Fix the alcohol issue

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

Moderator: Charles L. Cotton

Postby Baytown » Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:02 pm

I did not mean a .00 BAC, I meant 0% of the people carrying are intoxicated.

Yes, I disapprove of some of the things that have come about because of MADD.

DWI's used to be much easier prior to all of the ALR paperwork.

Many officers choose not to do DWI's because of the DIC forms they have to fill out, get notorized, print out a copy of the report, reading a copy of the DIC-24 on video to the drunk, send it all in, and then get called in for an ALR hearing that has nothing to do with the criminal prosecution.

More than likely the judge will suspend their DL in the criminal side anyway.

Yall got me off topic again. :oops:

Glenn
Winners never quit, and quitters never win; but, if you never win, and never quit, you're a moron.
Baytown
Senior Member
 
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:48 pm

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Thu Aug 04, 2005 4:37 pm

Okay txinvestigator and Glenn, see if you guys will go along with me on this one.

Repeal 46.035(d) - we don't need it. If you're intoxicated and don't reveal your gun, then the current PI statute is fine. The gun wasn't relevant to the offense, kind of a no-harm-no-foul idea, at least as far as the gun is concerned. If you do show or pull the gun, but no one is hurt, then 42.01(a)(8 ) [Disorderly Conduct] applies and it's a Class B. This will result in loss of your CHL for 5 years. If a threat is made, then 22.07(a)(2) [Terroristic Threat] applies and it's a Class A and the CHL is lost for 5 years. If someone is hurt, then . . .

What say ye guys? We don't need no stinking 46.035(d)! :wink:

Now for the real world. We are in a problem solving mode with our friends in Austin and 46.035(d) isn't going to be perceived as a problem, so this is really an academic discussion. You guys have forced me back to the books though. At my age, when the baby lawyers see me doing research, they just start laughing and ask why I didn't tell them to do it.

Regards,
Chas.
User avatar
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12761
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX

Postby Baytown » Thu Aug 04, 2005 5:18 pm

I guess one could compare Chas. idea with the fact that if a drunk has a car at his disposal, but is not driving it, there is no enhancement of the PI.

Good point on that. I can see the logic, if you are drunk and have a gun, and you are able to control yourself, then why is it an issue?

If you are drunk and you and your gun pose a problem, then drop the hammer. I can see that.

Glenn

And my wife says I'm hard headed. :roll:

Glenn
Winners never quit, and quitters never win; but, if you never win, and never quit, you're a moron.
Baytown
Senior Member
 
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:48 pm

Postby stevie_d_64 » Fri Aug 05, 2005 7:40 am

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Now for the real world. We are in a problem solving mode with our friends in Austin and 46.035(d) isn't going to be perceived as a problem, so this is really an academic discussion. You guys have forced me back to the books though. At my age, when the baby lawyers see me doing research, they just start laughing and ask why I didn't tell them to do it.


Its a true sign of wisdom and professionalism, and should be evaluated as a sign of seriousness of purpose...

When I have to dig back into the engineering books, and all the whipper-snappers see that...I just tell them I have forgotten more than you'll ever know...But I know where to get back up to speed if I need to...

I like real world issues...It balances out, and sometimes supercedes, all the bull everyone else (MTV crowd) thinks is real...

Go get 'em Chas!!!
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
User avatar
stevie_d_64
Senior Member
 
Posts: 7550
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: Houston, Texas 77089

Postby stevie_d_64 » Fri Aug 05, 2005 7:42 am

Baytown wrote:I guess one could compare Chas. idea with the fact that if a drunk has a car at his disposal, but is not driving it, there is no enhancement of the PI.

Good point on that. I can see the logic, if you are drunk and have a gun, and you are able to control yourself, then why is it an issue?

If you are drunk and you and your gun pose a problem, then drop the hammer. I can see that.

Glenn

And my wife says I'm hard headed. :roll:

Glenn


We wouldn't be here if we had minds of mush, would we...

