TexasCHLforum.com

There is no "lower limit" for intoxicated driving nor carrying.

Carefully study the wording of PC 49.01 already posted. You do not have to be 0.08 BAC to be arrested for drunk driving. You could be 0.02, but if the LEO can articulate that you did not have normal use of your faculties, then you can be arrested for DWI AND violating PC 46.035 CCWI (concealed carry while intoxicated)

While it's not spelled out for CCWI, PC 49.01 IS the standard cops KNOW and will use to determine an arrest for CCWI.

AND there is a bill in Legislature this term to codify PC 49.01 definition of intoxicated as the standard for PC 46.035

Y'all may be overlooking the real issue which was brought up during a class some years ago. In the rare situation where you might have to draw and use your gun, the person on the receiving end, or his family, would have a disputable issue over which they could civilly sue you, even if no criminal charges had been warranted or filed. You just don't want to be in a situation where the BG can come back after you for any reason. If you must, you want a clean shoot--one over which nobody could dispute the legitimacy of the use of deadly force. To go to court and concede that you had just finished a beer a short time before shooting someone would put you and your attorney in a bad position.

gdanaher wrote:Y'all may be overlooking the real issue which was brought up during a class some years ago. In the rare situation where you might have to draw and use your gun, the person on the receiving end, or his family, would have a disputable issue over which they could civilly sue you, even if no criminal charges had been warranted or filed. You just don't want to be in a situation where the BG can come back after you for any reason. If you must, you want a clean shoot--one over which nobody could dispute the legitimacy of the use of deadly force. To go to court and concede that you had just finished a beer a short time before shooting someone would put you and your attorney in a bad position.

And again, we can what if it forever.

Your point is valid

At the same time, ever read about a case, EVER... where this was bought up as a issue? Either at the Grand jury or Trial?

I have spent some time searching , and with my uneducated, non lawyer approach, I can find none.

gdanaher wrote:Y'all may be overlooking the real issue which was brought up during a class some years ago. In the rare situation where you might have to draw and use your gun, the person on the receiving end, or his family, would have a disputable issue over which they could civilly sue you, even if no criminal charges had been warranted or filed. You just don't want to be in a situation where the BG can come back after you for any reason. If you must, you want a clean shoot--one over which nobody could dispute the legitimacy of the use of deadly force. To go to court and concede that you had just finished a beer a short time before shooting someone would put you and your attorney in a bad position.

IANAL, but here is the statute.

CPRC CH. 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON
CPRC § 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY.
A defendant who uses force or deadly
force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune
from civil
liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of
force or deadly force, as applicable.

Although peoples judgment may bend under the influence of alcohol, I don't think the law does. IMHO, You are either justified or not justified to use your weapon.

E.Marquez wrote:At the same time, ever read about a case, EVER... where this was bought up as a issue? Either at the Grand jury or Trial?

It became a major question in the George Zimmerman case, at least in the court of public opinion and the media's rush to prosecute him on any grounds possible.

I feel completely free to have the oft-recited glass of wine or bottle of beer with dinner while carrying. However, I do know that if - God forbid - I was involved in an incident (even a clear case of self defense) that became newsworthy in any way, every detail of me would be scrutinized, including that one drink at dinner.

The current media feels no obligation to carefully choose their words or accurately write a headline to reflect the story. The headlines would be, "Shooter in x case had alcohol in system!" or "Man who killed assailant had been drinking at local restaurant!" Even if it was trace / negligible amounts.

I don't think this threat should keep us from having a responsible drink on occasion, but it's worth throwing out there and thinking about.

fickman wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:At the same time, ever read about a case, EVER... where this was bought up as a issue? Either at the Grand jury or Trial?

It became a major question in the George Zimmerman case, at least in the court of public opinion and the media's rush to prosecute him on any grounds possible.

I feel completely free to have the oft-recited glass of wine or bottle of beer with dinner while carrying. However, I do know that if - God forbid - I was involved in an incident (even a clear case of self defense) that became newsworthy in any way, every detail of me would be scrutinized, including that one drink at dinner.

The current media feels no obligation to carefully choose their words or accurately write a headline to reflect the story. The headlines would be, "Shooter in x case had alcohol in system!" or "Man who killed assailant had been drinking at local restaurant!" Even if it was trace / negligible amounts.

I don't think this threat should keep us from having a responsible drink on occasion, but it's worth throwing out there and thinking about.

While I agree that the media will use any and everything against anyone who lawfully uses a firearm to defend themselves, I will point out that the GZ/TM incident occurred in Florida, not in Texas. And Florida law is not Texas law.

