CHL, Vehicle and Adult Beverage Question

[Keith B]

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 instructors if they want credibility when they complain about other states' classes.

When will folks get it right; it was not the Other States course that was the problem, it was a few Texas INSTRUCTORS and the way they were marketing their classes and slamming Texas CHL and the process that caused the legislators to get all bent out of shape. These instructors were touting the fact you can get a cheaper license and not have to shoot and using that as their marketing tactic and rubbing the DPS nose in that fact. It caught media attention and then the legislators picked up on it. It came very close to getting a bill introduced that would have completely eliminated the capability of a Texas resident carrying on a non-resident license. It DID cause Utah to change their rules and require you to have a resident license from your own state before they would issue you a non-resident license. So these instructors DID mess in their own beds.

[wgoforth]

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.

I'm not saying they are correct... but the most likely reason that CHL instructors teach it this way, is because this is the way the DPS taught it to us. We were clearly told in instructor training that (1) you can have NO discernable amount of alcohol. (2) The .08 has to do with driving, not carrying. (3) Even if they smell it on your breath quote, "we are going to have some problems." (4) And apparently this has been communicated in some way to other law enforcement. I asked the local LT at our PD, and he used the exact wording, "No discernable amount." He said if you have been drinking, but not impaired, he would return your gun in the trunk, but confiscate your CHL for state suspension and possible revokement. (5) They (DPS instructor training) said that from a practical standpoint, if you had a glass of wine with your meal at a restaurant, and you shot a mugger as you were going back to your vehicle, you set yourself up for a claim of "he had been drinking." So this most likely is not the individual instructors interpretation, but rather repeating what the DPS taught them. When I wrote asking them specifically concerning this, the response was "What is safe and what will keep you from trouble and do you HAVE to drink?" type of answer. Will a judge see it the same way in light of the Penal Code is another question.

edit: I see others responded similarly. However as a recent grad from instructor training, it is still taught this way and fresh on my mind... and the added take of the local police and response from my letter to DPS.

[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.

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.

I'm not saying they are correct... but the most likely reason that CHL instructors teach it this way, is because this is the way the DPS taught it to us. We were clearly told in instructor training that (1) you can have NO discernable amount of alcohol. (2) The .08 has to do with driving, not carrying. (3) Even if they smell it on your breath quote, "we are going to have some problems." (4) And apparently this has been communicated in some way to other law enforcement. I asked the local LT at our PD, and he used the exact wording, "No discernable amount." He said if you have been drinking, but not impaired, he would return your gun in the trunk, but confiscate your CHL for state suspension and possible revokement. (5) They (DPS instructor training) said that from a practical standpoint, if you had a glass of wine with your meal at a restaurant, and you shot a mugger as you were going back to your vehicle, you set yourself up for a claim of "he had been drinking." So this most likely is not the individual instructors interpretation, but rather repeating what the DPS taught them. When I wrote asking them specifically concerning this, the response was "What issafe and what will keep you from trouble?" type of answer. Will a judge see it the same way in light of the Penal Code is another question.

Well, directly from 46.035

(d) A license holder commits an offense if, while intoxicated, the license holder carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed.

Now, the only place intoxicated is defined in TPC 46 is in 46.06 about selling a firearm.

(b) In this section:(1) "Intoxicated" means substantial impairment of mental or physical capacity resulting from introduction of any substance into the body.

TPC 49.01 defines the actual Intoxication standard for the penal code, which basically matches 46.06

(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.

So, what IF the DPS is teaching that any consumption of alcohol while carrying is illegal, then they are WRONG. PERIOD.

I still believe what the DPS is trying to say that if you are in a shooting situation, and you have had any alcohol, that a prosecutor will look at that and it will weigh negatively against review of the shooting being justified. And if you go to trial, a DA may try to use that as a hammer. No different than you had been arguing with someone and that person pulls a knife on you vs. just a random attack on you, they will try to say you initiated the fight.

Bottom line, intoxicated is spelled out. And while I will very rarely drink anything while carrying, if I so happen to have one beer with dinner, they are going to have to prove that I met the definition of intoxicated as defined in the penal code before they suspend my license or they will have a court battle on their hands.

[wgoforth]

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.

I'm not saying they are correct... but the most likely reason that CHL instructors teach it this way, is because this is the way the DPS taught it to us. We were clearly told in instructor training that (1) you can have NO discernable amount of alcohol. (2) The .08 has to do with driving, not carrying. (3) Even if they smell it on your breath quote, "we are going to have some problems." (4) And apparently this has been communicated in some way to other law enforcement. I asked the local LT at our PD, and he used the exact wording, "No discernable amount." He said if you have been drinking, but not impaired, he would return your gun in the trunk, but confiscate your CHL for state suspension and possible revokement. (5) They (DPS instructor training) said that from a practical standpoint, if you had a glass of wine with your meal at a restaurant, and you shot a mugger as you were going back to your vehicle, you set yourself up for a claim of "he had been drinking." So this most likely is not the individual instructors interpretation, but rather repeating what the DPS taught them. When I wrote asking them specifically concerning this, the response was "What issafe and what will keep you from trouble?" type of answer. Will a judge see it the same way in light of the Penal Code is another question.

Well, directly from 46.035

(d) A license holder commits an offense if, while intoxicated, the license holder carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed.

Now, the only place intoxicated is defined in TPC 46 is in 46.06 about selling a firearm.

(b) In this section:(1) "Intoxicated" means substantial impairment of mental or physical capacity resulting from introduction of any substance into the body.

