TexasCHLforum.com

jerry_r60 wrote:

Crossfire wrote:If the handgun is within your reach, then you are presumed to be carrying under authority of your CHL, and you should notify the officer. "In the glove box" would be within reach in most situations.

If it is in the trunk, then you are not "carrying" it. You are only "transporting" it, and I don't see any reason to notify. Unless there is probable cause to conduct a search, it should not come up. And if there is, you can tell them about it then.

In my post i had asked about when my gun was "locked in the glove box". Does the fact that the glove box is locked not matter, it's still considered "within reach".

Because there is not a definition of secured that states 'locked in a glove box or console', then I would say it would still be considered 'within reach'. If I have a gun in the passenger compartment of my vehicle, loaded, unloaded, in the back seat, under the seat, no matter, I am going to inform the officer when I present my CHL and DL.

recaffeination wrote:I think it would be the same for a church that rents space from a school, unless they have written authorization from the school. I'm not sure if Sunday School at a church counts as a school.

Totally correct; as school is always a achool.

And welcome to the forum.

WildBill wrote:

wgoforth wrote:I thought this was about whether we can conceal in a church service while partaking of fermented fruit of the vine in the communion at a church building which has a gun buster sign posted on the back door??

As long as there isn't a 51% sign on the front door.

That brings up a good point. I know of a church that used to meet at a restaurant off-hours that had a fairly active bar during regular business hours. Now, the restaurant was not a 51% location, but if it WAS a 51% business, and posted as such, then I would think you would be prohibited from carrying there even if they weren't open for regular business.

speedsix wrote: ...I know this to be a fair way to look at it because if I came home from work and drank a beer, it would have a much stronger effect on my mind than if I drank one with supper...I could feel the difference...one person might drink three and feel no differently or act differently than when he/she was sober...under (A), it's specific to the person...under (B)...it applies to everyone...

Yes, as cops, you and I have both seen how different individuals react to different levels of alcohol alone. I have seen people who were 'tipsy' with .04 BAC, and I have seen the seasoned alcoholic who was driving fairly well and literally blew a .42 BAC. Everyone is different on what they can handle and function, and everyone will have differences from one day to the next due to physical condition (level of rest, amount of food intake, stress, etc. etc. The main reason for the discretion on the officer's part is the ability to determine someone is intoxicated from undetectable additives in the system and/or those other factors that may enhance the affect of a small amount of alcohol.

Bottom line, even one drop of alcohol DOES impede your system, as does anything else you put in it, but the effects are so minuscule that there will be no apparent degradation of faculties. The more you add, then more you are impacted.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:
I don't know about 03Lightningrocks or anyone else, but I get better looking and more eloquently suave, aware and virile after an adult beverage or three. That's a fact...isn't it?

What a coincidence! Me too! Then I take a bathroom break, see myself in the mirror and reality sets back in...lol.

Two phrases come to mind here: 'Beer goggles' and 'Ten foot tall and bullet proof'

Lambda Force wrote:That's also true for driving. The definition of intoxication is the same.

Yes, 49.01 is the Texas definition of intoxicated for multiple statutes.

wgoforth wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

wgoforth wrote:Keep in mind questions are asked on the test about the use of alcohol, and regardless of what we think, there is only one answer they want.

Not trying to be a wise elleck here but, what answer do they want? I can't remember the test.

I doubt they want me to post any test questions and answers... but they do want you to be able to say there is no legal minimum of alcohol you may have and carry, and that is simply in my instructors manual as to what to teach in that portion.

And, that is technically correct. The definition is 'intoxicated', BUT, a legal limit DOES exist. And if you want to see the EXACT definition of what 'intoxicated' is for a CHL holder is, then look here in
Texas Government Code 411.171 (Subchapter H) (6)

SUBCHAPTER H. LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN
Sec. 411.171. DEFINITIONS.
In this subchapter:
(6) "Intoxicated" has the meaning assigned by Section 49.01, Penal Code.