If someone is too drunk to safely and legally carry a firearm hidden in a holster, they're way past the limit of safely driving a motor vehicle in traffic. Also see my signature.

E.Marquez wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:
Yep.... This came up in my renewal class and the instructor warned that their is no number limit for a CHL holder carrying while drinking. He said you could get a cop who decides you are impaired after one drink. Blood alcohol level isn't the criteria.

This seems to me like we are taking some extra risk having that beer with dinner and carrying concealed. I think the odds of getting caught are low but the hassle may not be worth the risk.

And the same came be said for Driving and contacted by a LEO, Walking and contacted by a LEO, in your home and caring for a minor, and contacted by a LEO.. at any of those the LEO can decide using his training and judgement,m you are impaired, and take you away.

The logical thought is, the LEO will use his training and experience basic knowledge of the LAW

CHAPTER 49. INTOXICATION AND ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE OFFENSES
Sec. 49.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(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.

and apply that to the situation at hand.

Sure there is one of these out there http://terrydefense.com/dui-false-arrest/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
But that is an exception, I believe, not the rule.

A look at the convection rates reported for those with a CHL in 2011
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Re ... rt2011.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Clearly shows, there are not a lot of CHL'ers getting arrested and convicted for anything, never mind carrying while intoxicated... My estimation is, it's not because of abstinence from consuming alcohol upon being handed a CHL.

And to be clear,, No, I do not personally go out drinking while I carry, nor do I think it wise....... But I would not have a problem with a person having a glass of wine or beer with dinner so long as with that specific person, that amount of Alcohol does not cause them to not have the normal use of mental or physical faculties

Incorrect. The same cannot be said about DUI! There is a legal number attached to DUI and there IS NOT a number attached to CHL drinking.

03Lightningrocks wrote: Incorrect. The same cannot be said about DUI! There is a legal number attached to DUI and there IS NOT a number attached to CHL drinking.

I see your incorrect and raise you a legal standard.

Feel free to read it... Intoxicated is defined, Been posted here, been linked to here, been argued here.

There is a legal definition of what is intoxicated while carrying a handgun. It is both clear in what is definitely considered intoxicated, , and open to some LEO interpretation as to what might be intoxicated .

And the pont is, convection records do NOT support a overly large, or even significant number of CHL's being caught carrying while intoxicated.

E.Marquez wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote: Incorrect. The same cannot be said about DUI! There is a legal number attached to DUI and there IS NOT a number attached to CHL drinking.

I see your incorrect and raise you a legal standard.

Feel free to read it... Intoxicated is defined, Been posted here, been linked to here, been argued here.

There is a legal definition of what is intoxicated while carrying a handgun. It is both clear in what is definitely considered intoxicated, , and open to some LEO interpretation as to what might be intoxicated .

And the pont is, convection records do NOT support a overly large, or even significant number of CHL's being caught carrying while intoxicated.

We are discussing what the law says. The law DOES NOT specify a blood intoxication level for CHL's. show it to me and I will say OK.

03Lightningrocks wrote:
We are discussing what the law says. The law DOES NOT specify a blood intoxication level for CHL's. show it to me and I will say OK.

Ahh, ok, Your one of the folks that does not believe PC49.01 which clearly does define intoxication with both a number and verbiage applies to a CHL.

PENAL CODE
TITLE 10. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND MORALS
CHAPTER 49. INTOXICATION AND ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE OFFENSES
Sec. 49.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Alcohol concentration" means the number of grams of alcohol per:
(A) 210 liters of breath;
(B) 100 milliliters of blood; or
(C) 67 milliliters of urine.
(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.

OK fair enough.... We can agree to disagree then, but are on the same page I think.
My apologies for the confusion... I have been clear from the start of this thread, I have been referencing Texas PC 49.01 as "The Law" even cited it once verbatim. And that law does in fact specify "blood intoxication level" And I do in my IANAL capacity believe Texas PC 49.01 to be applicable to those who carry a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code.

Title 10. Offenses Against Public Health,Safety, And Morals which includes chapters;
Chapter 46. Weapons
Chapter 47. Gambling
Chapter 48. Conduct Affecting Public Health
Chapter 49. Intoxication And Alcoholic Beverage Offenses

So within the Title 10, we have
Chapter 46 Weapons :
§46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE
HOLDER.
(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.
AND
Chapter 49 Intoxication And Alcoholic Beverage Offenses:
§49.01. DEFINITIONS. :
(1) "Alcohol concentration" means the number of grams
of alcohol per:
(A) 210 liters of breath;
(B) 100 milliliters of blood; or
(C) 67 milliliters of urine.
(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.

