CHL, Vehicle and Adult Beverage Question

[bayouhazard]

Simple solution.......
Want to drink? Do it at home.

Dont drink and drive!

Similarly, if someone is taking medicine that impairs their thinking or reduces their coordination, they should stay home or if they have to go out, leave the guns and cars at home.

Intoxicated is intuixicated, whether it's booze or prescribed by an MD.

[bayouhazard]

I agree but I'm not willing to risk x years of my life to find out if the officer that just pulled me over has the same definition of "intoxicated" that I do, ya know?

OK, but by the same logic, better not drive, then, either!

I'm not sure I understand the jump to logic of not driving you mentioned..

Intoxicated is intoxicated.

If you're worried a cop will think you're intoxicated, driving sounds like a bad idea.

If you actually are intoxicated, from whatever substance, driving is a very bad idea.

[sjfcontrol]

With the definition of "intoxicated" not clearly defined in the same section as the stuff about carrying with alcohol, I don't want to leave it up to an officer having a bad day to smell the single beer I drank and ruin my life for carrying. If I am carrying and want to drink, I go back to my vehicle, lock it up in the lock box, and go drink. At home I do what I want.

I can understand (kinda) an officer that is not intimately familiar with CHL laws, but one that is unfamiliar with the definition of intoxication has a serious professional issue (In my opinion, of course! )

I agree but I'm not willing to risk x years of my life to find out if the officer that just pulled me over has the same definition of "intoxicated" that I do, ya know?

OK, but by the same logic, better not drive, then, either!

Oh, and by the way...

Sec. 12.21. CLASS A MISDEMEANOR. An individual adjudged guilty of a Class A misdemeanor shall be punished by:
(1) a fine not to exceed $4,000;
(2) confinement in jail for a term not to exceed one year; or
(3) both such fine and confinement.

I'm not sure I understand the jump to logic of not driving you mentioned. Most other laws are more clearly defined such as BAC of 0.08 etc. I haven't been convinced that there is such numerical definition dealing with carrying and alcohol.

Since I didn't give my life story, I defaulted to the possible jail time argument, but there are several other things in my life that will be immediately ruined if I come home with a class A misdemeanor. That's enough reason for me.

OK -- as I stated before, the laws defining intoxication for CHL carry are the SAME as those for driving. So if you're afraid the officer will think you're too intoxicated to carry, he'll also think you're too intoxicated to drive. Though I give you that the FIRST DWI is only a Class B misdemeanor (according to what I found online) rather than Class A.

As for the 0.08 -- again the laws are the same. All the 0.08 does is give a limit over which it IS ASSUMED you are intoxicated, and no further evidence is necessary. YOU CAN STILL BE CONVICTED OF DRIVING (OR CARRYING) while intoxicated, WITH A BAC UNDER 0.08. The officer would need to produce evidence of impairment. The SFST is one method of that determination. Not sure what the alternatives are available if refused. Eventually if may just hinge on the officers observations of your behavior to determine if you're impaired.

[Keith B]

sjfcontrol is spot on on this one guys. I have seen (and arrested) people who were way over .08 that didn't seem to be too intoxicated, and had someone who blew .01 that was wasted out of their gourd. It all depends on the person and WHAT ELSE is going on with their body.

The de facto for DWI in Texas and most states is .08 BAC. That says you are intoxicated, no matter how you are acting. Now, you can be below .08, even .00 and be intoxicated due to ingesting other substances (legal or illegal) into your body. Combinations of alcohol and cold/allergy medications or other drugs can build together to impair your abilities. Even medical conditions can make you appear to be intoxicated, and you actually could be impaired to the point you should not be driving or carrying.

I have had two incidents within the past couple of years where I have witnessed an erratic driver and called it in, then followed them with 911 on the line to direct police to the car. One was a woman who was driving terribly. She pulled out in front of two different vehicles and was crossing into other lanes frequently. The police got her stopped. I stuck around long enough to give the officer my name and contact info and see paramedics show up. The officer called me about 45 minutes later and told me she was actually diabetic and was having an episode due to her blood sugar levels. She also wanted him to thank me for calling in as she knew she was having issues but couldn't even think straight enough to stop driving and call for assistance. The other was a lady who was apparently bipolar and off her meds and the officers called a family member to come an get her and would not let her drive until she was back stable on her medication.

So, it IS up the officer discretion to determine if you are intoxicated, drinking or not, for both driving and carrying alike, if you are UNDER .08% BAC. .08% or over and it is cut and dried. The difference is they will have to prove you were intoxicated with some other evidence as in dash-cam video or a blood tox-screen if you were under .08.

[WildBill]

sjfcontrol is spot on on this one guys. I have seen (and arrested) people who were way over .08 that didn't seem to be too intoxicated, and had someone who blew .01 that was wasted out of their gourd. It all depends on the person and WHAT ELSE is going on with their body.

I agree with both of you on this point.

My objection is when an instructor teaches that it is illegal to have any alcohol in your system if you are carrying. That may be an excellent policy, it may their own personal standard of behavior or their interpretation of the law. It is simply not true that is is against the law.

[sjfcontrol]

sjfcontrol is spot on on this one guys. I have seen (and arrested) people who were way over .08 that didn't seem to be too intoxicated, and had someone who blew .01 that was wasted out of their gourd. It all depends on the person and WHAT ELSE is going on with their body.

I agree with both of you on this point.

My objection is when an instructor teaches that it is illegal to have any alcohol in your system if you are carrying. That may be an excellent policy, it may their own personal standard of behavior or their interpretation of the law. It is simply not true that is is against the law.

