I know - just trying to illustrate that I agree it shouldn't be a 0% BAC and that other things can screw you up a lot worse - state of mind wise.txinvestigator wrote:You can have a beer with your meal. The law prohibits you from being intoxicated while carrying.cyphur wrote:I don't carry yet - but I don't see myself drinking much at all while doing so. I have a drink maybe once a week, and thats a shot of tequila with the wife or a beer relaxing on my "porch". I don't see a problem to have one beer when you're out and about if you're eating at the same time. I know personally food goes a long way to counteract alcohol.
Completely in agreeance. I've been on "missions" at JRTC that last 36 hours straight, having already been up for 12 hours before that - on an M1A2 Abrams. You're at the edge of dillusions at that point if you don't do it regularly. If the Govt trusted me to do that, I don't see the difference from having a beer with a full meal - or carrying anywhere - if I'm not consuming alcohol.ShootNMove wrote:BTW, this may be a news flash for some, but alcohol isn't the only thing that effects peoples' mental & physical abilities? Ever worked 48 hours in the heat, sober and tried to read a book, tie your shoes or concentrate on something important? Police work some long shifts under stressful conditions, yet we expect them to carry and operate a weapon responsibly. Do I even need to mention our troops overseas?
\
Fix the alcohol issue
Moderator: Charles L. Cotton
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 3
- Posts: 1334
- Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:02 am
- Location: DFW, Tx
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 9
- Posts: 4331
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 6:40 pm
- Location: DFW area
- Contact:
Oh. You know its not a 0% BAC either, right?cyphur wrote:I know - just trying to illustrate that I agree it shouldn't be a 0% BAC and that other things can screw you up a lot worse - state of mind wise.txinvestigator wrote:You can have a beer with your meal. The law prohibits you from being intoxicated while carrying.cyphur wrote:I don't carry yet - but I don't see myself drinking much at all while doing so. I have a drink maybe once a week, and thats a shot of tequila with the wife or a beer relaxing on my "porch". I don't see a problem to have one beer when you're out and about if you're eating at the same time. I know personally food goes a long way to counteract alcohol.
Completely in agreeance. I've been on "missions" at JRTC that last 36 hours straight, having already been up for 12 hours before that - on an M1A2 Abrams. You're at the edge of dillusions at that point if you don't do it regularly. If the Govt trusted me to do that, I don't see the difference from having a beer with a full meal - or carrying anywhere - if I'm not consuming alcohol.ShootNMove wrote:BTW, this may be a news flash for some, but alcohol isn't the only thing that effects peoples' mental & physical abilities? Ever worked 48 hours in the heat, sober and tried to read a book, tie your shoes or concentrate on something important? Police work some long shifts under stressful conditions, yet we expect them to carry and operate a weapon responsibly. Do I even need to mention our troops overseas?
\
*CHL Instructor*
"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan
Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.
"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan
Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.
It's not 0% BAC. It's not 0.8% BAC. It's not 1.0% BAC. It's not any number, because "intoxicated" is not defined within the statute, which means that the standard for "public intoxication" can come into play. And as we all know, the standard for PI is the officer's judgement that you are a danger to yourself or others; evidence of actual intoxication isn't needed.txinvestigator wrote:Oh. You know its not a 0% BAC either, right?cyphur wrote:I know - just trying to illustrate that I agree it shouldn't be a 0% BAC and that other things can screw you up a lot worse - state of mind wise.txinvestigator wrote:
You can have a beer with your meal. The law prohibits you from being intoxicated while carrying.
\
Other than a very (very!) rare beer when out to dinner, I reserve my consumption of alcohol to having a few in the evening after work, while checking email, reading my forums, and watching Sports Center (go Cards!).
I'm sitting here sipping my fourth beer of the evening, which is three beyond my "public" limit, or my driving limit. Am I above 0.8% BAC? I don't know. I'm not about to risk finding out. Am I above the standard for PI? Depends on whether the "officer's judgement" comes from an officer who is a hardnosed tee-totalling 12-stepper bent on reforming the world, or one who actually evaluates whether or not I'm a danger to myself or the public.
I suppose, according to some rigid standards of safety, that I shouldn't have the M85UL in my right front pocket. But if I put it away, it would be with the rest of my loaded guns, which are all of five seconds away. Which would enhance safety... how, exactly?
Face it... if I was someone who was a danger to myself or others after a few drinks, then it wouldn't matter if a gun was in my pocket, on my closet shelf, or locked in my safe. If I were that kind of person, then I should either be gun-free, or alcohol-free. If I were that kind of person, I'd only be a danger to myself, because I'd quickly find myself without "others" to endanger.
I don't advocate drinking alcohol, especially to excess. But it's simply ridiculous to have a blanket "one size fits all" policy of never having access to firearms while or after drinking.
Kevin
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 9
- Posts: 4331
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 6:40 pm
- Location: DFW area
- Contact:
Actually, Intoxicated IS defined. There is no "danger to yourself or others" involved.KBCraig wrote:It's not 0% BAC. It's not 0.8% BAC. It's not 1.0% BAC. It's not any number, because "intoxicated" is not defined within the statute, which means that the standard for "public intoxication" can come into play. And as we all know, the standard for PI is the officer's judgement that you are a danger to yourself or others; evidence of actual intoxication isn't needed.txinvestigator wrote:Oh. You know its not a 0% BAC either, right?cyphur wrote:I know - just trying to illustrate that I agree it shouldn't be a 0% BAC and that other things can screw you up a lot worse - state of mind wise.txinvestigator wrote:
You can have a beer with your meal. The law prohibits you from being intoxicated while carrying.
\
Other than a very (very!) rare beer when out to dinner, I reserve my consumption of alcohol to having a few in the evening after work, while checking email, reading my forums, and watching Sports Center (go Cards!).
I'm sitting here sipping my fourth beer of the evening, which is three beyond my "public" limit, or my driving limit. Am I above 0.8% BAC? I don't know. I'm not about to risk finding out. Am I above the standard for PI? Depends on whether the "officer's judgement" comes from an officer who is a hardnosed tee-totalling 12-stepper bent on reforming the world, or one who actually evaluates whether or not I'm a danger to myself or the public.
I suppose, according to some rigid standards of safety, that I shouldn't have the M85UL in my right front pocket. But if I put it away, it would be with the rest of my loaded guns, which are all of five seconds away. Which would enhance safety... how, exactly?
Face it... if I was someone who was a danger to myself or others after a few drinks, then it wouldn't matter if a gun was in my pocket, on my closet shelf, or locked in my safe. If I were that kind of person, then I should either be gun-free, or alcohol-free. If I were that kind of person, I'd only be a danger to myself, because I'd quickly find myself without "others" to endanger.
I don't advocate drinking alcohol, especially to excess. But it's simply ridiculous to have a blanket "one size fits all" policy of never having access to firearms while or after drinking.
Kevin
It is simply;
Texas Penal Code
(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 PI statute has nothing to do with it. To be convicted of 46.035, Unlawful Carrying of Handgun by License Holder regarding alcohol, you simply have to carry while intoxicated. There is no requirement that the state prove you were a danger to yourself or others as in PI. They simply have to prove the above definition of intoxication.
And regarding your claim that
well, thats not true either.KBCraig wrote:, the standard for PI is the officer's judgement that you are a danger to yourself or others; evidence of actual intoxication isn't needed.
Texas Penal Code
§49.02. Public intoxication.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person appears in a
public place while intoxicated to the degree that the person may
endanger the person or another.
An element of PI is proving "intoxication" as per the definition.
And as you can see there is no "blanket" policy or law of "never having access to firearms while or after drinking."
*CHL Instructor*
"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan
Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.
"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan
Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 3
- Posts: 1334
- Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:02 am
- Location: DFW, Tx
There was a mention of 0% BAC being a good idea, and there was also talk about having a similar BAC to the DWI charge. I was just voicing my opinion on the matter......
I have read the statutes and understand them. This is a conversation about theoreticals and possbilities as I understand it, hence why I spoke on that basis.
If I'm mistaken, let me know. Like I've said before, you're more familiar with this content than I am.
I have read the statutes and understand them. This is a conversation about theoreticals and possbilities as I understand it, hence why I spoke on that basis.
If I'm mistaken, let me know. Like I've said before, you're more familiar with this content than I am.
My mistake on the spelling.txinvestigator wrote:You are not. Most places that serve food are NOT going to be off limits.Tecumseh wrote:I think that the whole 51% thing is pretty rediculous. I think that a person should be allowed to carry wherever they go. I also think that they should allow people to drink and carry. If they are intoxicated (set a limit like 0.08) and are CCWing then that is that. However if I would like to go to dinner and have a beer I dont feel that I should be prohibited from drinking just because someone else cannot handle their liquor.
And there is not a zero tolerance law regarding drinking and carry. It is a violation to carry while INTOXICATED, which carries the same definition as DWI or PI.
What? Why would someone have a gun in his mouth? FWIW there is a 15 minute observation time before a person is administered an intoxilizer. That is ample time for mouthwash, gum or whatever else to leave your breath contained in your mouth.As someone stated a Zero Tolerance policy can result in a lost license for having recently washed your mouth with mouthwash. Or some guns contain alcohol in small amounts (I beleive the ingredient is also in smints) and having one in your mouth before you blow could blow a trace amount of alcohol.
I visit this forum to late in the night. ITs almost 5:00 am here and I cannot sleep.