From CHL-16Russell wrote:First...The definition for "intoxicated" is exactly the same for Carry under LTC as it is for driving. THE SAME. Exactly the same legal definition in PC Chapter 49. If you shouldn't be carrying, you shouldn't be driving and vice versa.
Is this what we have settled on? Last I read about this, there was no consensus on if the definition of "intoxicated" followed the definition used for operating a motor vehicle, or if it could be argued that ANY amount of alcohol, even if you would pass normal sobriety tests, could be used to charge someone that is carrying.
GC §411.171. DEFINITIONS.
(6) “Intoxicated” has the meaning assigned by Section 49.01, Penal Code.
PC §49.01. DEFINITIONS.
(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.
PC §46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED.
(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 or carried in a shoulder or belt holster.
I would think that .08 is an automatic. Anything up to .08 is going to be a risk and will probably depend on how badly the DA wants you.
At my instructor classes the DPS has stressed each time that alcohol and carrying do not mix and recommended zero blood alcohol level.
http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm
"However, there are some people who should not drink any alcohol, including those who are:
- Driving, planning to drive, or participating in other activities requiring skill, coordination, and alertness.
I think carrying or using a firearm would fall under "other activities requiring skill, coordination, and alertness." and that means, to me, no alcohol at all.
I have heard the argument several times that "If I just have one beer/glass of wine over dinner at a restaurant I'm not intoxicated." Maybe or maybe not but I don't think that it is unreasonable for the DA or victim's lawyer to start questioning when the witnesses say you had been drinking during your meal. You may be able to prove you weren't "intoxicated" but I imagine it will cost you a lot more time and money trying to prove your innocence.
Just my way of thinking about it.