An Alcoholic Drink While Carrying

[VMI77]

While I agree with those posters saying having a drink or two while carrying is not illegal and probably not a big deal, and while I'm no stranger to alcohol, when I'm going to carry or drive I don't touch it. Not just because of how it might be used against me in court, but also because even within the legal limit it might reduce my situational awareness and degrade my ability to respond to a threat.

[treadlightly]

Simple answer for me - don't drink while carrying a firearm.

Alcohol has effects you probably don't know.

For instance, every summer people die mixing lake fun and alcohol, and never does anyone mention hazards other than impairment.

One sip of beer deadens the nerves that trigger your gag reflex. One sip makes it much less uncomfortable to inhale water, and non-saline water in your lungs does massive cellular damage. You don't drown in that situation as much as you explode your lung cells.

A little bit of alcohol starts to limit your ability to hold your breath.

Alcohol also accelerates hypothermia, which still happens in relatively warm water (it just takes a lot longer).

Stupidity, in other words, probably doesn't always kill as quickly as the physiological effects of alcohol.

I have nothing against drinking and I reserve the right to drink myself under the table, it just happens I never do that. Not sure why, I just don't.

Makes it easy not to drink and carry.

[VMI77]

But on the way out to your friend's car after dinner, you are both accosted by 4 [thugs, robbers, zombies, take your pick] in the parking lot. You go for your gun. In the resulting melée, one of your bullets shatters a nearby car window and embeds itself in the dashboard, one of your bullets wounds one of the assailants in the hip and he goes down, two of your bullets are COM and kill one of the assailants, three of your bullets pass over the top of the third assailant's head as he ducks and runs off......one of which hits a bystander in the head on the far side of the parking lot, killing him, and the fourth assailant flees before you can shoot him.

In that scenario I think you're going to get hosed in court if there is ANY measurable amount of alcohol in your blood. If not in a criminal trial then in a civil trial. It will be you missed because you had a drink. OTOH, if you don't miss and hit an innocent person or property you might be OK. You have a drink, use your gun in self-defense and accidentally kill an innocent bystander, I think you're going to get fried.

[Daniel Watson]

During my CHL Instructor's Course the DPS Officer defined "intoxication - for THE purpose of carrying a handgun" is defined as, "The consumption of ANY substance that CAN cause impairment." That means any drug, alcohol, etc. I wanted further clarification on this so I did some research and spoke with lawyers from [Pre-paid legal service]. Subsequently, I found that there are three different statutes under Texas law the define "intoxication"; 1) TXPC 49.01 (the .08) law. 2) TXPC 46.06 ...intoxication means the substantial impairment of mental or physical capacity resulting from the introduction of any substance into the body... 3) TXPC 8.04 ...intoxication means a disturbance of mental or physical capacity resulting from the introduction of any substance into the body...

However, the State of Texas has ONLY prosecuted under the TXPC 49.01 statute (.08 law). But that doesn't mean that you cannot be arrested under the other statutes if the officer speaking to you discovers you've been drinking and HE determines that you are either "substantially impaired" (46.06) or "disturbed" (8.04). If THE OFFICER makes that determination then you will "take the ride." And remember, under those statutes the officer only has to verbally "prove" that in court and there's no requirement for an intoxilyzer test, blood test or anything else.

Therefore, I explain all this to my students and tell them to use their best judgment but remember, you may "beat the rap, but you can't beat The Ride!!" So use REALLY GOOD judgement.

[lildave40]

Its Simple

DONT DRINK CARRY

DRINK DONT CARRY

[Keith B]

During my CHL Instructor's Course the DPS Officer defined "intoxication - for THE purpose of carrying a handgun" is defined as, "The consumption of ANY substance that CAN cause impairment." That means any drug, alcohol, etc. I wanted further clarification on this so I did some research and spoke with lawyers from [Pre-paid legal service]. Subsequently, I found that there are three different statutes under Texas law the define "intoxication"; 1) TXPC 49.01 (the .08) law. 2) TXPC 46.06 ...intoxication means the substantial impairment of mental or physical capacity resulting from the introduction of any substance into the body... 3) TXPC 8.04 ...intoxication means a disturbance of mental or physical capacity resulting from the introduction of any substance into the body...

However, the State of Texas has ONLY prosecuted under the TXPC 49.01 statute (.08 law). But that doesn't mean that you cannot be arrested under the other statutes if the officer speaking to you discovers you've been drinking and HE determines that you are either "substantially impaired" (46.06) or "disturbed" (8.04). If THE OFFICER makes that determination then you will "take the ride." And remember, under those statutes the officer only has to verbally "prove" that in court and there's no requirement for an intoxilyzer test, blood test or anything else.

Therefore, I explain all this to my students and tell them to use their best judgment but remember, you may "beat the rap, but you can't beat The Ride!!" So use REALLY GOOD judgement.

TPC 49.01 is not only 0.08 BAC; it's not having normal use of mental or physical faculties OR 0.08 or more BAC. So, for carrying with a CHL while intoxicated, either standard can be used as defined by 49.01. TPC 46.06 would only apply if you sold a gun to someone intoxicated, and TPC 8.04 would only apply if you were trying to claim temporary insanity due to intoxication for a charge. Otherwise they would not be applicable as to the definition of intoxication.

