A concern as yet uncovered in the...

[thejtrain]

...various "drinking while carrying" threads that I've already read through.

Regardless of where we each come down on the "can I have a single drink at a non-51% restaurant while carrying and still be legal?" question, this question is one that I haven't seen covered, so I wanted to see what the much-smarter-than-me folks here thought.

Given:

• Having a concealed handgun in a vehicle while driving does not require a CHL: Joe Public can do it legally
• Joe Public can also legally drive after one drink, provided he's not over .08 BAC and is not driving unsafely

Assuming that a CHL holder takes no action that might be interpreted as illegal for a CHL, ie:

• Is not carrying while consuming that single drink, even at a non-51% establishment

How would LE, the Grand Jury, the Courts, etc. look upon a person who has a concealed handgun in their vehicle while driving home, having had a drink but is under .08 BAC, and would it be any different if that person is a CHL holder vs. not a CHL holder?

This was brought to my mind by a story in another thread (I think in the LE contact section). I can certainly see the gray area in the "zero tolerance/carrying while drinking but not intoxicated" debate, so I'm just wondering if the gray area that seems to exist while carrying on your person changes at all to more black/white while carrying in your vehicle and driving said vehicle (especially given that the former requires a CHL but the latter does not).

JT

[Penn]

This was mentioned in another thread as to whether a CHL could say he/she was carrying under the authority of the traveling law and not their CHL in reference to parking lots being posted 30.06.

It's probably up to the cop on the side of the road to decide. If he wants to bust you for carrying under your CHL after admitting to having 1 drink while showing no other signs of impairment, you're probably out of luck anyway.

[dukalmighty]

IANAL,and I might be wrong, but I would assume since you have a CHL that will supercede any traveling carry law,since you have to show your chl and drivers license when stopped by LEO whether gun is on your person or just in vehicle,versus non-chl who only has to declare if officer asks are there any guns in the vehicle.

[tboesche]

IANAL,and I might be wrong, but I would assume since you have a CHL that will supercede any traveling carry law,since you have to show your chl and drivers license when stopped by LEO whether gun is on your person or just in vehicle,versus non-chl who only has to declare if officer asks are there any guns in the vehicle.

Duke,
this is how I see it also. I BELIEVE that as a CHL holder, if there is a gun, that is concealed and under your control, then you are carrying under your CHL. Thereby you are under ALL of the restrictions placed on CHL and drinking.

Just as a side note, I don't drink often but when I do, regardless of the amount, it is always AT HOME! and I always take the gun off. For me, and this is purely MY opinion, Bullets and beer do not mix, ever!

[pt145ss]

versus non-chl who only has to declare if officer asks are there any guns in the vehicle.

Just out of curiosity (not that I would ever lie to a LEO or condone someone else doing it), but what would one be charged with if a non-chl holder did not disclose that a firearm is in the vehicle? Unless there is an investigation, I thought Terry stops were limited in scope for which one must give ID and nothing more. And even if there is an investigation, one would have the right to refuse to answer a question.

[Penn]

versus non-chl who only has to declare if officer asks are there any guns in the vehicle.

Just out of curiosity (not that I would ever lie to a LEO or condone someone else doing it), but what would one be charged with if a non-chl holder did not disclose that a firearm is in the vehicle? Unless there is an investigation, I thought Terry stops were limited in scope for which one must give ID and nothing more. And even if there is an investigation, one would have the right to refuse to answer a question.

There is no obligation to disclose it. Common courtesy and the desire to not piss off the officer would be my two main reasons to let him know. Just to let you know, if you are pulled over for a violation, the officer is allowed to search the glove compartment w/o your consent.

[pt145ss]

versus non-chl who only has to declare if officer asks are there any guns in the vehicle.

Just out of curiosity (not that I would ever lie to a LEO or condone someone else doing it), but what would one be charged with if a non-chl holder did not disclose that a firearm is in the vehicle? Unless there is an investigation, I thought Terry stops were limited in scope for which one must give ID and nothing more. And even if there is an investigation, one would have the right to refuse to answer a question.

There is no obligation to disclose it. Common courtesy and the desire to not piss off the officer would be my two main reasons to let him know. Just to let you know, if you are pulled over for a violation, the officer is allowed to search the glove compartment w/o your consent.

I find it hard to believe that an officer can search anything without probable cause or consent. The most i think a LEO could do is ask you to exit the vehicle and perform a terry search for weapons on your person...and I think this is during an investigative period and the LEO still should be able to articulate reasonable belief that he safety might be in jeopardy. Now, if the LEO sees something in plain view then that is enough probable cause to search the rest vehicle. Or if you are under arrest for something, then that might (i do not know) give the LEO authority to search the vehicle.

