Drinking While Carrying

[ForbidInjustice]

More of a logical thought. If you drank a beer, even if you didn't show physical signs of intoxication, would you still blow 0.00 on the breathalyser? I was taught that there is no 'legal limit' while carrying.

You're right.. I checked, and the law does define intoxication as "substantial impairment", but the DPS CHL FAQ speaks to it more vaguely:

Q: Can I carry a handgun if I am drinking alcohol?
A: No; it is illegal to carry a handgun if you are intoxicated.

Maybe someone can clarify it further.

Ah, I'm a lightweight anyway.

[frankie_the_yankee]

More of a logical thought. If you drank a beer, even if you didn't show physical signs of intoxication, would you still blow 0.00 on the breathalyser? I was taught that there is no 'legal limit' while carrying.

You were taught wrong, no doubt by the same type of preachy instructor that I had when I took my renewal class last month.

You're right.. I checked, and the law does define intoxication as "substantial impairment", but the DPS CHL FAQ speaks to it more vaguely:

Q: Can I carry a handgun if I am drinking alcohol?
A: No; it is illegal to carry a handgun if you are intoxicated.

The DPS FAQ answers a different question than the one that is asked. The DPS answer assumes that drinking = intoxication. It does not.

Intoxication is defined in other areas of the law. Read some of the earlier posts in this thread where some posters who are also attorneys get into it a little.

The bottom line is that a normal-sized adult person with a normal response to alcohol will not be intoxicated after having one drink.

But note also that someone can always be charged with any sort of trumped up or made up charge, whether they have had any alcohol or not.

That's what lawyers are for.

[ForbidInjustice]

You were taught wrong, no doubt by the same type of preachy instructor that I had when I took my renewal class last month.

Actually, my instructor was very good; he didn't touch on it TOO much, however. It was more like a caveat not to drink if you're carrying, and he left it at that. No one asked any specific questions on the topic. Consider the CHL written exam at the end of the class, which asks the question directly, with true or false choices on whether there is a legal limit.

I guess just like the rest of the law, it's all subject to interpretation.

[seamusTX]

I think the reason that the DPS FAQ is written as it is, and instructors preach "not one drop," is that too many people are inclined to think that if one is good, two is better, and pretty soon their judgment is impaired.

I'm not saying that is the legally correct approach, but it's a way of trying to prevent problems.

- Jim

[ForbidInjustice]

Yeah, you're right. I wouldn't expect any instructor to approve of drinking any alcohol while carrying, just to be on the safe side. We can all review the penal code on our own, after the class, and decide what we as individuals can do within our interpretation of the law.

I guess the teetotalers among us can never go wrong.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Yeah, you're right. I wouldn't expect any instructor to approve of drinking any alcohol while carrying, just to be on the safe side. We can all review the penal code on our own, after the class, and decide what we as individuals can do within our interpretation of the law.

I guess the teetotalers among us can never go wrong.

FWIW, my first instructor said flat out that one drink was OK, but that beyond that you were taking your chances. He went into some detail about what constitutes intoxication under the law. It's clear that someone with a normal response will not be intoxicated or anywhere near it after one drink (as in one beer or one glass of wine or even one NORMAL-SIZED mixed drink).

I asked him straight up if I could legally carry and have a glass of wine with my meal at a restaurant and he said, "Yes."

In contrast, the guy who taught my renewal class gave me the "teetotaler speech", and proceeded to embelish it by saying that not only could someone not drink at all while carrying, but that the bar area of a combo restaurant and bar establishment is ITSELF a 51% location whether posted or not.

This is of course more nonsense though there may be a possible rare exception here and there where the bar is separate business and/or has a separate entrance and/or its own liquor license from TABC, and/or its own hours of operation that are different from the restaurant's.

A few students questioned this but I kept my mouth shut. No point to it. Just get through the class, fulfill the requirement, and get my renewal. It's not up to me to straighten him out.

[ForbidInjustice]

Yeah, I definitely can't agree with what he said about the bar. Regardless where you're sitting, you're still in the same establishment, and I'm sure that Applebee's doesn't derive 51% of income from alcoholic beverage sales. Even if a place like that did, wouldn't they HAVE to post the 51% sign at the door so that we know where not to carry?

So bottom line, good judgment will prevail.

[seamusTX]

I guess the teetotalers among us can never go wrong.

