CHL and having a drink

[race4beer]

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.

I don't disagree with your information, but the way the law reads to me is either you're .08 or higher, OR not having normal use of mental or physical faculties. The latter is subjective and can be determined even if you are under a .08.

[Pecos]

Just quit drinking all together! I quit drinking a long time ago. Think of the money you will save. You will be an armed citizen that doesnt drink.
People will think your "Hip" & way ahead of your time!!!!

[Cedar Park Dad]

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.

Define A for me then....

[Keith B]

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.

Define A for me then....

Don't think you can get a better definition of A than what is stated in the statute.

And, that is the issue most people have with this is that it has no clear delineation like a BAC does, so it is up to the officers discretion. There are field sobriety tests that help the office determine your state of intoxication, but they are not guaranteed indicators. A good example is my brother was arrested for DWI in Missouri based on the FST and the fact he could not walk a straight line. His BAC was .03 as he had had a couple of beers during a concert. The reason he could not walk a straight line was the fact he has MS and it affects his gate. He tried to explain it to the officer, but they were on a DWI checkpoint and it became a 'tell it to the Judge' type of incident. The DA dropped the charge once it was investigated and all evidence was looked at.

[Tic Tac]

I have trouble understanding disarming so you can just have the one beer.

I think they fall into two categories. The first arranges for the designated driver(s) to carry so the rest of the group can relax and have a few drinks, having put the structure in place to facilitate that. The second group contributes to the 10,000 drunk driving deaths each year.

[Jumping Frog]

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.

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.

[Tic Tac]

I don't disagree with your information, but the way the law reads to me is either you're .08 or higher, OR not having normal use of mental or physical faculties. The latter is subjective and can be determined even if you are under a .08.

Thats right. It's the same standard as drunk driving, drunk boating, etc.

[Shoot_First]

Seems the responses fall into two categories:

1. Zero tolerance: No alcohol at all when carrying with CHL, under MPA, or even at home since such any amount of blood alcohol is going to raise questions about your judgment being potentially impaired if you use a firearm to defend yourself or your family.

2. Some alcohol: One or more alcoholic beverages when carrying with CHL, under MPA, or at home but far less than that required to be at 0.08 BAC or to be found impaired by a LEO's FST if and after you use a firearm to defend yourself or your family. Given that some LEOs are exposed to more frequent contact with BGs but can complete a full career without discharging their firearms except on a range, the likelihood that a CHL holder, a person without a CHL but having a firearm in their vehicle under MPA, or a person with a firearm for home defense is going to have to use their firearm to defend themselves or their family is highly unlikely. Possible, but unlikely.

[Dadtodabone]

I have a couple of sips of The Macallan whilst enjoying a nice stogie and wiping down some of my "investments" in the gun room*.
Some nefarious other/others break into my home.
Since I have the means close to hand, the other/others wind up with a significant increase to the number of orifices normally found in the human body.
Does the fact that I have a BAC over .08 matter? Is being intoxicated in ones home illegal or a bar to self-defense?

I'm out to dinner with my wife, I'm the DD, she has a couple Bailey's on the rocks during the course of the meal.
During our drive home, some nefarious other/others attempt to hijack our automobile.
I'm removed from the struggle, bopped on the noggin, my wife draws the 1911 in the console and ventilates the miscreant/s.
Does the fact that she has a BAC of .06 or .12 matter? Is having imbibed a legal intoxicant a bar to self-defense?



*snap caps at the fore, all live ammunition is locked in a brass-bound leather 400 rd cartridge magazine, thus slowing/complicating my response.

[fickman]

Keith B is correct.

For the "one drink" people, make sure you know what's in your "one drink". A draft beer at many chain restaurants can be 23 oz. That's two beers. If you're the guy on TV who "just had a couple of beers with dinner", you might have had four beers.

A giant fishbowl margarita glass could be 32-53 oz. That'll add up quick.

[Cedar Park Dad]

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.

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.

There may be an excellent sub industry to defend you but jeez do you want to go through that, and pay for that?

[Keith B]

I have a couple of sips of The Macallan whilst enjoying a nice stogie and wiping down some of my "investments" in the gun room*.
Some nefarious other/others break into my home.
Since I have the means close to hand, the other/others wind up with a significant increase to the number of orifices normally found in the human body.
Does the fact that I have a BAC over .08 matter? Is being intoxicated in ones home illegal or a bar to self-defense?

I'm out to dinner with my wife, I'm the DD, she has a couple Bailey's on the rocks during the course of the meal.
During our drive home, some nefarious other/others attempt to hijack our automobile.
I'm removed from the struggle, bopped on the noggin, my wife draws the 1911 in the console and ventilates the miscreant/s.
Does the fact that she has a BAC of .06 or .12 matter? Is having imbibed a legal intoxicant a bar to self-defense?

*snap caps at the fore, all live ammunition is locked in a brass-bound leather 400 rd cartridge magazine, thus slowing/complicating my response.

Here's the answer to both. Yes. It will matter because it will come up in the investigation and the evaluation of the case. Now, will it cause you to not get no-billed? Maybe, maybe not. If it is a clear case of self-defense and the decision was made it was justified, intoxicated or not, it won't. BUT, it will play a part in the decision making of the DA, grand jury, judge or jury, no matter. If that state of intoxication did not exist, then it would not be part of the investigation.

[cb1000rider]

I don't disagree with your information, but the way the law reads to me is either you're .08 or higher, OR not having normal use of mental or physical faculties. The latter is subjective and can be determined even if you are under a .08.

The way this charge will go down, unlike DWI, is that there is no requirement or procedure for breath or blood draw. That leaves it up to officer digression.
It'll be a charge like "public intoxication" - which can be used with great latitude. The burden of proof will then be on the person charged, as the LEO is an "expert" witness trained in recognizing impairment with no substantial motivation to lie.

[Dadtodabone]

I have a couple of sips of The Macallan whilst enjoying a nice stogie and wiping down some of my "investments" in the gun room*.
Some nefarious other/others break into my home.
Since I have the means close to hand, the other/others wind up with a significant increase to the number of orifices normally found in the human body.
Does the fact that I have a BAC over .08 matter? Is being intoxicated in ones home illegal or a bar to self-defense?

I'm out to dinner with my wife, I'm the DD, she has a couple Bailey's on the rocks during the course of the meal.
During our drive home, some nefarious other/others attempt to hijack our automobile.
I'm removed from the struggle, bopped on the noggin, my wife draws the 1911 in the console and ventilates the miscreant/s.
Does the fact that she has a BAC of .06 or .12 matter?Is having imbibed a legal intoxicant a bar to self-defense?

*snap caps at the fore, all live ammunition is locked in a brass-bound leather 400 rd cartridge magazine, thus slowing/complicating my response.

Here's the answer to both. Yes. It will matter because it will come up in the investigation and the evaluation of the case. Now, will it cause you to not get no-billed? Maybe, maybe not. If it is a clear case of self-defense and the decision was made it was justified, intoxicated or not, it won't. BUT, it will play a part in the decision making of the DA, grand jury, judge or jury, no matter. If that state of intoxication did not exist, then it would not be part of the investigation.

Sorry, yes, of course it would "matter" during the investigation. My query shouldn't have been diluted by the BAC questions. So:
Is being intoxicated in ones home illegal or a bar to self-defense?
Is having imbibed a legal intoxicant a bar to self-defense?

[Keith B]

Sorry, yes, of course it would "matter" during the investigation. My query shouldn't have been diluted by the BAC questions. So:
Is being intoxicated in ones home illegal or a bar to self-defense?
Is having imbibed a legal intoxicant a bar to self-defense?

No