And

Penal Code 49.01 says:

§ 49.01. DEFINITIONS.
In this chapter:

(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, while you can be intoxicated and not have a specific limit of alcohol in your system, there is a threshold of .08 BAC where you ARE defined as intoxicated, no matter.

speedsix wrote:...while helping me, he said it in a clear and simple way: "... One is carrying under the authority of their CHL only when having a handgun on their person would be illegal if they didn't have a CHL." I can remember that one!!!

Well, that is outside of the vehicle and not on your own property. A person can legally carry on their body in the vehicle under MPA.

speedsix wrote:...the Boss took time to help me find a thread that corrected my thinking on this CHL/MPA thing... worth wading through...

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=45095" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I stand corrected and bow to the greater authority. MPA trumps CHL.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=45095&start=30#p548496" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

sjfcontrol wrote:

Crossfire wrote:If the handgun is within your reach, then you are presumed to be carrying under authority of your CHL, and you should notify the officer. "In the glove box" would be within reach in most situations.

If it is in the trunk, then you are not "carrying" it. You are only "transporting" it, and I don't see any reason to notify. Unless there is probable cause to conduct a search, it should not come up. And if there is, you can tell them about it then.

Crossfire -- consider the argument that while carrying in your car, you are not carrying under your CHL, but are carrying under the MPA. (I presume you're familiar with that argument, and yes, you still need to give the officer your CHL even though you're not carrying under it.)

Is someone carrying under the MPA required to declare their firearm if asked?

I'm gonna jump in with my .02¢.

I know there is no case law, and many will argue differently, but I believe if you have a CHL it overrides MPA and when the handgun is 'on or about your person', then you are always carrying under the authority of CHL. If you do NOT have a CHL, then you get MPA, but do not gain the other aspects of the CHL privileges.

srothstein wrote:

jmra wrote:Reminds me of all the movies I've seen where the detectives all meet after work at the cop bar. Of course they all still have their badge on their belt and gun on the hip with a jacket on. Most seem half hammered by the time they leave. Couldn't believe that was anywhere close to reality, but what do I know. Never been part of that community.

Trust me, it is not far off from reality. It is not all cops and not every night, but there are enough out there to keep cop bars in business in every decently sized city. The ones I have been in have the patrolmen in plainclothes mixing with the off duty detectives, but it would not surprise me if NY had bars by precinct or by job (patrolmen at one, detectives at another, etc.).

And in reality the many beat cops in NY are of Irish descent and do open bars when they retire, or have interest in a family-owned bar.

wgoforth wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Keith B wrote:sjfcontrol is spot on on this one guys. I have seen (and arrested) people who were way over .08 that didn't seem to be too intoxicated, and had someone who blew .01 that was wasted out of their gourd. It all depends on the person and WHAT ELSE is going on with their body.

I agree with both of you on this point.

My objection is when an instructor teaches that it is illegal to have any alcohol in your system if you are carrying. That may be an excellent policy, it may their own personal standard of behavior or their interpretation of the law. It is simply not true that is is against the law.

I'm not saying they are correct... but the most likely reason that CHL instructors teach it this way, is because this is the way the DPS taught it to us. We were clearly told in instructor training that (1) you can have NO discernable amount of alcohol. (2) The .08 has to do with driving, not carrying. (3) Even if they smell it on your breath quote, "we are going to have some problems." (4) And apparently this has been communicated in some way to other law enforcement. I asked the local LT at our PD, and he used the exact wording, "No discernable amount." He said if you have been drinking, but not impaired, he would return your gun in the trunk, but confiscate your CHL for state suspension and possible revokement. (5) They (DPS instructor training) said that from a practical standpoint, if you had a glass of wine with your meal at a restaurant, and you shot a mugger as you were going back to your vehicle, you set yourself up for a claim of "he had been drinking." So this most likely is not the individual instructors interpretation, but rather repeating what the DPS taught them. When I wrote asking them specifically concerning this, the response was "What issafe and what will keep you from trouble?" type of answer. Will a judge see it the same way in light of the Penal Code is another question.