Did you not see my initial posting above regarding instructors' training?

The problem here is more complex than "preachy instructors". DPS is the entity that "teaches instructors", and they are the ones that teach "there is no legal limit of intoxication when carrying under a CHL". Although technically correct in that you can be legally intoxicated regardless of your BAC (i.e. physically or mentally impaired), the statement is intentionally worded (IMO) to imply "zero tolerance". Without any other guidance -- for instance, from this site -- it would not be unreasonable for instructors to believe they've been instructed that a CHL can be arrested and forfeit their license with any detectable amount of alcohol in their system.

[WildBill]

Did you not see my initial posting above regarding instructors' training?

Yes I did. I was restating my point.

[74novaman]

sjfcontrol is spot on on this one guys. I have seen (and arrested) people who were way over .08 that didn't seem to be too intoxicated, and had someone who blew .01 that was wasted out of their gourd. It all depends on the person and WHAT ELSE is going on with their body.

I agree with both of you on this point.

My objection is when an instructor teaches that it is illegal to have any alcohol in your system if you are carrying. That may be an excellent policy, it may their own personal standard of behavior or their interpretation of the law. It is simply not true that is is against the law.

Exactly.

And sfcontrol, the DPS instructors shouldn't be "interpreting" things when they teach instructors classes either.

If they feel you shouldn't be able to drink and carry, then they should fix the penal code to spell out that you cannot have any alcohol in your system.

[WildBill]

My objection is when an instructor teaches that it is illegal to have any alcohol in your system if you are carrying. That may be an excellent policy, it may their own personal standard of behavior or their interpretation of the law. It is simply not true that is is against the law.

Exactly.

And sfcontrol, the DPS instructors shouldn't be "interpreting" things when they teach instructors classes either.

If they feel you shouldn't be able to drink and carry, then they should fix the penal code to spell out that you cannot have any alcohol in your system.

I have nothing new to add to this thread. It has all been said.

[sjfcontrol]

sjfcontrol is spot on on this one guys. I have seen (and arrested) people who were way over .08 that didn't seem to be too intoxicated, and had someone who blew .01 that was wasted out of their gourd. It all depends on the person and WHAT ELSE is going on with their body.

I agree with both of you on this point.

My objection is when an instructor teaches that it is illegal to have any alcohol in your system if you are carrying. That may be an excellent policy, it may their own personal standard of behavior or their interpretation of the law. It is simply not true that is is against the law.

Exactly.

And sfcontrol, the DPS instructors shouldn't be "interpreting" things when they teach instructors classes either.

If they feel you shouldn't be able to drink and carry, then they should fix the penal code to spell out that you cannot have any alcohol in your system.

I suggest you write a strongly-worded letter to that effect to the DPS Legal department.

Actually, if you notice, what they are teaching is technically correct ("No legal limit..."). It is just worded in a way to make the (perhaps naive?) instructor-student believe they are saying something else ("zero tolerance").

[74novaman]

I suggest you write a strongly-worded letter to that effect to the DPS Legal department.

I'd rather they and I spent time on getting campus carry passed then worrying about technicalities that probably won't ever affect anyone. But it is a fun discussion on legality/wording/intent, etc.

[Keith B]

The problem you have with the DPS is they are covering their rears by not committing to say "Oh, it's this' or 'Oh, it's that'. They will not give a legal opinion on the enforcement of a statute and will play the gray area. Unfortunately that translates to those (i.e. student instructors) who don't understand they are teaching you what the statute says, but not how to interpret the law, incorrectly and thus the student instructors come out of the certification class misinterpreting what they are saying.

A good example is enforcement of a 30.06. I understand that one of the last classes was told that any 'no guns' sign is notification of the owners intent. Well, yeah, it is. However, it it not LEGAL notification that meets the requirements of the 30.06 statute and some student instructors said DPS was telling them that any 'no guns' sign was valid. What the DPS was apparently trying to infer is that if you pass a non -30.06 'no guns' sign, that you COULD be arrested and charged if someone wants to make a test case out of you. However, in their attempt to not give legal advice they don't get the real message across to the students that 30.06 is the law, and all other signs are not, but it may take a trial to prove your innocence if some eager beaver DA wants to play and challenge you on a non-30.06 being valid notification. An example of that is Grapevine PD saying they believe the non-conforming signs on Grapevine Mills Mall are valid and they MAY arrest you if caught carrying there.

So, unfortunately, unless the instructor has some legal background, is smarter than the average bear, or joins the Texas CHL Forum and gets the straight dope, then they go off and incorrectly teach their students the law.

[tommyg]

When I travel in my truck I have a large plastic box in the bed the box is lockable and I chain it in the bed
Anything that I don't feel comfortable with in the cab goes in the box. This works well I had
my lap top in it during a heavy rain no damage. If I have a half full bottle of liquor it goes in the
box etc. you can get a good box that can be locked for under $100.00. If the box is not needed
and in the way I just take it out of the bed.

[Oldgringo]

Keith B wrote:
...it IS up the officer discretion to determine if you are intoxicated, drinking or not, for both driving and carrying alike, if you are UNDER .08% BAC. .08% or over and it is cut and dried. The difference is they will have to prove you were intoxicated with some other evidence as in dash-cam video or a blood tox-screen if you were under .08.

There it is! This may not be the answer you were hoping for but, this is the answer...wherever you may roam.

[Ameer]

These stories about Texas certified instructors spreading misinformation makes a lot of people when some Texas instructors complain about "The Utah Problem" or the Virginia online class. Texas CHL instructors should get their own house in order and fix the problems with Texas classes if they want credibility when they complain about other states' classes.