Someone can be intoxicated from prescription medications and even from over-the-counter medications. Preparations like Nyquil contain a lot of alcohol, and many people haven't read the memo about that.

I used to work with a guy who was arrested for drunk driving in Phoenix about 30 years ago. The police in Phoenix were pretty hard-line at that time, and he received rough treatment.

He was actually a diabetic and having an insulin reaction.

That was an interesting case. He got the chief of police to publish a letter in the paper apologizing and agreeing to train officers about dealing with diabetics, in lieu of a lawsuit.

- Jim

[ForbidInjustice]

Interesting indeed. Reminds me of a Mythbusters episode where they were using a breathalyser to test the alcohol content of such items, and whether it was enough to register on the machine. One of them was Listerine, and immediately after using it, he blew a level close to the legal limit.

[seamusTX]

Hmm. I just looked at a bottle of generic mouthwash. It's 21.5% alcohol, about half of what is in hard liquor.

I never swallowed the stuff. I doubt you could keep much of it down.

You really wouldn't get into trouble with a Breathalyzer. The police have protocols that call for tests at intervals, so something in your mouth will not result in a positive result.

- Jim

[KBCraig]

In contrast, the guy who taught my renewal class gave me the "teetotaler speech", and proceeded to embelish it by saying that not only could someone not drink at all while carrying, but that the bar area of a combo restaurant and bar establishment is ITSELF a 51% location whether posted or not.

This is the point at which I wouldn't have hesitated to embarrass him in front of the class, by standing up and announcing that I wanted my money back, because he was spouting nonsense. Whether he's a liar or just completely uninformed, nothing he had to say about CHL issues could be trusted.

Kevin

[txinvestigator]

I was taught that there is no 'legal limit' while carrying.

You were taught wrong, no doubt by the same type of preachy instructor that I had when I took my renewal class last month.

No, his instructor was accurate. There is no "legal limit" while carrying. The term legal limit refers to .08% BAC, and only is applicable to DWI. Even then, it is a misnomer. Even for DWI, there is no 'legal limit".

[frankie_the_yankee]

I was taught that there is no 'legal limit' while carrying.

You were taught wrong, no doubt by the same type of preachy instructor that I had when I took my renewal class last month.

No, his instructor was accurate. There is no "legal limit" while carrying. The term legal limit refers to .08% BAC, and only is applicable to DWI. Even then, it is a misnomer. Even for DWI, there is no 'legal limit".

When ForbidInjustice's comments are taken in context, we see that what he really meant (and what he understood his instructor to mean) by "legal limit" would be expressed in other words as "anything above 0% is illegal".

Hence my reply.

[txinvestigator]

I was taught that there is no 'legal limit' while carrying.

You were taught wrong, no doubt by the same type of preachy instructor that I had when I took my renewal class last month.

No, his instructor was accurate. There is no "legal limit" while carrying. The term legal limit refers to .08% BAC, and only is applicable to DWI. Even then, it is a misnomer. Even for DWI, there is no 'legal limit".

When ForbidInjustice's comments are taken in context, we see that what he really meant (and what he understood his instructor to mean) by "legal limit" would be expressed in other words as "anything above 0% is illegal".

Hence my reply.

I don't know that, and neither do you. You didn't hear the instructor, so you have know "context" which to apply. You assumed; I read it literally.

But the statement "there is no legal limit for intoxication while carrying" is 100% accurate. In fact, the question is on the exam.

[frankie_the_yankee]

When ForbidInjustice's comments are taken in context, we see that what he really meant (and what he understood his instructor to mean) by "legal limit" would be expressed in other words as "anything above 0% is illegal".

Hence my reply.

I don't know that, and neither do you. You didn't hear the instructor, so you have know "context" which to apply. You assumed; I read it literally.

But the statement "there is no legal limit for intoxication while carrying" is 100% accurate. In fact, the question is on the exam.

All I would do is invite you to read over ForbidInjustice's posts in this thread, including his replies to my posts. Either you see an underlying context or you don't.

Of course, ForbidInjustice can always speak for himself too. I would invite him to explain what he actually did mean when referring to "no legal limit".

So tell us, sir, if I may ask. In your initial post, when you referred to you're being told there was "no legal limit" for carrying while intoxicated, did you mean it in the sense that, "anything over 0% is illegal" while carrying, or simply that whatever the legal limit might be while carrying, it is not clearly defined?