TexasCHLforum.com

Complete agreement.

txinvestigator wrote:looks like a definition, smells like a definition, walks like a definition.........

"normal use of mental or physical faculties"

Looks vague, smells vague, offers no definitive answer... it's not a definition.

They might as well have said, "Intoxicated means being drunk". I have a teetotalling Pentecostal friend who swears that "any amount of alcohol impairs you". He'll argue it right to the point that rinsing your mouth with Scope is little different from guzzling demon liquor.

Kevin

TxBlonde wrote:I have a cop friend who told if you have On beer you CAN NOT carry your fire arm with you. That there is a 0 tolerence level when it comes to handguns and any kind of alcohol.

While it's good advice, it's not the law. Your cop friend would be in a poor position to defend if he actually arrested someone who had drunk one beer an hour earlier.

Kevin

KBCraig wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:looks like a definition, smells like a definition, walks like a definition.........

"normal use of mental or physical faculties"

Looks vague, smells vague, offers no definitive answer... it's not a definition.

They might as well have said, "Intoxicated means being drunk". I have a teetotalling Pentecostal friend who swears that "any amount of alcohol impairs you". He'll argue it right to the point that rinsing your mouth with Scope is little different from guzzling demon liquor.

Kevin

I disagree Kevin. To me it appears clear. However, I might have to reconsider my position on Scope!

TxBlonde wrote:I have a cop friend who told if you have On beer you CAN NOT carry your fire arm with you. That there is a 0 tolerence level when it comes to handguns and any kind of alcohol.

You cop friend is mistaken. Next time you see this person, ask what specific law is being referenced.

I know the penal code pretty well, as I do the CHL rules in the Texas Government Code. I can tell you that nowhere does the law say what your friend indicates.

here is the actual law for reference;


§46.035. Unlawful carrying of handgun by license holder.



(d) A license holder commits an offense if, while
intoxicated, the license holder carries a handgun under the authority
of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether
the handgun is concealed.

txinvestigator wrote:

KBCraig wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:looks like a definition, smells like a definition, walks like a definition.........

"normal use of mental or physical faculties"

Looks vague, smells vague, offers no definitive answer... it's not a definition.

They might as well have said, "Intoxicated means being drunk". I have a teetotalling Pentecostal friend who swears that "any amount of alcohol impairs you". He'll argue it right to the point that rinsing your mouth with Scope is little different from guzzling demon liquor.

Kevin

I disagree Kevin. To me it appears clear.

To determine that a person does "not hav(e) the normal use of mental or physical faculties", you first have to define what constitutes "normal use of mental or physical faculties".

"I know it when I see it" doesn't count.

Does it mean normal for that person? If so, anyone who is not well aquainted with the subject --for instance, a police officer-- is unlikely to know what effect an intoxicant has had, and will have no basis to make that determination.

Does it mean "within a common range of mental and physical faculties accepted as normal within the population at large"? If that's the definition, I could be pretty well blotto while having the mental faculties of perfectly sober people I encounter at the drive-thru. Or the physical faculties of many people who legally drive sober every day, but who do not have the physical faculties or responses of a healthy 30 year old with a 0.12 BAC.

Does it mean "normal for that person if they had not taken that substance"? If so, then millions of Americans are "intoxicated" every day, by taking medication that allows them to function. Instead of being impaired by drugs, they become unimpaired.

It's a tricky thing when politicians craft language without thinking it through. "Well, everybody knows what that means!" is simply not true.

However, I might have to reconsider my position on Scope!

Yeah, you should hear our debate about Communion.

Kevin

TxBlonde wrote:I have a cop friend who told if you have On beer you CAN NOT carry your fire arm with you. That there is a 0 tolerence level when it comes to handguns and any kind of alcohol.

I do not agree.

Why do LEO not disarm when they consume alcohol? Does the magic pixie dust make LEO immune to the effects of intoxicating substances? Does it not impair their judgement?

BTW, I have consumed alcohol with LEO, and they still packed.

They still drove too.

DUI is defined.

PI is not adequately defined.

Carry while intoxicated needs to be defined.

Several states allow consumption while carrying. Just because an individual drinks a beer does not remove from them the right of self defense. My opinion.

Anygun

Well the LEO I know does disarm when he drinks.

I think it is potentially indefensible to drink ANY INTOXICANT and carry a gun. Is it worth the risk? Apparently many of you guys think it is alright to have one or two beers and carry, but I believe you are fooling yourselves.

But then I think men often fool themselves when they are drinking.

GrannyGlock wrote:I think it is potentially indefensible to drink ANY INTOXICANT and carry a gun. Is it worth the risk? Apparently many of you guys think it is alright to have one or two beers and carry, but I believe you are fooling yourselves.

On what do you base that? To what risk are you referring?

The law does not prohibit a person from consuming alcohol while or before carrying.

TxBlonde wrote:Well the LEO I know does disarm when he drinks.

What do you mean by "when he drinks"? You mean when he goes to the beer joint to slam a few and dance with the wimmenz? Or when he has a big ole steak at Saltgrass and a nice amber ale to go with it?

Two distinctly different things, I think.

When he comes over and he even drinks one beer. He disarms.

I have found I do not shoot very good when I am intoxicated, so I don't drink anymore. Problem solved.

GrannyGlock wrote:I think it is potentially indefensible to drink ANY INTOXICANT and carry a gun. Is it worth the risk? Apparently many of you guys think it is alright to have one or two beers and carry, but I believe you are fooling yourselves.

But then I think men often fool themselves when they are drinking.

I concur with Granny Glock and TxBlonde's LEO friend in that it is inadvisable to drink and carry. (Granny G., by the way, is a retired physician who has had much professional experience with alcohol and chemical issues, and I have the highest regard for her opinions.)

Both the Air Force and the FAA have invested decades and millions researching alcohol-related performance issues and issuing mandatory rules for flying after consumption. ( Personally, I think aircraft and guns have a lot in common, as they are both cold, unfeeling sons of ******* which are constantly trying to find new ways to kill you.)

Bottom line of the research is that consuming any amount of alcohol causes measurable impairment of judgement and motor skills which lingers for an extended period of time, and that the drinker is generally unaware until the impairment is advanced. As a result of these studies, the respective agencies have ruled a mandatory twelve hours (or more) "bottle to throttle" for military air operations, and eight hours for civil operations.

These rules offer some guidance which may be applied to drinking and carrying, as I think the judgement needed and responsibility assumed in each case are quite similar.

I could not agree more with you AV8R And grannyglock