I would go so far to say I am in good company... :wink:
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
User avatar
stevie_d_64
Senior Member
 
Posts: 7550
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: Houston, Texas 77089

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:41 pm

Fiftycal:
I inadvertently deleted your post. I intended to edit it and deleted it by mistake.

Sorry,
Chas.
User avatar
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12761
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX

Postby HankB » Fri Aug 19, 2005 11:39 am

Drunks ought not be driving cars or using guns. Absolutely agree with this. If you're even slightly "tipsy" stay off the road and leave your guns alone.

But I don't see that having a single beer or one glass of wine is going to make a responsible person untrustworthy with a firearm. In fact, years ago, it was commonplace for high-level competitive bullseye pistol and rifle shooters to have a shot of whiskey (one shot, that is!) before shooting a match because it "steadied the nerves."

In any case, if a CHL holder is NOT driving a motor vehicle, and isn't falling down drunk or seen chugging down some booze, how will intoxication be determined? To the best of my knowledge (and the knowledge of my last 2 CHL instructors) there is NO CHL equivalent of the "implied consent" law which applies when driving a motor vehicle. So why would a non-driving CHL holder consent to a breathalyzer or field sobriety test?

Does anyone know of any TX CHL holders actually being prosecuted for "intoxication" for having small amounts of alcohol (less than 0.08%) in their system?
Original CHL: 2000: 56 day turnaround
1st renewal, 2004: 34 days
2nd renewal, 2008: 81 days
3rd renewal, 2013: 12 days
HankB
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1379
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 2:03 pm
Location: Central TX, just west of Austin

Re: Fix the alcohol issue

Postby Renegade » Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:02 pm

txinvestigator wrote:
Tom wrote:Need some ideas here, but I think it should be the same as for driving.
Any pros/cons to .08?

Regards,

Tom


.08% is only a presumed level for DWI. Convictions can be had at lower BAC's. In fact, I have.


I have seen convictions without a reading at all. Surely you have arrested someone who refused, and was convicted anyway?
Renegade
Banned
 
Posts: 511
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 3:54 pm
Location: Texas

Postby Baytown » Thu Aug 25, 2005 8:18 am

If you are asking if I have gotten a conviction when the DWI was under .08, yes. I have gotten many when they refused to blow.

HankB, my point was if we wanted to set a numeric figure, then there should be an implied consent provision.

Glenn
Winners never quit, and quitters never win; but, if you never win, and never quit, you're a moron.
Baytown
Senior Member
 
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:48 pm

Postby stevie_d_64 » Fri Aug 26, 2005 7:49 am

Baytown wrote:If you are asking if I have gotten a conviction when the DWI was under .08, yes. I have gotten many when they refused to blow.

HankB, my point was if we wanted to set a numeric figure, then there should be an implied consent provision.

Glenn


This is where I absolutely agree with you...

The level of intoxication had to be set somewhere...So that a proper prosecution and defence could be implemented...

Thats why I negate the whole process...If I am going to be driving and carrying, I don't drink alcoholic beverages...

The alternative is that I become a passenger, or unarmed...(for a short period of time)...

But thats just me, and its not that big a stretch for me to be that way either...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
User avatar
stevie_d_64
Senior Member
 
Posts: 7550
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: Houston, Texas 77089

Postby stevie_d_64 » Fri Aug 26, 2005 7:59 am

HankB wrote:Drunks ought not be driving cars or using guns. Absolutely agree with this. If you're even slightly "tipsy" stay off the road and leave your guns alone.

But I don't see that having a single beer or one glass of wine is going to make a responsible person untrustworthy with a firearm.


Intoxication is a subjective condition, meaning it is a different condition for each person...

I learned a rule of thumb (take it for what its worth)...For every drink you intake it is a 10% drop in physical and cognative reasoning skills...Ignoring the metabolic rates for different people, for sake of argument...

So if 100%, is considered fully functional/sober...And if you equate the sobriety levels in 10% increments...

After 5 drinks (you may) you could be a 50% capability, or maybe at a .05 BAC...

