TexasCHLforum.com

jmorris wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 11:51 am

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 2:18 pm

jmorris wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 1:34 pm ..

No, the standards for intoxication has not changed. It is still .08 OR impaired, and applies across the board. What changed was that because of the move of the wording a license holder can no longer be charged with carrying while intoxicated whereas a unlicensed individual can.

Or to be a little more precise, it is still the definition contained in PC 49.01:

(2) "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.

The term "impaired" does not appear anywhere in TXPC Chapter 49. Some other states use the term in their statutes.

Yeah, I should have looked up 49.01 to get the correct language but I was being lazy.

I knew what you meant as I suspect most did. The most important point that you made was that the definition has not changed. Also, to go back to Tex1961's question: Should the new law be changed to cover LTC? In my opinion, no. What is the problem that needs to be addressed? Were there large numbers of intoxicated people carrying under LTC and causing problems previously? As far as I can tell, no LTC has ever been charged with carrying while intoxicated. Whenever the laws get updated, unintended things tend to slip in. Usually they are bad. Like now you can't carry long guns (presumably concealed) in 51% locations or hospitals. The carrying while intoxicated provision is neutral (neither good nor bad), certainly not a reason to go in and make changes where more bad stuff can happen. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

jmorris wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 1:34 pm ..

No, the standards for intoxication has not changed. It is still .08 OR impaired, and applies across the board. What changed was that because of the move of the wording a license holder can no longer be charged with carrying while intoxicated whereas a unlicensed individual can.

Or to be a little more precise, it is still the definition contained in PC 49.01:

(2) "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.

The term "impaired" does not appear anywhere in TXPC Chapter 49. Some other states use the term in their statutes.

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 11:07 am ...

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I've long been under the impression that one of the tenets of this forum was: "you might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride". In other words, if an officer smells alcohol, even though you are carrying under LTC, they'll still probably arrest you, cuff you, stuff you in the patrol car, haul you off to jail, book you, and toss you in a cell with common criminals. You'll have to get a lawyer to sort it all out, which will cost you time and money, and few people have either enough of to waste.

I think to some extent this is the case, but I'd also like to think as handgun carry becomes more common and with the fact that permitless carry is now in place, there will be fewer, not more opportunities for misunderstanding with law enforcement. Let's face it, people get arrested for things they didn't do and aren't a crime even if they were doing them. It happens. But not that often.

You're always subject to getting pulled over for DWI if the officer "thinks" you were exhibiting signs of intoxication. Maybe you're just a lousy driver. I know a few people this has happened to that then went on to breathalyze at .00 or take a blood test that showed 0 drugs or alcohol. The Field Sobriety Tests are highly subjective and require significant training of the LEO, and occasionally they get them wrong and arrest someone who turns out to be fine. Most DA's won't waste resources prosecuting a case they can't (or shouldn't) win. It should get dropped at arraignment if not before. For all the discussions of the proverbial "ride" we have, not very many cases seem to have arisen. My contention is it's more common with driving (as driving is more common than carrying), but overall not something I spend a great deal of time worrying about.

Since it is illegal to be publicly intoxicated even if you aren't carrying under LTC, you could be charged with that (albeit a Class C). If they tried to tack on a class A 46.02 violation, you would get off. The best advice is not to get intoxicated, carrying or not. I'm not going to say you should absolutely never drink at all if you carry, because that would be like saying no one should never drink in public. Sorry, it's not illegal. You can drink in your house and have guns nearby or even on you. Do you lock them all in the safe whenever you have a beer. What if someone breaks into your house while you are having a beer, are you not allowed to confront them?

Tex1961 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:06 pm

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:56 pm

Tex1961 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:59 pm First let me state that I welcome an open discussion on this and will concede if wrong... BUT that being said, I am going to disagree with you.

You are correct that it is now under 46.02 a-6 (1)... However... 46.02 applies to any carry of a weapon.. In my opinion it does not distinguish between LTC and non LTC.... It' a blanket law..... Unless there is a sections that specifically states that it does not apply to LTC then I would argue it does.

" However... 46.02 applies to any carry of a weapon.. "

As does the 46.15 non-applicability (technically a defense to prosecution) of ALL OF 46.02, when carrying under the authority of your LTC.

This is a "gem" that I missed when reading the law. Not that I plan on doing it, but now it eliminates the what if I had one beer at the restaurant while carrying argument.

Can you post exactly where under 46.15 because I found no reference to carry while intoxicated there. Unless I missed it.

Sec. 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.
...
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
...
(6) is carrying:
(A) a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a handgun; and
(B) a handgun:
(i) in a concealed manner; or
(ii) in a holster;

The non-applicability applies to all of section 46.02, if you meet the conditions A & B.

Tex1961 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:59 pm First let me state that I welcome an open discussion on this and will concede if wrong... BUT that being said, I am going to disagree with you.

You are correct that it is now under 46.02 a-6 (1)... However... 46.02 applies to any carry of a weapon.. In my opinion it does not distinguish between LTC and non LTC.... It' a blanket law..... Unless there is a sections that specifically states that it does not apply to LTC then I would argue it does.

" However... 46.02 applies to any carry of a weapon.. "

As does the 46.15 non-applicability (technically a defense to prosecution) of ALL OF 46.02, when carrying under the authority of your LTC.

This is a "gem" that I missed when reading the law. Not that I plan on doing it, but now it eliminates the what if I had one beer at the restaurant while carrying argument.