TexasCHLforum.com

Jumping Frog wrote:

oohrah wrote:AFAIK, the law does not specify a legal limit, as it does for DUI, so I interpret that as any BAC is illegal while carrying.

The law forbids intoxication, not the existence of any BAC. See my below comment.

Keith B wrote:Yes, the number exists. .08 or greater and you are automatically considered intoxicated. Less than .08 BAC and you are at the discretion of the officer. If they decide you are intoxicated by definition, then you are going to have to prove that their evaluation of you was not correct in front of a judge or jury in court.

Basically in your camp here, Keith, but a small distinction. A person does not have to prove the officer wrong, they simply need to show reasonable doubt about whether he is correct.

Along those lines, in the absence of a BAC result, the officer must prove his case by testifying as to his observations that led him to conclude the defendant is intoxicated. There is a large sub-industry of defense attorneys who literally make a good portion of their living from DWI/DUI defense. They are thoroughly familiar with the large body of case law that pertains to this subject and know every avenue to challenge.

Anyone who states it is "completely up to the officer's discretion" is correct in that the officer can decide to make an arrest whether or not it will ever hold up at trial. However, they are not correct in terms of absolute discretion versus objective evidence that will hold up at trial.

That is why police officers are trained in standard field sobriety test and know how to testify regarding their training, experience, and detailed descriptions of defendant behavior/physical condition.

E.Marquez wrote:

race4beer wrote:What I remember from my CHL class is that there is no "legal limit", and it is at the sole discretion of the officer to determine if you are impaired. Being impaired could be from alcohol, other drugs, or even drowsy from lack of sleep or from taking some over the counter allergy medication. My personal opinion is that this would fall under the "Do not operate heavy machinery" clause on most OTC medications. You may be fine, but if an officer is having a bad day or is in a general bad mood, you could be in trouble and having to prove your way out of it in court.

Still, no sir.. not correct, regardless of what your instructor told you..
There is a legal definition of intoxicated

"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.

Ultra_Solo_Sig_0904 wrote: it isn't against the law to drink while carrying as long as you're not intox, but say if you were to get into an car accident or worse a situation in which you're forced to protect your life, and you use deadly force. the first sign of any drinking beforehand will be used against you weither intoxicated or not and it will hurt your chances big time.

Shoot_First wrote:Having seen the previous posts on the subject along with the current ones, I can understand the rationale for abstinence while carrying as a CHL holder. That said, let me put forth two scenarios for your consideration: (1) If you left your pistol at home or locked in your car trunk while having dinner at a restaurant with your family, had a beer during the meal, and just before you paid your check a BG entered the place and opened fire killing a number of patrons including your wife and wounding one of your two kids would you regret your decision to go unarmed? (2 if you sit at home at night and have a beer or two while in the family room watching TV with your wife with a pistol within easy reach, would you reach for it if your home were invaded by a BG?

I have carefully considered these and other scenarios where I have had one or two beers over time and I'm far from being legally impaired either to drive or to respond to a threat to me or my family and my decision has been and will continue to be to remain armed. I am prepared to suffer the consequences of my decisions because I believe the prospect of such scenarios, while possible, is very remote. It's a personal decision that each of us will have to make.

Dave