TexasCHLforum.com

srothstein wrote:

Actually, both statements are somewhat correct and somewhat incorrect. The law does define intoxication and does so clearly. Section 49.01 defines it as the legal limit of .08 or the loss of your normal faculties (the exact definition was posted).

Yes, however the .08 limit is a standard at which you are "presumed" to be intoxicated and is NOT specified as a "target point" for intoxication (while carrying) as some folks have been taught. That was the reason for my response. It it worth noting also...that one of the Test Questions specifically references that there is no "legal limit" that determines intoxication.

You may be intoxicated at .001 BAC if it is your first drink ever and you have a low tolerance for alcohol. You may be intoxicated at .000 BAC if you have taken some other type of intoxicant. And you are legally intoxicated at .08 BAC no matter how little it affects your normal mental and physical faculties. So, there is a legal limit but it is not the only way to become intoxicated under the law.

True...many ways to fit the description "intoxicated". As concerns the .08 BAC...this is generally used in DWI cases and likely would not be used in a Carrying while Intoxicated charge since it simply isn't required by law. An LEO will use the other definition:

"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"

Meaning "intoxication" is subjective, but the impairment must be shown.

To understand why section 49.01 applies to chapter 46, you must understand the Code Construction Act (Chapter 311 of the Government Code). It clearly states that if a word has had a technical meaning attached through any law, this meaning now applies wherever used. If there is no technical meaning, then the generally understood meaning is what is used. So, intoxicated now has a specific technical meaning based on 49.01. In addition, the general public now understands the word intoxicated to mean this legal meaning, as opposed to the word drunk. I think the only time I have ever heard the word intoxicated in a conversation, it was in reference to the law.

There may well be a technical application for this.... that would prevail in court. I doubt the average street cop is quite this aware of any such nuances.

Of course, not being a lawyer, I could be wrong.

Nor am I.

From previous discussions here...I am of the "opinion" that my first post represents the conclusions we came to.

1. There is no "legal limit" (semantics aside). The apparent intent was to allow LEO and the Courts greater leeway in applying the general intoxication law.

2. It is NOT illegal to carry and drink, BUT you must not be "intoxicated". It would be unwise...since "intoxicated" is somewhat subjective and left to LEO and courts to charge and prove (as in my previous post).

3. You do NOT have to be drinking....to be "intoxicated". The focus seems to be on drinking, but there are many ways in which a person might be "impaired".


So....be careful, be responsible...and represent yourself (and other CHL's) the best way possible.


Flint.

Alright. So can we all pretty much all agree that there is no new legislation that completely prohibits drinking while carrying?

GibMeDat wrote:Alright. So can we all pretty much all agree that there is no new legislation that completely prohibits drinking while carrying?

No old legislation either; you just can't be intoxicated. No changes.

EDITED to add: And welcome to the forum GibMeDat!

GibMeDat wrote:Alright. So can we all pretty much all agree that there is no new legislation that completely prohibits drinking while carrying?

Correct. The only new legislation affecting CHL drinking is the one Bart mentioned.

hheremtp wrote:Guns and alcohol don't mix, not even a little. If you want to drink, don't carry, if you want to carry, don't drink. it is that simple.

Same as guns and churches.

roberts wrote:

hheremtp wrote:Guns and alcohol don't mix, not even a little. If you want to drink, don't carry, if you want to carry, don't drink. it is that simple.

Same as guns and churches.

??? Please clarify your statement?? I carry in church frequently, as do a LOT of folks on this forum, including several preachers.

Keith B wrote:??? Please clarify your statement?? I carry in church frequently, as do a LOT of folks on this forum, including several preachers.

They're both frequent misunderstandings of the CHL laws.
There is a common misconception that we can't carry while drinking but that's only true if we're intoxicated.
There is a common misconception that we can't carry in a church but that's only true if they give 30.06 notice.

roberts wrote:

Keith B wrote:??? Please clarify your statement?? I carry in church frequently, as do a LOT of folks on this forum, including several preachers.

They're both frequent misunderstandings of the CHL laws.
There is a common misconception that we can't carry while drinking but that's only true if we're intoxicated.
There is a common misconception that we can't carry in a church but that's only true if they give 30.06 notice.

Must have misunderstood your response. I read your statement as saying you shouldn't carry in church.

hheremtp wrote:Guns and alcohol don't mix, not even a little.

so, no alcohol what so ever, eh?

so, you're in church, packin' cause that's what you do, it's communion time....

sorry to be 's advocate (pun intended.)