LTC & Intoxication

[clarionite]

No.. Your not wrong at all.. What you described is the most likely scenario.

There are a couple of different personality types here... The wannabe lawyer, the gotta always be right guy, those who teach and those that just want to stay informed.. (Insert more here if you want :-) ). But beyond the obvious truth of what you said, it still boils down to knowing the exact laws of our state as they relate to carrying of a firearm. There are untold countless cases throughout the land (and not just firearm related) of people getting arrested because LEO didn't know the laws. There are cases that have been going on for years and even gone to the Supreme Court before the accused was exonerated... For me the important parts are.

a. Know the laws
b. Use common sense
c. Get prepaid legal service and keep that 1-800 number in your wallet.

What I tell my students is that the standards concerning drinking are the same for carrying as they are for driving. .08 is just a no return point... That even if you are below that level you can be charged if the officer believes you are impaired. But more importantly than that, if for some reason you have to use your weapon that the prosecutors can and will use the fact that you have alcohol in your system to cast doubt on your decision making skills.

In my personal life though... I'm not a heavy drinker. I drink rarely if at all. And when I do drink it's never more than 1 or 2 beers with a meal, or a single beer on a hot day while working. I enjoy a bloody Mary with brunch a couple of times a year, or a 7&7 while shooting pool about the same frequency. I know that at my size (6'7" and 297 as of this morning) those amounts of drinking bring me no where near the point of being impaired. And I know that if I need to use my weapon I'll face greater scrutiny in my decision making, but I'd much rather be scrutinized than eulogized.

[ScottDLS]

...

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?

[jmorris]

Yeah I know. It’s just (in my opinion) that 1927 was not thought out very well. I know that there are plenty of things that aren’t very clear and some just don’t make sense to me. That’s why this forum is so important, we read the laws and think we have a handle on all of the new changes, but it’s so easy to miss things. These discussions force me to go back and reread them. I know that knowledge is powerful stuff and hopefully makes me a better instructor, sans better informed students. I’ve seen plenty of very heated discussions on many forums with very smart and knowledgeable people but a lot of times they get it wrong too. And I’ve definitely been on both sides. I’m not afraid to admit when I’m wrong but I want to see proof first.

But here is the real problem: the number of users of this forum are but a fraction of the LTC holders in Texas. Even if every forum user read and understood everything posted here, it is hardly a dent in the overall LTC population and the general understanding. That is why it is important for the Texas Legislature to not make these matters any more convoluted then necessary. We are responsible to understand the law but there is no way to really do that if it a labyrinth of "go here" references. If you accept the fact that people who don't follow up on any educational material after taking a class on it lose 80% of what they learned in the class, it is easy to see why people might be in the dark about the finer points of these discussions.

Just think though, even as we on this forum, and assuming other forums, read and discuss the laws, LEO's are told about them with very little additional training or information compared to what we receive here. I may be wrong on this and please let me know if I am. There are so many new laws that come out of every legislative session, they have to be briefed on all of them.

Now, if I understand correctly, it is now written that to be considered intoxicated, you have to register a .08 just as if you were driving where before it was at the discretion of the officer. If this is correct, at least they cleaned that up a little.

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.

[Tex1961]

Let me throw a side wrench into this conversation... Who believes it should be changed or left alone...

[ScottDLS]

..

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]

I attempted to reply to Tex1961, but it did something odd, and put my reply into a box as if someone else had typed it, so I deleted that. Not sure what happened. In any event, maybe that's what happened when Tex1961 attempted to quote me, but it cut off my previous words.

I don't drink alcohol much or often, and have not since I "retired" from active duty USAF service over a decade ago. I certainly do NOT drink alcohol, even one beer, and then drive. I do not use/abuse ANY sort of illegal substances or even legal ones, as I value the employment I have. I also don't go around challenging police officers at the roadside. I was merely speaking to the prevailing wisdom of many on here who have been at this a long time.

[jmorris]

..

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.

[ScottDLS]

..

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.

[DEB]

No.. Your not wrong at all.. What you described is the most likely scenario.

There are a couple of different personality types here... The wannabe lawyer, the gotta always be right guy, those who teach and those that just want to stay informed.. (Insert more here if you want :-) ). But beyond the obvious truth of what you said, it still boils down to knowing the exact laws of our state as they relate to carrying of a firearm. There are untold countless cases throughout the land (and not just firearm related) of people getting arrested because LEO didn't know the laws. There are cases that have been going on for years and even gone to the Supreme Court before the accused was exonerated... For me the important parts are.

a. Know the laws
b. Use common sense
c. Get prepaid legal service and keep that 1-800 number in your wallet.

What I tell my students is that the standards concerning drinking are the same for carrying as they are for driving. .08 is just a no return point... That even if you are below that level you can be charged if the officer believes you are impaired. But more importantly than that, if for some reason you have to use your weapon that the prosecutors can and will use the fact that you have alcohol in your system to cast doubt on your decision making skills.

In my personal life though... I'm not a heavy drinker. I drink rarely if at all. And when I do drink it's never more than 1 or 2 beers with a meal, or a single beer on a hot day while working. I enjoy a bloody Mary with brunch a couple of times a year, or a 7&7 while shooting pool about the same frequency. I know that at my size (6'7" and 297 as of this morning) those amounts of drinking bring me no where near the point of being impaired. And I know that if I need to use my weapon I'll face greater scrutiny in my decision making, but I'd much rather be scrutinized than eulogized.

I am going to keep that, "I'd rather be scrutinized than eulogized."