Actually, Intoxicated IS defined. There is no "danger to yourself or others" involved.KBCraig wrote:It's not 0% BAC. It's not 0.8% BAC. It's not 1.0% BAC. It's not any number, because "intoxicated" is not defined within the statute, which means that the standard for "public intoxication" can come into play. And as we all know, the standard for PI is the officer's judgement that you are a danger to yourself or others; evidence of actual intoxication isn't needed.txinvestigator wrote:Oh. You know its not a 0% BAC either, right?cyphur wrote:I know - just trying to illustrate that I agree it shouldn't be a 0% BAC and that other things can screw you up a lot worse - state of mind wise.txinvestigator wrote:
You can have a beer with your meal. The law prohibits you from being intoxicated while carrying.
\
Other than a very (very!) rare beer when out to dinner, I reserve my consumption of alcohol to having a few in the evening after work, while checking email, reading my forums, and watching Sports Center (go Cards!).
I'm sitting here sipping my fourth beer of the evening, which is three beyond my "public" limit, or my driving limit. Am I above 0.8% BAC? I don't know. I'm not about to risk finding out. Am I above the standard for PI? Depends on whether the "officer's judgement" comes from an officer who is a hardnosed tee-totalling 12-stepper bent on reforming the world, or one who actually evaluates whether or not I'm a danger to myself or the public.
I suppose, according to some rigid standards of safety, that I shouldn't have the M85UL in my right front pocket. But if I put it away, it would be with the rest of my loaded guns, which are all of five seconds away. Which would enhance safety... how, exactly?
Face it... if I was someone who was a danger to myself or others after a few drinks, then it wouldn't matter if a gun was in my pocket, on my closet shelf, or locked in my safe. If I were that kind of person, then I should either be gun-free, or alcohol-free. If I were that kind of person, I'd only be a danger to myself, because I'd quickly find myself without "others" to endanger.
I don't advocate drinking alcohol, especially to excess. But it's simply ridiculous to have a blanket "one size fits all" policy of never having access to firearms while or after drinking.
Kevin
It is simply;
Texas Penal Code
(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.
The PI statute has nothing to do with it. To be convicted of 46.035, Unlawful Carrying of Handgun by License Holder regarding alcohol, you simply have to carry while intoxicated. There is no requirement that the state prove you were a danger to yourself or others as in PI. They simply have to prove the above definition of intoxication.
And regarding your claim that
well, thats not true either.KBCraig wrote:, the standard for PI is the officer's judgement that you are a danger to yourself or others; evidence of actual intoxication isn't needed.
Texas Penal Code
§49.02. Public intoxication.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person appears in a
public place while intoxicated to the degree that the person may
endanger the person or another.
An element of PI is proving "intoxication" as per the definition.
And as you can see there is no "blanket" policy or law of "never having access to firearms while or after drinking."
FWIW there is a 15 minute observation time before a person is administered an intoxilizer. That is ample time for mouthwash, gum or whatever else to leave your breath contained in your mouth.
at MADD
Good thing! lol