TPC 49.01
......
(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.
- See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/ ... 47qii.dpuf

[dlh]

I certainly would not drink and drive. If an LEO pulls you over for the usual speeding, failing to signal, etc.THEN smells alcohol on your breath there is a good chance you just bought a field sobriety test...You want to go through that? No thanks.

dlh

[b322da]

A very fine demo, Andy. Your report should be absorbed by all our members and taken to heart.

Jim

[rentz]

for me if i'm going to a place and i know i'm going to consume a beer or two....i don't carry.
i'd rather deal with the possible scenario of being assaulted than the legal ramification .

that doesn't mean i'm un-prepared, i will have a knife on me at the least.

my instructor went over this exact issue and said that basically there isnt a "legal limit" for carrying its anything they judge to be impaired which COULD be just 1 drink. Not worth the risk to me.

[Keith B]

my instructor went over this exact issue and said that basically there isnt a "legal limit" for carrying its anything they judge to be impaired which COULD be just 1 drink. Not worth the risk to me.

This is correct, but it also goes for driving.

TPC 49.01 is the law on intoxicated for driving or carrying. The issue will be if a LEO is going to be more critical with a person carrying than with someone driving when it comes to saying the person was intoxicated. Without any evidence from a BAC, then an officer will have a much harder time proving the person was intoxicated to a judge or jury. It will come down to the officer's testimony in court and the perceived experience of the officer in making the determination of intoxication as seen by the judge and/or jury. Other things would have to be used to show there was impairment, like dashcam video, recorded audio of slurred speech, etc to solidify the case.

In the end, it may mean you would beat the rap, but you may not beat the ride when it comes to an officer that decides any smell of alcohol on your breath means you are impaired, whether you are driving, carrying, or both.

[Weaponofchoice]

Seems to me, almost all bad decisions, many of which lead to encounters with law enforcement begin with mental impairment from either alcohol and/or drugs be they legal or illegal.
Also,
CHL holders are very low in the crime stats because they know to avoid bad places, times, and situations if at all possible. Often times drinking alcohol puts you in all three of the above.

[K.Mooneyham]

my instructor went over this exact issue and said that basically there isnt a "legal limit" for carrying its anything they judge to be impaired which COULD be just 1 drink. Not worth the risk to me.

This is correct, but it also goes for driving.

TPC 49.01 is the law on intoxicated for driving or carrying. The issue will be if a LEO is going to be more critical with a person carrying than with someone driving when it comes to saying the person was intoxicated. Without any evidence from a BAC, then an officer will have a much harder time proving the person was intoxicated to a judge or jury. It will come down to the officer's testimony in court and the perceived experience of the officer in making the determination of intoxication as seen by the judge and/or jury. Other things would have to be used to show there was impairment, like dashcam video, recorded audio of slurred speech, etc to solidify the case.

In the end, it may mean you would beat the rap, but you may not beat the ride when it comes to an officer that decides any smell of alcohol on your breath means you are impaired, whether you are driving, carrying, or both.

Thank you.

[The Annoyed Man]

But on the way out to your friend's car after dinner, you are both accosted by 4 [thugs, robbers, zombies, take your pick] in the parking lot. You go for your gun. In the resulting melée, one of your bullets shatters a nearby car window and embeds itself in the dashboard, one of your bullets wounds one of the assailants in the hip and he goes down, two of your bullets are COM and kill one of the assailants, three of your bullets pass over the top of the third assailant's head as he ducks and runs off......one of which hits a bystander in the head on the far side of the parking lot, killing him, and the fourth assailant flees before you can shoot him.

In that scenario I think you're going to get hosed in court if there is ANY measurable amount of alcohol in your blood. If not in a criminal trial then in a civil trial. It will be you missed because you had a drink. OTOH, if you don't miss and hit an innocent person or property you might be OK. You have a drink, use your gun in self-defense and accidentally kill an innocent bystander, I think you're going to get fried.

Exactly my point. I don't think alcohol will come into play in a righteous shoot.......or at least, it is a lot less likely to. The problem is that, biologically speaking, you're a lot more likely to miss if you've been drinking, and if you miss, you're 100% responsible for where your bullets land.

[VoiceofReason]

OK let’s throw a couple more curves into the conversation.

I have a chronic condition and I take medication that says “do not operate machinery” on the label. Should I carry at all?

Someone is slightly retarded (I don’t know what the PC designation is) should they be able to get a CHL? To carry it a little further, who decides? What is the cut off IQ?

These are serious questions. I would like to know.

Since no one seems interested in answering my question, I will state my own opinion on them.

I have a chronic condition and I take medication that says “do not operate machinery” on the label. Should I carry at all?

Of course no one should use illegal drugs carrying or not. I have taken these prescription medications for years and I know positively they do not cloud my judgment, reflexes or hand/eye coordination. If I thought there was the slightest chance of this, I wouldn’t carry.

Someone is slightly retarded (I don’t know what the PC designation is) should they be able to get a CHL?

I would hope the instructor would watch him/her closely including the shooting then if he felt inclined, recommend to the DPS that they not grant him/her a CHL

To carry it a little further, who decides?

The class instructor and if this is not acceptable to the applicant then a judge.

What is the cut off IQ?

This should be decided by the Texas legislature.

Anyone else care to voice an opinion?