The Annoyed Man wrote:Of course, you're right. The problem is that "impairment" is left up to the officer's discretion. You might have had one drink over the course of a 3 hour dinner, not in any way be impaired, and if the officer smells that drink on your breath—or rather, if he smells the esters produced by having metabolized alcohol on your breath—then he may well cite you for it, and you could be in trouble. I don't know how likely that is to actually happen. I suppose that most reasonable LEOs who asked whether you had anything to drink tonight and were told, "yes, about 3 hours ago at 6pm I had a single coctail before eating a ribeye dinner with all the timmings and a desert," would probably let that go so long as you showed no overt signs of intoxication.
I don't know about that. For some individuals, drinking alcohol impairs their ability to count.
I fully agree with the need to be careful on this.
I have a question with regards to information that I was given during a CHL class that I took today. The instructor specifically cited 46.035, and informed the class that if you successfully apply for a CHL, then because of the fact that no legal definition is given for the Blood Alcohol Content that defined intoxication, then than means that regardless of if you are carrying or not, regardless of if you have your weapon in the car or not, if you have any alcohol in your blood, that constitutes a DUI should the officer choose to arrest you.
Stated another way, if you leave you handgun at home, are not carrying, have half a beer, and drive to the grocery and are stopped, and blow .01, you get a DUI.
Needless to say this sparked some lively discussion in the class.
I had never heard this, and quite frankly, from reading the applicable text, I don't see any way that this can be read the way it was presented.
2 questions,
1) Any comments on the accuracy of this information presented?
2) Is there a procedure that I should follow to file comments to DPS on the accuracy of the data being presented in a certification class?
DUI is in fact zero tolerance and applies to those under 21.
Intoxication, whether driving a car or carrying a handgun, does not require a specific BAC if the actor lacks "the normal use of mental or physical faculties" because of their consumption of alcohol or other substances. However, an individual with a BAC of .08 or greater is presumed to be intoxicated, regardless of visible indications or lack thereof.
What apostate is referring to is that, in Texas, the term "driving under the influence" (DUI) is applied to minors only. See Chapter 106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Code and Family Code §51.01. For persons 21 years of age and older, the term is "driving while intoxicated" (DWI).
Join the NRA or upgrade your membership today. Support the Texas Firearms Coalition and subscribe to the Podcast.
I’ve contacted my State Rep, Gary Elkins, about co-sponsoring HB560. Have you contacted your Rep? NRA Benefactor Life Member
ducks202 wrote:I fully agree with the need to be careful on this.
I have a question with regards to information that I was given during a CHL class that I took today. The instructor specifically cited 46.035, and informed the class that if you successfully apply for a CHL, then because of the fact that no legal definition is given for the Blood Alcohol Content that defined intoxication, then than means that regardless of if you are carrying or not, regardless of if you have your weapon in the car or not, if you have any alcohol in your blood, that constitutes a DUI should the officer choose to arrest you.
Stated another way, if you leave you handgun at home, are not carrying, have half a beer, and drive to the grocery and are stopped, and blow .01, you get a DUI.
Needless to say this sparked some lively discussion in the class.
I had never heard this, and quite frankly, from reading the applicable text, I don't see any way that this can be read the way it was presented.
2 questions,
1) Any comments on the accuracy of this information presented?
2) Is there a procedure that I should follow to file comments to DPS on the accuracy of the data being presented in a certification class?
The way to avoid this is to not go to a bar for drinks. I think in my case I had rather protect my CHL and either not drink, or if I had to drink, do it at home and then not drive anywhere period.
It is a gray area, but why let some LEO decide you are impaired after only one drink, and you lose your CHL. That drink is just not that important in my life.
