In fact it IS IDENTICAL as the definition refers by section to the statutory definition used for DWI.Jumping Frog wrote:
IIRC, the statute language is virtually identical for being intoxicated with a firearm and being intoxicated while driving.
Jumping Frog wrote: As such, people tend to overthink "what is the definition of intoxicated" as if each police officer is going to make up his own judgment about what "intoxicated" means.
However, I would submit that there is already TONS AND TONS of case law on intoxicated driving, and there have been more court cases on that subject than you can shake a stick at. DUI defense is a breads and butter item for defense attorneys, and they already know what constitutes probable cause, standards of proof, LEO training requirements, impairment test procedures --- all of that stuff. I don't think an intoxicated firearm case would reinvent all those wheels.
One of the reason they added 0.08% alcohol is statutorily considered proof of impairment is because it closes that door to defense attorneys. It was a LOT easier to get people off on drunk driving charges before that law was passed. Proving intoxication is more complicated than you think.
![I Agree :iagree:](./images/smilies/iagree.gif)
Now that said, you don't have to be at 0.08 to be convicted of DWI either, but it isn't any different standard for 46.035 than for 49.04 (DWI).