TexasCHLforum.com

Crossfire wrote: (6) "Intoxicated" has the meaning assigned by Section 49.01, Penal Code.

I hate to question you when I agree with what you are saying, but can you explain where this line came from? It is not part of the penal code in Chapter 46 that I have.

I have always used the Code Construction Act to show how the definition from Chapter 49 applies to Chapter 46.


Thanks

03Lightningrocks wrote:

gwashorn wrote:Oh great, now I can't carry while dieting on the Atkins diet. Geez, I ain't ever gona lose weight now!

Haven't they determined that the Atkins diet is bad for your heart? Try the exercise and eat less food diet...LOL...works every time.

True. The Atkins is bad for the heart the way untreated diabetes is, it generates ketones and subsequent keto-acidosis and eventually the body will start to eat its own muscle including the myocardial. Very limited in short term use though, it's the people who persist in it once they have started losing weight that end up getting sick from it.

Steve,

There's also a definition of intoxicated in 46.06 but I think Crossfire was quoting Section 411.171, Texas Government Code.

boomerang wrote:Steve,

There's also a definition of intoxicated in 46.06 but I think Crossfire was quoting Section 411.171, Texas Government Code.

Yes, that is correct, under the "definitions" section.

03Lightningrocks wrote: I am a bit paranoid about drinking while carrying. My worst nightmare would be having to use the weapon and then trying to explain that I was not intoxicated when my stray bullet hit an innocent by stander. For me it is really no big deal passing up on a over priced drink while eating out. I can make all the drinks I want at home for a third of the price.

Exactly!!! Legal, schmegal - its the grand jury I'm worried about.
(my first "I agree" post on this forum)

I was reading this and thought I would pass along what I was told by my chl instructor. He was a police officer if that counts for anything.

Essentially, he said it's up to the officer's discretion whether you are intoxicated. For this reason, you should not be carrying even if you are only having one drink. This does not mean that you can't have an unexpected drink somewhere. A good thing to do would be to break down your firearm, and lock it in a car safe. Then store the ammo somewhere else in the car. If you having a drink comes up from law enforcements point of view, they will have a hard time showing that you are carrying in this situation.

boomerang wrote:

HankB wrote:Drunks shouldn't carry guns any more than drunks should drive.

That's true whether the drunk is a plumber, a Senator, a doctor, a peace officer, etc.

Drinking while legislating-it explains so much actually.

This thread is yet another example of why a standardized, professionally produced video would be a great idea for at least part of the classroom session. (On the other hand, we have that DPS lawyer who insists that any "no guns" sign is sufficient notice to charge you with trespassing.)

Alison Wonderland wrote:Essentially, he said it's up to the officer's discretion whether you are intoxicated.

An officer has the discretion to charge you with the crime, but they can't determine whether or not you've committed that crime. That's always up to the court.

chabouk wrote:This thread is yet another example of why a standardized, professionally produced video would be a great idea for at least part of the classroom session.

It's a better example of why there should be a standardized test administered by DPS on computer at license offices exactly like the DL written test. Especially if DPS can publish statistics for instructors showing what percentage of their students passed.

tacticool wrote:

chabouk wrote:This thread is yet another example of why a standardized, professionally produced video would be a great idea for at least part of the classroom session.

It's a better example of why there should be a standardized test administered by DPS on computer at license offices exactly like the DL written test. Especially if DPS can publish statistics for instructors showing what percentage of their students passed.

That, and we should be able to turn in applications at the local DPS office, where they can take the photos just like they would for a DL (or just use the DL photo that's already in their system), and get fingerprints taken. That would avoid rejections for photos or prints.

chabouk wrote:That, and we should be able to turn in applications at the local DPS office, where they can take the photos just like they would for a DL (or just use the DL photo that's already in their system), and get fingerprints taken. That would avoid rejections for photos or prints.

True. I also don't understand why renewals need prints. If it's to validate identity, they can do that with the electronic thumbprints same as DL.

P.S. Stay alive. Don't drink and drive.

boomerang wrote:

Stay alive. Don't drink and drive.

If you must drink and drive, please run into a tree, a bridge abutment, over a cliff or something else rather than into me or mine.

Oldgringo wrote:

boomerang wrote:

Stay alive. Don't drink and drive.

If you must drink and drive, please run into a tree, a bridge abutment, over a cliff or something else rather than into me or mine.

I find myself agreeing with you more and more often, Oldgringo. Must be my age. I can't account for it otherwise.

You are brief and to the point. If there is no alcohol in your system it makes all this chatter about blood tests, breathalyzers, BAC, etc., moot -- unless certain forum members cannot restrain themselves from criticising LEOs by way of imaginary horribles.

Jim

57Coastie wrote:
If there is no alcohol in your system it makes all this chatter about blood tests, breathalyzers, BAC, etc., moot -- ...

Jim

Well, it does remove one element from the picture, but doesn't completely negate the intoxication factor or blood tests. As you well know, the laws in Texas state intoxication doesn't mean just alcohol. You can be intoxicated by taking prescription medications or other non-prescription or illegal drugs. When I had surgery a couple of years ago, I was on a fairly heavy dose of hydrocodone. I would not carry at that time (didn't drive either for that matter!)

So, while I agree about the absence of alcohol helping, just remember; you could have just one beer and it, combined with other substances in your body, would make you legally intoxicated.

Steve - Re: Your "I hate to question you when I agree with what you are saying, but can you explain where this line came from? It is not part of the penal code in Chapter 46 that I have."

Crossfire may want to address that individually, but " "Intoxicated" has the meaning assigned by Section 49.01, Penal Code. "
(IIRC - not at office to double check) is what (now retired) Sgt. Riddle quoted to us in an instructor newsletter years ago after the subject became a controversial issue when first included as a test question.