TexasCHLforum.com

03Lightningrocks wrote:

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?

Yes, 49.01 applies to any intoxication offense unless specifically stated otherwise in the statue for that offense. SO, for DWI and CHL, they are both the same. Not to say that an officer may try to place a more restrictive view on carrying than driving, but the law is the same. This is why there is a bill in play right now to clarify that CHL is covered by 49.01. It already is, but the bill will help point it out clearly.

And, as a side note, DUI is for minors and there is no limit period for BAC. Adults get charged with DWI and the maximum is .08, but that is for a nother topoc.

Thanks Martinez and Keith. I get it now.

Keith B wrote:And, as a side note, DUI is for minors and there is no limit period for BAC. Adults get charged with DWI and the maximum is .08, but that is for a nother topoc.

Thanks Keith, I just learned something new.... I never knew that DUI was for under 21 with any alcohol and DWI is for anyone, any age, over .08.

RX8er wrote:

Keith B wrote:And, as a side note, DUI is for minors and there is no limit period for BAC. Adults get charged with DWI and the maximum is .08, but that is for a nother topoc.

Thanks Keith, I just learned something new.... I never knew that DUI was for under 21 with any alcohol and DWI is for anyone, any age, over .08.

§ 106.041. DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL BY
MINOR. If your interested.

http://law.onecle.com/texas/alcoholic/106.041.00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

E.Marquez wrote:

RX8er wrote:

Keith B wrote:And, as a side note, DUI is for minors and there is no limit period for BAC. Adults get charged with DWI and the maximum is .08, but that is for a nother topoc.

Thanks Keith, I just learned something new.... I never knew that DUI was for under 21 with any alcohol and DWI is for anyone, any age, over .08.

§ 106.041. DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL BY
MINOR. If your interested.

http://law.onecle.com/texas/alcoholic/106.041.00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Every state is different on intoxicaiton of minors. For example, in Missouri the limit is .02 BAC for minors. One beer will put most people over that point.

I don't drink anymore a got caught by my doctor with blood sugar of 350

This earned me a diagnosis of diabetes No more sugar no more alcohol no more
soadwater no more potatoes and no more of everything I like yuck

tommyg wrote:I don't drink anymore a got caught by my doctor with blood sugar of 350

This earned me a diagnosis of diabetes No more sugar no more alcohol no more
soadwater no more potatoes and no more of everything I like yuck

Same with my wife but she does sneak a Beer every so often. I live the life of no fun food...at least while at home.

Don't complain too much about having to eat right when you have diabetes. A close friend just would not toe the line and she had a stroke at age 50. Now she can't drive, can't work, and can't feel half her body, or see very much. She is losing her house and has moved into an RV. She says she sure wishes she had left those potatoes, sodas, and ice cream alone. Sorry for the hijack. Take care of yourselves.

Not a hijack. Good words for those who need dicipline in any area.
No doubt in my mind & heart, diet dicipline has given me about 4 yrs now & still cancer free.
Never knew there were some cancers that thrived on fat, grease, dairy.
Wow did I have to change.
Was not alcohol but the same principle.

The DPS instructors and three CHL classes I've sat through all agreed that the BAC measurement doesn't apply, at least directly, to CHL.

If you can be shown in court o be impaired, regardless of BAC, then it's a violation. At least that's the way I understand it and have been taught.

Legally, yes, up to the point where you become impaired. I chose not to put myself in a position where it could even be argued. I don't drink at all and carry. You have to decide for yourself where your line will be between zero and however much it takes you to become impaired.

punkndisorderly wrote:The DPS instructors and three CHL classes I've sat through all agreed that the BAC measurement doesn't apply, at least directly, to CHL.

If you can be shown in court o be impaired, regardless of BAC, then it's a violation. At least that's the way I understand it and have been taught.

Legally, yes, up to the point where you become impaired. I chose not to put myself in a position where it could even be argued. I don't drink at all and carry. You have to decide for yourself where your line will be between zero and however much it takes you to become impaired.

This is the whole crux of drinking and carrying or driving. It is a subjective view up to .08 BAC. Below that .08%and you can still be charged with CWI or DWI if they feel you were impaired. A police officer may have a different personal view of impaired if you are carrying vs. driving and you will be required to fight the charge. If there is no alcohol in your system, then you should not have to worry about it (as long as there weren't other substances in your system actually causing you to be impaired.)

longtooth wrote:Not a hijack. Good words for those who need dicipline in any area.
No doubt in my mind & heart, diet dicipline has given me about 4 yrs now & still cancer free.
Never knew there were some cancers that thrived on fat, grease, dairy.
Wow did I have to change.
Was not alcohol but the same principle.

Keith B wrote:

punkndisorderly wrote:The DPS instructors and three CHL classes I've sat through all agreed that the BAC measurement doesn't apply, at least directly, to CHL.

If you can be shown in court o be impaired, regardless of BAC, then it's a violation. At least that's the way I understand it and have been taught.

Legally, yes, up to the point where you become impaired. I chose not to put myself in a position where it could even be argued. I don't drink at all and carry. You have to decide for yourself where your line will be between zero and however much it takes you to become impaired.

This is the whole crux of drinking and carrying or driving. It is a subjective view up to .08 BAC. Below that .08%and you can still be charged with CWI or DWI if they feel you were impaired. A police officer may have a different personal view of impaired if you are carrying vs. driving and you will be required to fight the charge. If there is no alcohol in your system, then you should not have to worry about it (as long as there weren't other substances in your system actually causing you to be impaired.)

I think we should be careful to use the correct term for the criminal violation in both cases. That is INTOXICATED, not impaired. The reason that I say this is because it has a legal definition, that is the same for carrying and driving. While the opinion of an officer may certainly serve as basis for whether you are arrested, legally you are either intoxicated or you are not. If you are not, you can legally carry or drive. If you are, you cannot.

Presumably it is a fact to be established at trial, since intoxication is an element of the crime in both cases.

I grew up USING guns my whole life. I typed USING because that is not the same thing as being AROUND guns my whole life. I'm from a family of hunters from many generations gone by. We always were taught, for as long as I can remember, that guns and alcohol don't mix. This was always the rule for hunting and fun nights after hunting.

I find it somewhat unique to this forum that we worry about the legalities rather than the common sense of drinking while carrying. Guns and alcohol do not mix. Whether it is for hunting game animals or self defense. I am of the opinion that behavior that walks on the fine line of legal does not make it acceptable behavior.

03Lightningrocks wrote:I grew up USING guns my whole life. I typed USING because that is not the same thing as being AROUND guns my whole life. I'm from a family of hunters from many generations gone by. We always were taught, for as long as I can remember, that guns and alcohol don't mix. This was always the rule for hunting and fun nights after hunting.

I find it somewhat unique to this forum that we worry about the legalities rather than the common sense of drinking while carrying. Guns and alcohol do not mix. Whether it is for hunting game animals or self defense. I am of the opinion that behavior that walks on the fine line of legal does not make it acceptable behavior.

Same here. Alcohol and guns didn't mix, alcohol and farm equipment didn't mix, alcohol and work didn't mix. Yet oddly enough, alcohol and driving wasn't strongly condemned. I don't mean that anybody recommended it, but nobody was particularly concerned about it either. During my college days, you knew every frat boy behind the wheel on the weekend was well over the legal limit. While the police would write the occasional ticket, I don't remember any national campaigns or PSA about drinking and driving. And the school administration seem to be blissfully unaware of any problem.
There was even less concern for boating. I think several of my friends have never actually skied sober.
Guess I've drifted off topic a little bit, but I have been interested in the way views about alcohol have changed over the years.