TexasCHLforum.com

pmcdn wrote: While it is illegal to be drinking and carrying for a CHL,.

No such law..

If you meant it is illegal to be under the influence and intoxicated that would be true...
The pertinent section of the Texas Penal Code is PC §49; the definition of "intoxicated" is 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;

bronco78 wrote:

pmcdn wrote: While it is illegal to be drinking and carrying for a CHL,.

No such law..

If you meant it is illegal to be under the influence and intoxicated that would be true...
The pertinent section of the Texas Penal Code is PC §49; the definition of "intoxicated" is 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;

Hmm. I was told by my CHL instructor that there is no minimum allowance of alcohol drinking or that any amount of drinking while carrying is illegal. No?

It's illegal to drink and carry in an amusement park owned by a church.

pmcdn wrote:

bronco78 wrote:

pmcdn wrote: While it is illegal to be drinking and carrying for a CHL,.

No such law..

If you meant it is illegal to be under the influence and intoxicated that would be true...
The pertinent section of the Texas Penal Code is PC §49; the definition of "intoxicated" is 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;

Hmm. I was told by my CHL instructor that there is no minimum allowance of alcohol drinking or that any amount of drinking while carrying is illegal. No?

Many instructors teach this. And it either is taught as a "best practice" and misunderstood as law, or mistakenly taught as law.

But fact (law) is clear - it is illegal to be intoxicated while carrying with CHL. It is NOT illegal to be consuming with CHL.

pmcdn wrote:

bronco78 wrote:

pmcdn wrote: While it is illegal to be drinking and carrying for a CHL,.

No such law..

If you meant it is illegal to be under the influence and intoxicated that would be true...
The pertinent section of the Texas Penal Code is PC §49; the definition of "intoxicated" is 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;

Hmm. I was told by my CHL instructor that there is no minimum allowance of alcohol drinking or that any amount of drinking while carrying is illegal. No?

PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER
(d) A license holder commits an offense if, while intoxicated, the license holder carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed

If I'm a CHL (which I am) and I have my gun in the car concealed but let's say I forgot my CHL ID, am I breaking the law even though the Castle Doctrine is in effect?

pmcdn wrote:If I'm a CHL (which I am) and I have my gun in the car concealed but let's say I forgot my CHL ID, am I breaking the law even though the Castle Doctrine is in effect?

Castle Doctrine has nothing to do with a loaded concealed pistol in the car without a CHL, that is the MPA (Motorist Protection Act).

MPA should override your CHL, but if a LEO runs your drivers license they will see you have a CHL. They may hassle you about the gun and no CHL. Your best bet is to treat your CHL like the old American Express commercial said, 'Never leave home without it.'

pmcdn wrote:If I'm a CHL (which I am) and I have my gun in the car concealed but let's say I forgot my CHL ID, am I breaking the law even though the Castle Doctrine is in effect?

The Castle Law is not what allows you to have a handgun in your vehicle without a license. That is the Motorist Protection Act, MPA. However, there are some really smart fellows here that have explained that even if one has a CHL they may still legally have a handgun in their vehicle under that MPA if they do not have their CHL on them. I'm just stubborn and have not fully embraced that rationale yet.

If you're attacked and have to defend yourself, the castle doctrine doesn't distinguish between CHL and unlicensed people.

apostate wrote:If you're attacked and have to defend yourself, the castle doctrine doesn't distinguish between CHL and unlicensed people.

Hmmm... The "Castle" law affects PC 9.32, (Deadly force in defense of a person), and talks about the use of deadly force. Deadly force does not necessarily mean the use of a gun. Also, it deals with forceful entry upon an occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment. Except for the highlighted part, you don't need a CHL to carry in any of those locations (well, assuming it's YOUR habitation, anyway). Now, if you're illegally carrying in your place of employment (without a CHL, or within a 30.06 location), and have to use your gun to defend yourself, I'd guess the law of necessity would cover you (assuming it's a good shoot). But that's starting to move to shaky ground, it would seem to me. You may not be liable for use of deadly force, but may still be subject to UCW.

pmcdn wrote:

bronco78 wrote:

pmcdn wrote: While it is illegal to be drinking and carrying for a CHL,.

No such law..

If you meant it is illegal to be under the influence and intoxicated that would be true...
The pertinent section of the Texas Penal Code is PC §49; the definition of "intoxicated" is 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;

Hmm. I was told by my CHL instructor that there is no minimum allowance of alcohol drinking or that any amount of drinking while carrying is illegal. No?

To expand on this a bit, my understanding is 'no minimum tolerance' part is absolutely correct. Therefore if you're charged with carrying while intoxicated you cannot use a blood-alcohol test in your defense to show you were not intoxicated - because there is no minimum tolerance (like .08 or whatever). The "test" of if you're intoxicated is the judgement of the arresting officer and other officers that witness you.

AJHutton wrote:

pmcdn wrote:

bronco78 wrote:

pmcdn wrote: While it is illegal to be drinking and carrying for a CHL,.

No such law..

If you meant it is illegal to be under the influence and intoxicated that would be true...
The pertinent section of the Texas Penal Code is PC §49; the definition of "intoxicated" is 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;

Hmm. I was told by my CHL instructor that there is no minimum allowance of alcohol drinking or that any amount of drinking while carrying is illegal. No?

To expand on this a bit, my understanding is 'no minimum tolerance' part is absolutely correct. Therefore if you're charged with carrying while intoxicated you cannot use a blood-alcohol test in your defense to show you were not intoxicated - because there is no minimum tolerance (like .08 or whatever). The "test" of if you're intoxicated is the judgement of the arresting officer and other officers that witness you.

And to expand on that -- that is exactly the same way driving while intoxicated works. The same definition of intoxication is used in both driving and CHL laws. The 0.08 "limit" the the value at which the court need no further proof of guilt. If you blow 0.08 or above, you are guilty of driving/carrying while intoxicated. Anything under 0.08 and it is left up to the observations of the officer, and possibly a field sobriety test.

To expand on this a bit, my understanding is 'no minimum tolerance' part is absolutely correct. Therefore if you're charged with carrying while intoxicated you cannot use a blood-alcohol test in your defense to show you were not intoxicated - because there is no minimum tolerance (like .08 or whatever). The "test" of if you're intoxicated is the judgement of the arresting officer and other officers that witness you.

That is correct. However, the standard for under the influence still has a well-established body of case law from drunk driving, where the defense attorney can challenge the officer on their observations, training, sobriety testing methods and results, etc.

One of the reasons legislatures went to the .10 BAC (later reduced to .08) as prima facie evidence of Intoxication is the old standard was far, far easier for an attorney to challenge. There are many attorneys that made a nice living over the years defending these cases and they are very good at it.