I of course am not a lawyer, nor judge, nor legal scholar, but I have seen folks charged for carrying a concealed handgun in voilation of §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER. And Chapter 49 Intoxication And Alcoholic Beverage Offenses: §49.01. DEFINITIONS was cited as well.
So I believe the law, or at least in practical real life use §49.01. DEFINITIONS apply to CHL holders

E. Marquez is correct. 49.01 does apply to CHL and .08 DOES apply. You have to look at the references.

46.035 says:

(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.

Subchapter H, Chapter 411 Government Code says:

§ 411.171. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:
(1) "Action" means single action, revolver, or
semi-automatic action.
(2) "Chemically dependent person" means a person who
frequently or repeatedly becomes intoxicated by excessive
indulgence in alcohol or uses controlled substances or dangerous
drugs so as to acquire a fixed habit and an involuntary tendency to
become intoxicated or use those substances as often as the
opportunity is presented.
(3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence
of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a
reasonable person.
(4) "Convicted" means an adjudication of guilt or,
except as provided in Section 411.1711, an order of deferred
adjudication entered against a person by a court of competent
jurisdiction whether or not the imposition of the sentence is
subsequently probated and the person is discharged from community
supervision. The term does not include an adjudication of guilt or
an order of deferred adjudication that has been subsequently:
(A) expunged; or
(B) pardoned under the authority of a state or federal official.
(5) "Handgun" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.01, Penal Code.
(6) "Intoxicated" has the meaning assigned by Section 49.01, Penal Code.
(7) "Qualified handgun instructor" means a person who is certified to instruct in the use of handguns by the department.

And, 49.01 says:

§ 49.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Alcohol concentration" means the number of grams
of alcohol per:
(A) 210 liters of breath;
(B) 100 milliliters of blood; or
(C) 67 milliliters of urine.
(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.
(3) "Motor vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section 32.34(a).
(4) "Watercraft" means a vessel, one or more water skis, an aquaplane, or another device used for transporting or
carrying a person on water, other than a device propelled only by
the current of water.
(5) "Amusement ride" has the meaning assigned by Section 2151.002, Occupations Code.
(6) "Mobile amusement ride" has the meaning assigned by Section 2151.002, Occupations Code.

Bottom line DPS is correct in the fact that there is no MINIMUM level of alcohol required for intoxication, but there IS a MAXIMUM level and that is .08 BAC. So, even if you don't appear intoxicated, and have the apperance of normal use of mental or physical faculties, but are .08 BAC or greater, you meet the requirements and are legally intoxicated and in violation.

What I was trying to point out, but maybe not so eloquently, was that there is no minimum number for one to be guilty of carrying while intoxicated. While being at .08 would obviously get you in trouble, you could be at .02 and get in trouble. This was how it was explained to us in the renewal class. Maybe the guy was a t totaler and trying to get everyone to stop drinking... He sure sounded convincing. my understanding was that there is no minimum for a CHL.

Keith B wrote:
Bottom line DPS is correct in the fact that there is no MINIMUM level of alcohol required for intoxication, but there IS a MAXIMUM level and that is .08 BAC. So, even if you don't appear intoxicated, and have the apperance of normal use of mental or physical faculties, but are .08 BAC or greater, you meet the requirements and are legally intoxicated and in violation.

I think I get what you folks are trying to point out. I thought that A person had to be at .08 to be convicted of DUI. I was under the mistaken belief that a blood test or breath test showing less than that and no evidence of drugs would mean no conviction.

In our renewal class, I was given the impression that there was no minimum for a CHL to be convicted of carrying while intoxicated.

If I understand you folks correctly, you are saying there is also no minimum for DUI?

03Lightningrocks wrote:What I was trying to point out, but maybe not so eloquently, was that there is no minimum number for one to be guilty of carrying while intoxicated. While being at .08 would obviously get you in trouble, you could be at .02 and get in trouble. This was how it was explained to us in the renewal class. Maybe the guy was a t totaler and trying to get everyone to stop drinking... He sure sounded convincing. my understanding was that there is no minimum for a CHL.

And see I agree


You are adjudged intoxicated either by being at or OVER the .08 BAC OR 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.
Which can be any (or none) amount of alcohol.
I was reading your postings as that that there was NO NUMBERS at all assigned to the definition.. Not just that there is not a LOWER number. There is no Lower number BAC for DUI either... the .08 BAC is an assumed level for intoxication wither it is concealed carry or DUI. Nut there is no published lower level that you can have and automatically be considered NOT intoxicated.

Sorry, I have never heard that point brought up or argued, so it never occurred to me, that was your point of discussion.

Thanks