had a beer, it is about protection while eating dinner.

THAT said. I will not drink at all if I'm driving the kiddos in the car. Not as much because of any of the effects of alcohol, as much as to set a good example for them.

[GreenGuy]

This is one topic that I actually had a change of mind on by reading and arguing on an Internet forum. I don't drink generally, and almost never when carrying a firearm. At one point I would NEVER have a drink while carrying, and lobbied nor should anyone else.

BUT... Then after reading a lot of discussion on the subject, I changed my tune. I still do not think it is a good idea. Nor do I do it, however the truth of the matter is a glass of wine with dinner is likely a scenario many of us could find us in. If the law were to prevent this, it basically leaves you defenseless if you were to go to dinner and wanted one drink.

The bottom line is the action. If you draw you weapon from concealment, expect the cops to be called. If you fire and shoot someone, expect the cops to be called. In either case, your actions are either justified or not. If you legally defend yourself, your Blood Alcohol Level won't matter. If you illegally defend yourself, it's called manslaughter and again, your BAC won't matter.

So for me, when I carry, I avoid drinking. I may have one beer, or glass of wine, but that's extremely rare. For others, I'll let them police themselves. But the law should not prevent someone from defending themselves in this scenario.

[jmra]

If you legally defend yourself, your Blood Alcohol Level won't matter. If you illegally defend yourself, it's called manslaughter and again, your BAC won't matter.

I'm selling a lovely bridge that I think you would be interested in purchasing.

[MadMonkey]

Yet another reason I drink at home... and even that is rare nowadays.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Last night I met a buddy that I served with out at PF Changs. We got to talking about guns since both of us are pretty avid gun collectors and CHL holders, he stated that he was carrying his new P238. I was shocked, he'd had a few bourbons and was still carrying his firearm. I quit drinking after I got back stateside but even if I did drink I would never even think of carrying my firearm while impaired. He brushed it off like it was nothing

SO my question is, how serious do yall take the laws on impairment while carrying?

Considering its something completely and utterly in my control, with minimal cost to avoid the issue, I take it very seriously.

As a policy I take it seriously as well. Firearm's ownership is a duty. If you're caught doing that you should be thrown under the jail as a warning to others.

[TxDoubleAgent]

As with doing all possible in avoiding compromising positions with a BG, is same policy I keep with the Police.

[RiverCity.45]

This has been discussed many times on the Forum but many different answers have been given. If a group as knowledgeable this can't come up with a clear definition what's the chance that an officer that has to deal with all the other laws and regulations is going to know for certain.

For me its not worth being the test case. Ice tea for me.

My thinking, as well.