TPC 49.01 defines the actual Intoxication standard for the penal code, which basically matches 46.06

(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.

So, what IF the DPS is teaching that any consumption of alcohol while carrying is illegal, then they are WRONG. PERIOD.

I still believe what the DPS is trying to say that if you are in a shooting situation, and you have had any alcohol, that a prosecutor will look at that and it will weigh negatively against review of the shooting being justified. And if you go to trial, a DA may try to use that as a hammer. No different than you had been arguing with someone and that person pulls a knife on you vs. just a random attack on you, they will try to say you initiated the fight.

Bottom line, intoxicated is spelled out. And while I will very rarely drink anything while carrying, if I so happen to have one beer with dinner, they are going to have to prove that I met the definition of intoxicated as defined in the penal code before they suspend my license or they will have a court battle on their hands.

I understand... but I was answering the thought that CHL instructors are making up their own laws/interpretations and trying to point out that it's most likely because that is what we were grilled in at Georgetown.

[Dragonfighter]

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.

I've been on the EMS side of this. One that really gets people in trouble (and often the arresting officer) is when a diabetic goes into diabetic ketoacidosis or "DKA". When the person becomes that acidotic their blood is toxic and the begin to lose neurological functionality and display nystagmus, aphasia and ataxia. On top of that their body goes into a kind of fail safe and they start trying to pee out the ketones and breathe them off producing a sign called "acetone breath" which is often described as a "juicy fruit smell". But it always came across to me (and most I know) as smelling like alcohol use...a lot of it. Some breathalyzers have been known to show a hit on alcohol when the subject was in fact in DKA. Unfortunately some officers don't find this out until their prisoner dies in the cruiser or in jail that night.

It's REAL EASY for me, a non-drinker, to say don't drink at all when carrying but that is neither the law nor a moral standard. I remember many, many summers in the backwoods of Kentucky out at the family cabin, we'd carry and shoot everything we had including muzzle loaders and 1/4 scale cannons. There was some beer but no one got the least bit "impaired", but at night when the 2-4 beer night caps came out, the weapons were put away. There was discretion, maturity and due diligence. All that said, I still think it "wise" to refrain while carrying...especially away from home. But again, that is REAL EASY for me to say.

[speedsix]

...for me, it's kinda like bungee jumpin'...I ain't losin' my CHL because someone thought I was intoxicated...and I ain't gonna have an obituary that says I died of bungee jumpin'...it's just personal choice...

[Lambda Force]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Except for some people, I guess.

[jmra]

...for me, it's kinda like bungee jumpin'...I ain't losin' my CHL because someone thought I was intoxicated...and I ain't gonna have an obituary that says I died of bungee jumpin'...it's just personal choice...

[wgoforth]

...for me, it's kinda like bungee jumpin'...I ain't losin' my CHL because someone thought I was intoxicated...and I ain't gonna have an obituary that says I died of bungee jumpin'...it's just personal choice...

Wise sentiments as usual speed!

[Bart]

...for me, it's kinda like bungee jumpin'...I ain't losin' my CHL because someone thought I was intoxicated...and I ain't gonna have an obituary that says I died of bungee jumpin'...it's just personal choice...

I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather, not screaming in terror like the passengers on his bus.

[Roccodawg]

....here's another interesting perspective that my CHL Instructor course leader had to say as a DPS Trooper: "how would you, as a citizen, feel about me, an on-duty Trooper, having a couple of beers at lunch, then responding to your emergency with a gun....", or something to that affect. Never really thought it like that before he put it that way. I'm 225 lbs and seriously doubt that a couple of beers would impair my judgment enough to make a difference, but it's just too risky IMO - too many things can go wrong and it's too important of a right to give up cause I wanted a beer or two. I enjoy a few cold beers occasionally, but simply think it's a mistake to chance it and I don't do it.

[speedsix]

...for me, it's kinda like bungee jumpin'...I ain't losin' my CHL because someone thought I was intoxicated...and I ain't gonna have an obituary that says I died of bungee jumpin'...it's just personal choice...

I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather, not screaming in terror like the passengers on his bus.

...made MY day, thank you berry much!!!

[sjfcontrol]

....here's another interesting perspective that my CHL Instructor course leader had to say as a DPS Trooper: "how would you, as a citizen, feel about me, an on-duty Trooper, having a couple of beers at lunch, then responding to your emergency with a gun....", or something to that affect. Never really thought it like that before he put it that way. I'm 225 lbs and seriously doubt that a couple of beers would impair my judgment enough to make a difference, but it's just too risky IMO - too many things can go wrong and it's too important of a right to give up cause I wanted a beer or two. I enjoy a few cold beers occasionally, but simply think it's a mistake to chance it and I don't do it.

My bet is that he's had a few beers while off-duty. AND I bet he did NOT disarm prior to doing so.
Comparing his drinking ON-DUTY to a CHL'er drinking at dinner is not (IMO) a comparable situation.

[74novaman]

My bet is that he's had a few beers while off-duty. AND I bet he did NOT disarm prior to doing so.
Comparing his drinking ON-DUTY to a CHL'er drinking at dinner is not (IMO) a comparable situation.

Yup!

I don't drink before work either.

[Roccodawg]

My bet is that he's had a few beers while off-duty. AND I bet he did NOT disarm prior to doing so.
Comparing his drinking ON-DUTY to a CHL'er drinking at dinner is not (IMO) a comparable situation.[/quote]

Myabe so - maybe he hasnt. Either way, I'm sure he'd have some questions to answer to if he were to have had a couple off duty and then shot someone.....just sayin'.