TexasCHLforum.com

smoothoperator wrote:IANAL and the laws may be different in Saudi Arabia.

Especially if you are a woman.

An opinion, not necessaraly a recommendation: I disarm if I plan to have even one little bitty tiny sip in public...

That's fine as a recommendation, but teaching bad law about alcohol is no better than the instructor who said spare magazines are illegal to carry.

I haven't seen anyone mention the worst case scenario of having to shoot someone in self-defense after "a couple" of beers. It probably wouldn't take much of a lawyer to convince a panel of wishy-washy jurors that your judgement was impaired. Short of having a dozen witnesses with cell phone video to exonerate you, at the very least you'll probably be re-thinking your decision after spending a lot of money on your own attorney.

I'm not a drinker so excuse my ignorance, but it seems that I recall there being non-alcoholic beer/wine available on the market. If you feel the need to drink and know you will be driving and or carrying, why not choose to go the non-alcohol route?

Unless of course your reason for drinking is to achieve the relaxing effects of the alcohol in which case I would suggest neither driving nor carry.

Not trying to be a prude, just trying to understand the mindset.

Simple solution.......
Want to drink? Do it at home.

In my CHL class the instructor took the same approach of no tolerance. I didn't used to drink more than about 6 beers a year but now on blood thinner and not able to drink at all.

smoothoperator wrote:

WildBill wrote:That's a question for his instructor. That is exactly why I stated my objections about CHL instructors "preaching" in another thread.

It's sad but some CHL instructors are as bad as the Bradys. They're either misinformed about gun laws or willing to lie to advance their own personal prejudices.

The reference to 49.01 is correct. That's the same section as DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED. The first advice was correct. If you're impaired and illegal to carry then you're also illegal to drive. In Texas. IANAL and the laws may be different in Saudi Arabia.

The problem here is more complex than "preachy instructors". DPS is the entity that "teaches instructors", and they are the ones that teach "there is no legal limit of intoxication when carrying under a CHL". Although technically correct in that you can be legally intoxicated regardless of your BAC (i.e. physically or mentally impaired), the statement is intentionally worded (IMO) to imply "zero tolerance". Without any other guidance -- for instance, from this site -- it would not be unreasonable for instructors to believe they've been instructed that a CHL can be arrested and forfeit their license with any detectable amount of alcohol in their system.

Technically, all the "no legal limit" means is that an attempted defense of "My BAC was less than 0.08%" would not fly. If you fail the SFST, you're intoxicated regardless of your BAC. Also note that this is the same standard used to determine if a driver is intoxicated. So the above comment that "If you're too intoxicated to carry, you're too intoxicated to drive" is factually correct.

With the definition of "intoxicated" not clearly defined in the same section as the stuff about carrying with alcohol, I don't want to leave it up to an officer having a bad day to smell the single beer I drank and ruin my life for carrying. If I am carrying and want to drink, I go back to my vehicle, lock it up in the lock box, and go drink. At home I do what I want.

TexasAggie09 wrote:With the definition of "intoxicated" not clearly defined in the same section as the stuff about carrying with alcohol, I don't want to leave it up to an officer having a bad day to smell the single beer I drank and ruin my life for carrying. If I am carrying and want to drink, I go back to my vehicle, lock it up in the lock box, and go drink. At home I do what I want.

I can understand (kinda) an officer that is not intimately familiar with CHL laws, but one that is unfamiliar with the definition of intoxication has a serious professional issue (In my opinion, of course! )

sjfcontrol wrote:

TexasAggie09 wrote:With the definition of "intoxicated" not clearly defined in the same section as the stuff about carrying with alcohol, I don't want to leave it up to an officer having a bad day to smell the single beer I drank and ruin my life for carrying. If I am carrying and want to drink, I go back to my vehicle, lock it up in the lock box, and go drink. At home I do what I want.

I can understand (kinda) an officer that is not intimately familiar with CHL laws, but one that is unfamiliar with the definition of intoxication has a serious professional issue (In my opinion, of course! )

I agree but I'm not willing to risk x years of my life to find out if the officer that just pulled me over has the same definition of "intoxicated" that I do, ya know?

TexasAggie09 wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

TexasAggie09 wrote:With the definition of "intoxicated" not clearly defined in the same section as the stuff about carrying with alcohol, I don't want to leave it up to an officer having a bad day to smell the single beer I drank and ruin my life for carrying. If I am carrying and want to drink, I go back to my vehicle, lock it up in the lock box, and go drink. At home I do what I want.

I can understand (kinda) an officer that is not intimately familiar with CHL laws, but one that is unfamiliar with the definition of intoxication has a serious professional issue (In my opinion, of course! )

I agree but I'm not willing to risk x years of my life to find out if the officer that just pulled me over has the same definition of "intoxicated" that I do, ya know?

OK, but by the same logic, better not drive, then, either!

Oh, and by the way...

Sec. 12.21. CLASS A MISDEMEANOR. An individual adjudged guilty of a Class A misdemeanor shall be punished by:
(1) a fine not to exceed $4,000;
(2) confinement in jail for a term not to exceed one year; or
(3) both such fine and confinement.

jmra wrote:I'm not a drinker so excuse my ignorance, but it seems that I recall there being non-alcoholic beer/wine available on the market. If you feel the need to drink and know you will be driving and or carrying, why not choose to go the non-alcohol route?

Unless of course your reason for drinking is to achieve the relaxing effects of the alcohol in which case I would suggest neither driving nor carry.

Not trying to be a prude, just trying to understand the mindset.

Non-alcoholic beer contains about 0.5% alcohol so if there is zero tolerance you could be arrested.

http://alcoholism.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi ... s_alcohol/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As for drinking non-alcholic wine or beer. Why bother? They don't taste the same.

sjfcontrol wrote: If you fail the SFST, you're intoxicated regardless of your BAC.

IANAL, but if you can find one that thinks that you should ever submit to SFST, I would be surprised.

I would never submit to a SFST, whether I was dead sober on my way to church, or leaving bar.

.

sjfcontrol wrote:

TexasAggie09 wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

TexasAggie09 wrote:With the definition of "intoxicated" not clearly defined in the same section as the stuff about carrying with alcohol, I don't want to leave it up to an officer having a bad day to smell the single beer I drank and ruin my life for carrying. If I am carrying and want to drink, I go back to my vehicle, lock it up in the lock box, and go drink. At home I do what I want.

I can understand (kinda) an officer that is not intimately familiar with CHL laws, but one that is unfamiliar with the definition of intoxication has a serious professional issue (In my opinion, of course! )

I agree but I'm not willing to risk x years of my life to find out if the officer that just pulled me over has the same definition of "intoxicated" that I do, ya know?

OK, but by the same logic, better not drive, then, either!

Oh, and by the way...

Sec. 12.21. CLASS A MISDEMEANOR. An individual adjudged guilty of a Class A misdemeanor shall be punished by:
(1) a fine not to exceed $4,000;
(2) confinement in jail for a term not to exceed one year; or
(3) both such fine and confinement.

I'm not sure I understand the jump to logic of not driving you mentioned. Most other laws are more clearly defined such as BAC of 0.08 etc. I haven't been convinced that there is such numerical definition dealing with carrying and alcohol.

Since I didn't give my life story, I defaulted to the possible jail time argument, but there are several other things in my life that will be immediately ruined if I come home with a class A misdemeanor. That's enough reason for me.