Fix the alcohol issue

What should be on the 2007 agenda for CHL's?

Moderator: Charles L. Cotton

Postby cyphur » Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:45 pm

txinvestigator wrote:
cyphur wrote:I don't carry yet - but I don't see myself drinking much at all while doing so. I have a drink maybe once a week, and thats a shot of tequila with the wife or a beer relaxing on my "porch". I don't see a problem to have one beer when you're out and about if you're eating at the same time. I know personally food goes a long way to counteract alcohol.


ShootNMove wrote:BTW, this may be a news flash for some, but alcohol isn't the only thing that effects peoples' mental & physical abilities? Ever worked 48 hours in the heat, sober and tried to read a book, tie your shoes or concentrate on something important? Police work some long shifts under stressful conditions, yet we expect them to carry and operate a weapon responsibly. Do I even need to mention our troops overseas?


Completely in agreeance. I've been on "missions" at JRTC that last 36 hours straight, having already been up for 12 hours before that - on an M1A2 Abrams. You're at the edge of dillusions at that point if you don't do it regularly. If the Govt trusted me to do that, I don't see the difference from having a beer with a full meal - or carrying anywhere - if I'm not consuming alcohol.


You can have a beer with your meal. The law prohibits you from being intoxicated while carrying.
\


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.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." ~ Edmund Burke
"Despite what your momma told you, violence does solve problems." - Ryan Job, SEAL Team 3
cyphur
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1178
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:02 am
Location: Flower mound, Tx

Postby txinvestigator » Mon Jul 03, 2006 9:18 pm

cyphur wrote:
txinvestigator wrote:
cyphur wrote:I don't carry yet - but I don't see myself drinking much at all while doing so. I have a drink maybe once a week, and thats a shot of tequila with the wife or a beer relaxing on my "porch". I don't see a problem to have one beer when you're out and about if you're eating at the same time. I know personally food goes a long way to counteract alcohol.


ShootNMove wrote:BTW, this may be a news flash for some, but alcohol isn't the only thing that effects peoples' mental & physical abilities? Ever worked 48 hours in the heat, sober and tried to read a book, tie your shoes or concentrate on something important? Police work some long shifts under stressful conditions, yet we expect them to carry and operate a weapon responsibly. Do I even need to mention our troops overseas?


Completely in agreeance. I've been on "missions" at JRTC that last 36 hours straight, having already been up for 12 hours before that - on an M1A2 Abrams. You're at the edge of dillusions at that point if you don't do it regularly. If the Govt trusted me to do that, I don't see the difference from having a beer with a full meal - or carrying anywhere - if I'm not consuming alcohol.


You can have a beer with your meal. The law prohibits you from being intoxicated while carrying.
\


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.


Oh. You know its not a 0% BAC either, right?
*CHL Instructor*


"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan

Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.
txinvestigator
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4331
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 6:40 pm
Location: DFW area

Postby KBCraig » Mon Jul 03, 2006 11:44 pm

txinvestigator wrote:
cyphur wrote:
txinvestigator wrote:
You can have a beer with your meal. The law prohibits you from being intoxicated while carrying.
\


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.


Oh. You know its not a 0% BAC either, right?


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.

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
KBCraig
Banned
 
Posts: 5251
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 3:32 am
Location: Texarkana

Postby txinvestigator » Tue Jul 04, 2006 12:40 am

KBCraig wrote:
txinvestigator wrote:
cyphur wrote:
txinvestigator wrote:
You can have a beer with your meal. The law prohibits you from being intoxicated while carrying.
\


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.


Oh. You know its not a 0% BAC either, right?


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.

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


Actually, Intoxicated IS defined. There is no "danger to yourself or others" involved.

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
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.
well, thats not true either.

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."
*CHL Instructor*


"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan

Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.
txinvestigator
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4331
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 6:40 pm
Location: DFW area

Postby cyphur » Tue Jul 04, 2006 2:46 pm

There was a mention of 0% BAC being a good idea, and there was also talk about having a similar BAC to the DWI charge. I was just voicing my opinion on the matter......

I have read the statutes and understand them. This is a conversation about theoreticals and possbilities as I understand it, hence why I spoke on that basis.


If I'm mistaken, let me know. Like I've said before, you're more familiar with this content than I am.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." ~ Edmund Burke
"Despite what your momma told you, violence does solve problems." - Ryan Job, SEAL Team 3
cyphur
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1178
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:02 am
Location: Flower mound, Tx

Postby Tecumseh » Thu Jul 27, 2006 4:48 am

txinvestigator wrote:
Tecumseh wrote:I think that the whole 51% thing is pretty rediculous. I think that a person should be allowed to carry wherever they go. I also think that they should allow people to drink and carry. If they are intoxicated (set a limit like 0.08) and are CCWing then that is that. However if I would like to go to dinner and have a beer I dont feel that I should be prohibited from drinking just because someone else cannot handle their liquor.
You are not. Most places that serve food are NOT going to be off limits.

And there is not a zero tolerance law regarding drinking and carry. It is a violation to carry while INTOXICATED, which carries the same definition as DWI or PI.



As someone stated a Zero Tolerance policy can result in a lost license for having recently washed your mouth with mouthwash. Or some guns contain alcohol in small amounts (I beleive the ingredient is also in smints) and having one in your mouth before you blow could blow a trace amount of alcohol.
What? Why would someone have a gun in his mouth? :grin: 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.
My mistake on the spelling.

I visit this forum to late in the night. ITs almost 5:00 am here and I cannot sleep.
Tecumseh
 

Previous

Return to Goals for 2007

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests