TexasCHLforum.com

rx9790 wrote:

KBCraig wrote: The priorities of all parties to any court action should be that, one, justice prevails; and, two, that the law is applied equally.

The law cant be applied equally in all cases. There has to be room for interpretation. Otherwise, for example, little girls get sent home for having Midol at school. Zero Tolerance policies are a prime example of why applying the law equally in all cases wont work.

That's a prime example of why those laws are wrong. If the law, read and applied literally, produces an injustice, then the solution is not to make an exception, but to change the law.

Situational standards has lead to many injustices in the past, such as a member of one groups getting a $10 fine, while a member of another group goes to the penitentiary.

The best way to point out the absurdity of bad laws is to enforce them equally. That's why we now have "zero tolerance" -- to avoid accusations of discrimination. Suburban middle-school girls with Midol now get treated the same as their urban counterparts with a few grams of marijuana.

The problem is not equal application of the law. The problem is the law.

Problem is different people are interpreting and playing politics as well so you end up with the lesser of 2 evils. I do think the system is abused and the State has a virtual unlimited budget against the common man so it is unfair to begin with.

I absolutely agree! The solution is to take that power away from them. Slash their budgets, vote them out of office, and overturn bad laws.

Kevin

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I live in the courtroom where perception rules the day. Most of the factors Liberty pointed out will be brought out in trial and may well determine the outcome. Your point in earlier posts about having a right to get correct information from a CHL instructor is absolutely correct, but shortly out of law school, I learned that what the law "says" and what happens in court are often miles apart.

Chas.

No offense, but that's quite an indictment against your profession.

The priorities of all parties to any court action should be that, one, justice prevails; and, two, that the law is applied equally. Sadly, the priority of all parties is to win, even if it means twisting "perception" so that the facts of the case, the law, and justice are all secondary.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

Jason73 wrote: As far as being intoxicated while carrying, that is definitely grounds for arrest according to page 61 in that nifty little white book that came with the CHL application.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/ls-16.pdf

Q: Can I carry a handgun if I am drinking alcohol?
A: No; it is illegal to carry a handgun if you are intoxicated.

Notice that the answer in the DPS book IS NOT THE ANSWER TO THE ORIGINAL QUESTION. They don't say whether you can carry while drinking. They just say you can't carry while intoxicated.

Big difference.

You beat me to it.

If it was in the driver's license handbook, I suppose it would go like this:

Q: Can I turn right on a red light after coming to a complete stop?
A: No, it's illegal to run red lights.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:In contrast, the guy who taught my renewal class gave me the "teetotaler speech", and proceeded to embelish it by saying that not only could someone not drink at all while carrying, but that the bar area of a combo restaurant and bar establishment is ITSELF a 51% location whether posted or not.

This is the point at which I wouldn't have hesitated to embarrass him in front of the class, by standing up and announcing that I wanted my money back, because he was spouting nonsense. Whether he's a liar or just completely uninformed, nothing he had to say about CHL issues could be trusted.

Kevin

txinvestigator wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:If I believe I am doing nothing wrong, I don't care what he/she thinks.

You should, as it is subjective. I arrested many people who didn't "believe" they had done anyting wrong.

That's one of the problems with the PI law: right or wrong, legally speaking, should never be subjective.

Kevin

txinvestigator wrote:Admittedly I don't know much about LEOSA. Is that a Federal Prohibition?

The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, often referred to as "HR-218", but now it's Public Law 108-277, 18 USC 926.

It's the "nationwide carry for LEOs" law, which says that a qualified LEO, or qualified retired LEO, can carry a concealed handgun notwithstanding the laws of states or political subdivisions.

The definition of "qualified" in that law includes "is not intoxicated".

There are about 3,000 Federal Bureau of Prisons personnel in Texas who are "qualified law enforcement officers" under LEOSA, but who are not Texas Peace Officers, nor "Special Agents" as qualified in Texas law. The exemptions in Texas law for Peace Officers do not apply.

So, if a BOP employee is carrying a concealed handgun while intoxicated, he loses his LEOSA protection (he no longer meets the definition of "qualified"), and would be just Joe Schmoe with a gun and no license, making it Unlawfully Carrying a Weapon.

Kevin

txinvestigator wrote:And to return the favor, An Active duty military CAN obtain a CHL prior to 21, no?

LOL, I thought of that this morning before I logged on, and meant to post an addendum.

txinvestigator wrote:There is no legal prohibition against a cop carrying while intoxicated.

So long as "cop" = "Texas peace officer", right? Out of staters or non-TCLEOSE LEOs (such as feds who aren't "Special Agents" by Texas law), who are carrying under authority of LEOSA, can't be "intoxicated" (not defined in federal law, either). If they were found to be carrying while intoxicated, they would lose LEOSA protection, and could be charged with UCW.

We're getting off into the small details here, which won't apply to most people, but it's interesting to note how the law doesn't always apply as intended.

Kevin

txinvestigator wrote:There is one charge concerning alcohol (and drugs or illegal substances) and driving; DWI. DWI, is DWI.

*ahem*

There's that one, and there's the other one, which is DUI (for drivers under age 21).

Obviously, DUI doesn't apply to CHLs (all of whom are 21+).

Kevin

If someone uses deadly force in a "good shoot", and is found to be intoxicated, that incident doesn't turn into a "bad shoot" just because of the alcohol. It was either justified, or not.

The concerns about alcohol and CHL mainly center around the worry that the CHL's judgement will be affected, and he will use deadly force in an unjustified situation, where he might not have done so if not for the alcohol. For some people that might be a legitimate concern; for others, it's no concern at all.

Frankly, I don't like criminalizing people based on what someone might do.

Kevin

As for how alcohol can affect people differently, let me offer our example here at home. My wife and I stand almost eye to eye, and are roughly of the same build and weight (a gentleman never asks, and a smart husband knows better!)

As I noted before, I can drink 6 or 8 over a long evening without anyone noticing any visible effect. My wife, on the other hand, will attempt a half glass of wine about once a year, but will curl up and take a nap before she finishes it.

We joke that she's a cheap date.

Kevin

I do love beer, but I so seldom touch a drop outside my home that so far as the world knows, I don't drink. I enjoy beer at home after work, but since I don't get home until after midnight, there are no neighbors or buddies involved. Just a quiet quaff while I unwind.

I have to give an honest confession: when I was 24 and bulletproof, the MPs popped me for DWI in Germany. That was an eye-opener, and it was over 10 years before I drove after even a single beer. And even in the last 10 years, there have only been four or five times where I've driven after one beer, and never after more than two. And then only if it was over the course of a long meal.

At home, it's different. I might have 6 or 8 over the course of a long ballgame (3-4 hours). I usually put the iron away at the first bathroom break, which means after a couple of beers. My wife says she can't detect any change at all in me, but of course there is some effect. But I'm basically the same steady person with beer or without.

So I don't rush to disarm before cracking the first bottle, but I am much more cautious in public.

Kevin