So if you want to think you are "good" at .01 (90% capability) or .02 (80% capability)...I can go with that logic...

But just remember everyone doesn't hold their liquor the same way...

I'm only saying this in respect for everyone's opinion on this issue...

I think this is one of the best discussions we've had on this website so far...
Last edited by stevie_d_64 on Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
User avatar
stevie_d_64
Senior Member
 
Posts: 7550
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: Houston, Texas 77089

Postby gigag04 » Fri Aug 26, 2005 10:38 am

stevie_d_64 wrote:
HankB wrote:I learned a rule of thumb (take it for what its worth)...For every drink you intake it is a 10% drop in physical and cognative reasoning skills...Ignoring the metabolic rates for different people, for sake of argument...


Here is the engineer/business guy in me.

start at 100%

1 drink - 90%

2 drinks - 81%

3 drinks - 72.9%

etc.

Unless you assume you lose another 10% from the entire "sobberness."

But if you just use the rule flat, then one drink you lose 10% of 100%,
another and you lose 10% of 90%, another you lose 10% of 81%....


just thinking instead of working. None of this really matters anyway.
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. - Thomas Edison
User avatar
gigag04
Senior Member
 
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 7:47 pm
Location: Houston

Postby stevie_d_64 » Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:08 pm

gigag04 wrote:
stevie_d_64 wrote:
HankB wrote:I learned a rule of thumb (take it for what its worth)...For every drink you intake it is a 10% drop in physical and cognative reasoning skills...Ignoring the metabolic rates for different people, for sake of argument...


Here is the engineer/business guy in me.

start at 100%

1 drink - 90%

2 drinks - 81%

3 drinks - 72.9%

etc.

Unless you assume you lose another 10% from the entire "sobberness."

But if you just use the rule flat, then one drink you lose 10% of 100%,
another and you lose 10% of 90%, another you lose 10% of 81%....


just thinking instead of working. None of this really matters anyway.


An expotential loss...Thats a good way to fare out the curve...10% of the 10% of the 10%...

The engineer in me wants to study this, crunch the numbers on a spreadsheet, then graph it out...

Then input variables in like body type, body fat, male, female, temperature, humidity, time of day, etc etc...

See what you just did...Thanks... :lol:
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
User avatar
stevie_d_64
Senior Member
 
Posts: 7550
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: Houston, Texas 77089

Postby KBCraig » Fri Aug 26, 2005 6:09 pm

Don't forget the importance of time to metabolize.

I had two drinks last night, about 18 hours ago. I figure I'm much closer to 100% than 80%. ;)

Individual tolerance varies greatly. Although we're the same height and build and approximate (mumble-mumble) poundage, Mrs. Craig and I tolerate alcohol very differently. Once or twice a year she'll have a half glass of wine. I pour her a full glass, but she falls alseep halfway through it. ;)

From what is probably too much practice for too many years, I have a pretty high tolerance, but I still only drink moderately. I never drive after even a single drink, unless at least a couple of hours have passed.

From one of those mandatory classes back when I was in the Army, I recall that, using their "standard model" of a 180 pound healthy male, the body metabolizes alcohol at the rate of about 1 drink per hour. ("One drink" is defined as 12 ounces of beer, 5 ounces of wine, 1 ounce of hard liquor.)

So, having one drink per hour means never reaching intoxication. I believe they said that it took four drinks in the first hour to reach 1.0 BAC, and that level would be maintained if the subject had one drink per hour afterwards.

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

Postby Bubba » Tue Aug 30, 2005 12:49 pm

The one about not operating chainsaws after drinking was great !!! :lol:
Many years ago I decided for myself that the easiest place to draw my line on dinking and driving or shooting was at ZERO. After a big glass of wine I'm ready to go to sleep. This limits my circumstances where I will drink and that's OK. It's my choice and I would like to call it common sense. Most of the time it's more fun to shoot at something than to have a drink.
Bubba
Senior Member
 
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 2:47 pm
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

PreviousNext

Return to Goals for 2007

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest