When discussing the intoxicated rule in 46.035, one potential ambiguity is the definition of intoxicated in chapter 46 (46.06) that is different than the 49.01 definition. The 46.06 definition specifies a "substantial impairment of mental or physical capacity" and that seems like a higher hurdle. For example, someone could have minor impairment and not have "the normal use of mental or physical faculties" but not meet the hurdle for "substantial impairment" because it's generally understood that minor is less than substantial.srothstein wrote:Actually, both statements are somewhat correct and somewhat incorrect. The law does define intoxication and does so clearly. Section 49.01 defines it as the legal limit of .08 or the loss of your normal faculties (the exact definition was posted).
You may be intoxicated at .001 BAC if it is your first drink ever and you have a low tolerance for alcohol. You may be intoxicated at .000 BAC if you have taken some other type of intoxicant. And you are legally intoxicated at .08 BAC no matter how little it affects your normal mental and physical faculties. So, there is a legal limit but it is not the only way to become intoxicated under the law.
To understand why section 49.01 applies to chapter 46, you must understand the Code Construction Act (Chapter 311 of the Government Code). It clearly states that if a word has had a technical meaning attached through any law, this meaning now applies wherever used. If there is no technical meaning, then the generally understood meaning is what is used.
But either way I think if someone is too intoxicated to carry a handgun legally, they're definitely too intoxicated to drive legally.