I would like someone smarter than me to chime in on this...I assume it is possible that I am way off base here.

[Penn]

I would like someone smarter than me to chime in on this...I assume it is possible that I am way off base here.[/quote]

I guess I wasn't really clear. The officer can search any area within the immediate reach of the driver (i.e. console, under seat, in glove box) for officer safety reasons without consent. Same principle as a Terry stop.

[thejtrain]

I would like someone smarter than me to chime in on this...I assume it is possible that I am way off base here.

I guess I wasn't really clear. The officer can search any area within the immediate reach of the driver (i.e. console, under seat, in glove box) for officer safety reasons without consent. Same principle as a Terry stop.

I guess I'm with pt145ss then in confusion - wouldn't officer safety be assured as soon as the driver was out of the vehicle & his person searched? Once the driver is removed from the vehicle, nothing inside the vehicle is then within his immediate reach. I can't envision an officer leaning in through a door/window to search the glove box/under the seat/center console while the driver was still sitting in the vehicle, within reach of those three places. Right?

JT,
not a lawyer, not LE

[Penn]

I would like someone smarter than me to chime in on this...I assume it is possible that I am way off base here.

I guess I wasn't really clear. The officer can search any area within the immediate reach of the driver (i.e. console, under seat, in glove box) for officer safety reasons without consent. Same principle as a Terry stop.

I guess I'm with pt145ss then in confusion - wouldn't officer safety be assured as soon as the driver was out of the vehicle & his person searched? Once the driver is removed from the vehicle, nothing inside the vehicle is then within his immediate reach. I can't envision an officer leaning in through a door/window to search the glove box/under the seat/center console while the driver was still sitting in the vehicle, within reach of those three places. Right?

JT,
not a lawyer, not LE[/quote]

You're right, the officer wouldn't want to search that way. That's why they do it after the subject is on the side of the road.

One reason this is allowed is because the theory is that once he gets back in, he could go for the weapon at that point.

[pt145ss]

Sorry...My posts were a little off topic. Getting back to the OP, given no CHL and no obligation to disclose that a firearm is in the vehicle, and being less than .08. I do not know how a LEO could make an arrest for being armed and intoxicated. At that point the LEO does not even know a firearm is present and therefore I do not think an arrest would be made. Now, if at anytime a search is conducted, the firearm is found and the one drink is apparent...then yes, an arrest is probable.

Again...I do not condone lying to a LEO. They have a tough enough job as it is and do not need some yahoo jerk making their jobs more difficult. I do not really have a dog in this fight as I do have a CHL and I am required to disclose. That being said, I also do not drink alcohol except on rare occasions…and then I limit myself to one or two and I am usually at home with my wife at the time.

[tarkus]

This is the real reason why you need a lockbox in your car.

[rdcrags]

I am surprised at the reluctance to have one drink while carrying. My wife and I regularly eat Tex-Mex at Casa Domingas (Many of you surely know of the place.) I always have one Corona and my wife drinks one or two Magaritas. I always drive home. My handgun is always on my person in the establishment and in the door pocket when in the car. If I had to use my weapon in the parking lot, I would never expect the one drink to be an issue. Also, I would never expect to be arrested if stopped, say, for a bad tail light.
Ralph

[frankie_the_yankee]

Duke,
this is how I see it also. I BELIEVE that as a CHL holder, if there is a gun, that is concealed and under your control, then you are carrying under your CHL. Thereby you are under ALL of the restrictions placed on CHL and drinking.

Sure. But the only restriction is that you cannot carry while intoxicated.

Just as a side note, I don't drink often but when I do, regardless of the amount, it is always AT HOME! and I always take the gun off. For me, and this is purely MY opinion, Bullets and beer do not mix, ever!

So if you're at home and had a drink or two, and someone kicks in your front door in a home invasion / robbery attempt, are you saying that you wouldn't "mix bullets and beer" in an effort to defend yourself and your family?

If so, all I can say is that I find that very hard to understand.

Admittedly, it's a rare scenario, but I think for my own part, even if I was rip roaring drunk sitting at home and some BG's tried a home invasion I would not shrink from using a gun if I thought I needed to.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I am surprised at the reluctance to have one drink while carrying. My wife and I regularly eat Tex-Mex at Casa Domingas (Many of you surely know of the place.) I always have one Corona and my wife drinks one or two Magaritas. I always drive home. My handgun is always on my person in the establishment and in the door pocket when in the car. If I had to use my weapon in the parking lot, I would never expect the one drink to be an issue. Also, I would never expect to be arrested if stopped, say, for a bad tail light.
Ralph

I'm down with that.