TexasCHLforum.com

I'd write it as:

rp_photo wrote:IMHO, a ...citizen ... should be able to carry anywhere they want to, and would benefit us all by doing so.

MasterOfNone wrote:

alphonso wrote:Does anyone know (or care to hazard a guess) why the rule for drinking and carrying was not as precisely spelled out as the drinking and driving rules?

Don't both statutes use the definition in 49.01?

In my opinion, since the definition is the same whether driving while intoxicated or carrying a firearm while intoxicated, they should both be required to demonstrate the same standard of proof at trial.

Now, there isn't a lot of case law on carrying firearms while intoxicated, but there sure is an awful lot of case law regarding proving intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt when driving.

There are DUI lawyers who have made a very nice living knowing the intricacies of drunk driving, standards of proof, and how to defend effectively against the charges.

In fact, DUI lawyers were so successful in defending against DUI, that is when they changed to law to say if a person met a certain blood alcohol level, that was sufficient proof of intoxication.

I've had lawyers tell me it is definitely to our advantage that a blood alcohol limit has not been applied to firearms. It is easier to defend against the subjective standard.