In the 1930s, two committees were tasked with making roads safer in the U.S. The American Medical Association created a committee to study the most common problems that lead to vehicle accidents. During this same time period, the National Safety Council set up a study to develop tests that could be used to determine intoxication. After doing research, the two groups determined that a driver with a BAC of 0.15 percent or higher could be presumed to be inebriated, while a driver with a BAC under 0.15 could not.
As a result of the committee’s findings, 0.15 percent became the first commonly-used legal limit for blood alcohol concentration (BAC) in 1938.
The new laws 0.08% BAC are based on political pressure, not scientific and medical evidence.
DUI laws and penalties began getting stricter in the 1970s. This is mainly due to groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and Students Against Drunk Driving (SADD). Candy Lightner was also a leader in the fight for tougher DUI laws.
The pressure from these groups led to many changes in DUI laws, most notably raising the legal drinking age to 21 years old in all 50 states. These groups also changed the way laws were enforced by police departments – until this time, enforcing drunk-driving laws was not a priority.
The legal limit was affected during this time. Originally 0.15 percent, it was later lowered to .10 percent. Due to federal pressure on all of the states, this limit was then further reduced to 0.08 percent.
Abraham wrote:With that figure in mind, it seems wise to have a designated driver if any one plans to drink even the slightest amount of alcohol outside the home.
I haven't dared to have even a glass of wine with my meal in the past 20 years. I'm not risking it.
The cost of booze being so insanely expensive when served in a restaurant or bar, it's saved me lots o-moola, so it ain't all that bad a deal...
Of course a designated driver is a very good idea.
The cost of booze in insanely expensive. Buying two glasses of wine in a restaurant will buy an entire bottle at Spec's.
The markup is very high. That is how many restaurant boost their profits.
Abraham wrote:With that figure in mind, it seems wise to have a designated driver if any one plans to drink even the slightest amount of alcohol outside the home.
I haven't dared to have even a glass of wine with my meal in the past 20 years. I'm not risking it.
The cost of booze being so insanely expensive when served in a restaurant or bar, it's saved me lots o-moola, so it ain't all that bad a deal...
Of course a designated driver is a very good idea.
The cost of booze in insanely expensive. Buying two glasses of wine in a restaurant will buy an entire bottle at Spec's.
The markup is very high. That is how many restaurant boost their profits.
In addition to being $ubject to arre$t on a whim, Mrs. Oldgringo and I alway$ order water with our meal$ for all of the foregoing reason$.
The way I was explained the answer of this question (by my CHL instructor) was it is a tack-on charge. Meaning if you get pulled over for a DWI/DUI and you are belligerent and you are going to get arrested for that anyways, and then they find out you had a weapon in your console, you COULD be charged with carrying illegally. That being said if you get pulled over and you are .02 or .03 and it doesn't show and he/she sends you on your merry way, then you lucked out. Either way you're doing something wrong in my opinion.
When theres grey area like that I believe its best to not risk it.
Know guns, know peace and safety. No guns, no peace nor safety.
RedRaiderCHL wrote:The way I was explained the answer of this question (by my CHL instructor) was it is a tack-on charge. Meaning if you get pulled over for a DWI/DUI and you are belligerent and you are going to get arrested for that anyways, and then they find out you had a weapon in your console, you COULD be charged with carrying illegally.
If you carry under the authority of MPA, you lose that protection when you drive drunk.
jbarn wrote:A person without a CHL who carries a handgun in his car while intoxicated can be charged with DWI and Unlawful Carrying Weapons.
Correct if they are the driver. However, if it's their car and somebody else (sober) is driving, it may not be illegal in Texas.
Well no kidding. A person not driving cannot be charged with DWI.
Actually..... If you are a drunk passenger and your child is driving on their learners license and gets stopped for any violation, you, the drunk non-driver, CAN be arrested for DWI. True story.
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.! Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek
RedRaiderCHL wrote:The way I was explained the answer of this question (by my CHL instructor) was it is a tack-on charge. Meaning if you get pulled over for a DWI/DUI and you are belligerent and you are going to get arrested for that anyways, and then they find out you had a weapon in your console, you COULD be charged with carrying illegally.
If you carry under the authority of MPA, you lose that protection when you drive drunk.
There is no protection. DWI and Carrying While Intoxicated are the same legal standards. It is defined in Penal Code 49.01 under 'Intoxication Offenses'
PENAL CODETITLE 10.
OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND MORALSCHAPTER 49.
INTOXICATION AND ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE OFFENSESSec.
49.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Alcohol concentration" means the number of grams of alcohol per:
(A) 210 liters of breath; (B) 100 milliliters of blood; or(C) 67 milliliters of urine. (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.
So, you are legally intoxicated if you meet the standards in 49.01(2)(A) or (B) above for driving or for carrying.
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member
3dfxMM wrote:I took what Capt. Matt said to mean that if you are driving under the influence then you aren't covered by MPA because you are committing a crime.
3dfxMM wrote:I took what Capt. Matt said to mean that if you are driving under the influence then you aren't covered by MPA because you are committing a crime.
That is correct.
as well.
The thing I see could happen is an officer who might let you go if you blew a .04 while driving, but feels that you should not have ANY alcohol in your system while in possession of a firearm, would arrest you for carrying while intoxicated. The opposite could happen as well, depending on the officer. It would be a double standard that is not outlined by the law, but could possibly happen.
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member
What I tell people is that while it is legal to consume alcohol while carrying, it is illegal to become intoxicated. SO, you are better to not drink while carrying as the determination is left up to the individual officer's discretion, and if you have not been drinking there is less question about your being possibly intoxicated. The exact same advice goes for getting behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member
In addition to being $ubject to arre$t on a whim, Mrs. Oldgringo and I alway$ order water with our meal$ for all of the foregoing reason$.
