Alcohol and Guns

[The Annoyed Man]

But the same is true for driving intoxicated as well. You don't have to be at .08 for an officer to arrest you for DWI if he thinks you're intoxicated.

And that was my point - that there is a threshold for driving, .08%, that doesn't exist for CHL. No amount of blood alcohol greater than 0.00 is too small for a LEO to arrest a CHL if he suspects impairment.

For that reason, I rarely ever drink in public, even in small amounts.

[Oldgringo]

(I'm sorry, sometimes I just can't help myself. It's kinda' like a bad case of Tourette's.)

[sugar land dave]

It's all about breaking the ice Sugar Land Dave. Thanks for all the replies. I agree that it is ok for me to keep my gun in the glove box, have a nice dinner with my inlaws and have one or two drinks and drive home with no worries. I just wanted to make sure my logic was sound.

Well, slap me with a 2x4, you sure broke it! Again, Welcome!

[cbr600]

deleted

[ScottDLS]

But the same is true for driving intoxicated as well. You don't have to be at .08 for an officer to arrest you for DWI if he thinks you're intoxicated.

And that was my point - that there is a threshold for driving, .08%, that doesn't exist for CHL. No amount of blood alcohol greater than 0.00 is too small for a LEO to arrest a CHL if he suspects impairment.

For that reason, I rarely ever drink in public, even in small amounts.

No, that is not quite the case. The legal definition of intoxicated is the same for both. The threshold of 0.08 is the same for driving and CHL. If you ARE 0.08 your ARE, by legal definition intoxicated, for driving and for carrying. If you are below...based on the circumstances, you maybe aren't intoxicated for carrying or driving...

Note the law doesn't say "impaired"...or "having any detectable alcohol in your system", it lays out a legal standard for intoxication that IS THE SAME FOR DWI ("I" stands for intoxicated) as it is for CHL 46.035(d). The standard isn't stricter for CHL than for driving. It is the same.

[bigmoney]

My instructor heavily stressed that there is absolutely no minimum limit for a CHL While carrying. And that If you choose to carry and are suspected of haveing a drink(whether or not you're intoxicated) that it was cause to draw blood for a BAC over a breathalizer. So according to his suggestions, lock that puppy up somewhere in your vehicle so that there is absolutely no doubt that it is not on or about or accessible by you at all. So essentially, what I got out of it, was even having one drink While carrying was cause enough for unwanted trouble. And in today's society, with all these restrictions and laws, drinking anywhere outside your home just isn't worth it anymore.

[bigred90gt]

And that was my point - that there is a threshold for driving, .08%, that doesn't exist for CHL. No amount of blood alcohol greater than 0.00 is too small for a LEO to arrest a CHL if he suspects impairment.

He would have to PROVE impairment for it to be a crime. Just because a person has 1 drink, does not necessarily mean they do not have normal use of their mental or physical faculties. I would fight that all the way up the food chain if I ever had to.

I will occasionally have 1 drink if I am carrying, but no more than 1. I'm usually the driver, and unless I am going to a bar, I'm always carrying, so I really dont drink much in public either.

[ScottDLS]

My instructor heavily stressed that there is absolutely no minimum limit for a CHL While carrying. And that If you choose to carry and are suspected of haveing a drink(whether or not you're intoxicated) that it was cause to draw blood for a BAC over a breathalizer. So according to his suggestions, lock that puppy up somewhere in your vehicle so that there is absolutely no doubt that it is not on or about or accessible by you at all. So essentially, what I got out of it, was even having one drink While carrying was cause enough for unwanted trouble. And in today's society, with all these restrictions and laws, drinking anywhere outside your home just isn't worth it anymore.

Legal cite please...?

I don't believe there's any "implied consent" to take a breathalyzer for CHL, like there is for driving. If you are driving and refuse, you can lose your driver license even if you are acquitted at trial.

I don't see any equivalent in GC 411 or 46.xx. I understand and perhaps sympathize with the intent of the CHL instructor to protect, but getting a CHL is not a waiving of your 4th and 5th amendment rights... If it is, show me where.

[BrianSW99]

My instructor heavily stressed that there is absolutely no minimum limit for a CHL While carrying. And that If you choose to carry and are suspected of haveing a drink(whether or not you're intoxicated) that it was cause to draw blood for a BAC over a breathalizer. So according to his suggestions, lock that puppy up somewhere in your vehicle so that there is absolutely no doubt that it is not on or about or accessible by you at all. So essentially, what I got out of it, was even having one drink While carrying was cause enough for unwanted trouble. And in today's society, with all these restrictions and laws, drinking anywhere outside your home just isn't worth it anymore.

Unfortunately, you can't accept everything a CHL instructor says at face value. If I hadn't spoken up in my CHL class, everyone would have thought its illegal to carry in a church or hospital. I believe everyone with a CHL should become familiar with the relavent laws independently of the CHL class. The mere fact you had a drink would not be cause enough to do a forced blood draw unless the officer had other reasons to suspect you're intoxicated.

It's technically valid to say there is no minimum limit for a BAC level while carrying, but the exact same thing is true for driving. The .08 limit for driving doesn't mean you can't be arrested, or even found guilty of being intoxicated for having less. It's also true that just as in driving, you're not guilty of carrying while intoxicated just because you have *any* alcohol in your system. The way the definition is written, it makes it much more difficult to prove you were intoxicated if you have less than a .08 BAC.

[bigmoney]

Point Taken. I have been studying the codes more while I'm still waiting, but I also think beyond just what the law states. For instance, if I were to have just one drink in me, and were forced to use force against someone, what kind of effect is that going to have on a grand jury or civil jury? There may be certain allowances in the law regarding the alcohol and guns, but does that mean that I'd be scott free at the end of the ordeal? I think it's still just a better idea to leave the alcohol alone period when carrying. Laws or not, I just don't see any good coming from it.

[BrianSW99]

Point Taken. I have been studying the codes more while I'm still waiting, but I also think beyond just what the law states. For instance, if I were to have just one drink in me, and were forced to use force against someone, what kind of effect is that going to have on a grand jury or civil jury? There may be certain allowances in the law regarding the alcohol and guns, but does that mean that I'd be scott free at the end of the ordeal? I think it's still just a better idea to leave the alcohol alone period when carrying. Laws or not, I just don't see any good coming from it.

There's no question that not drinking at all is the safest course of action for both carrying and driving. In your example though, I don't think that your having had a drink would ever come into question in the grand jury. They are looking at the facts of the case to determine whether it was a justified shooting. You could be undeniably intoxicated and still have a justified shooting.

[ScottDLS]

Point Taken. I have been studying the codes more while I'm still waiting, but I also think beyond just what the law states. For instance, if I were to have just one drink in me, and were forced to use force against someone, what kind of effect is that going to have on a grand jury or civil jury? There may be certain allowances in the law regarding the alcohol and guns, but does that mean that I'd be scott free at the end of the ordeal? I think it's still just a better idea to leave the alcohol alone period when carrying. Laws or not, I just don't see any good coming from it.

Excellent points.

[zero4o3]

But the same is true for driving intoxicated as well. You don't have to be at .08 for an officer to arrest you for DWI if he thinks you're intoxicated.

And that was my point - that there is a threshold for driving, .08%, that doesn't exist for CHL. No amount of blood alcohol greater than 0.00 is too small for a LEO to arrest a CHL if he suspects impairment.

For that reason, I rarely ever drink in public, even in small amounts.

the .08 threshold does not protect you from getting a DWI rather it gives the officer the ability to give one to some one who otherwise does not seem intoxicated. that being said, I am still a firm supporter of not carrying when I am drinking, which is hardly ever in public any more