Well, directly from 46.035

(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.

Now, the only place intoxicated is defined in TPC 46 is in 46.06 about selling a firearm.

(b) In this section:(1) "Intoxicated" means substantial impairment of mental or physical capacity resulting from introduction of any substance into the body.

TPC 49.01 defines the actual Intoxication standard for the penal code, which basically matches 46.06

(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, what IF the DPS is teaching that any consumption of alcohol while carrying is illegal, then they are WRONG. PERIOD.

I still believe what the DPS is trying to say that if you are in a shooting situation, and you have had any alcohol, that a prosecutor will look at that and it will weigh negatively against review of the shooting being justified. And if you go to trial, a DA may try to use that as a hammer. No different than you had been arguing with someone and that person pulls a knife on you vs. just a random attack on you, they will try to say you initiated the fight.

Bottom line, intoxicated is spelled out. And while I will very rarely drink anything while carrying, if I so happen to have one beer with dinner, they are going to have to prove that I met the definition of intoxicated as defined in the penal code before they suspend my license or they will have a court battle on their hands.

Ameer wrote:These stories about Texas certified instructors spreading misinformation makes a lot of people when some Texas instructors complain about "The Utah Problem" or the Virginia online class. Texas CHL instructors should get their own house in order and fix the problems with Texas instructors if they want credibility when they complain about other states' classes.

When will folks get it right; it was not the Other States course that was the problem, it was a few Texas INSTRUCTORS and the way they were marketing their classes and slamming Texas CHL and the process that caused the legislators to get all bent out of shape. These instructors were touting the fact you can get a cheaper license and not have to shoot and using that as their marketing tactic and rubbing the DPS nose in that fact. It caught media attention and then the legislators picked up on it. It came very close to getting a bill introduced that would have completely eliminated the capability of a Texas resident carrying on a non-resident license. It DID cause Utah to change their rules and require you to have a resident license from your own state before they would issue you a non-resident license. So these instructors DID mess in their own beds.

The problem you have with the DPS is they are covering their rears by not committing to say "Oh, it's this' or 'Oh, it's that'. They will not give a legal opinion on the enforcement of a statute and will play the gray area. Unfortunately that translates to those (i.e. student instructors) who don't understand they are teaching you what the statute says, but not how to interpret the law, incorrectly and thus the student instructors come out of the certification class misinterpreting what they are saying.

A good example is enforcement of a 30.06. I understand that one of the last classes was told that any 'no guns' sign is notification of the owners intent. Well, yeah, it is. However, it it not LEGAL notification that meets the requirements of the 30.06 statute and some student instructors said DPS was telling them that any 'no guns' sign was valid. What the DPS was apparently trying to infer is that if you pass a non -30.06 'no guns' sign, that you COULD be arrested and charged if someone wants to make a test case out of you. However, in their attempt to not give legal advice they don't get the real message across to the students that 30.06 is the law, and all other signs are not, but it may take a trial to prove your innocence if some eager beaver DA wants to play and challenge you on a non-30.06 being valid notification. An example of that is Grapevine PD saying they believe the non-conforming signs on Grapevine Mills Mall are valid and they MAY arrest you if caught carrying there.

So, unfortunately, unless the instructor has some legal background, is smarter than the average bear, or joins the Texas CHL Forum and gets the straight dope, then they go off and incorrectly teach their students the law.

sjfcontrol is spot on on this one guys. I have seen (and arrested) people who were way over .08 that didn't seem to be too intoxicated, and had someone who blew .01 that was wasted out of their gourd. It all depends on the person and WHAT ELSE is going on with their body.

The de facto for DWI in Texas and most states is .08 BAC. That says you are intoxicated, no matter how you are acting. Now, you can be below .08, even .00 and be intoxicated due to ingesting other substances (legal or illegal) into your body. Combinations of alcohol and cold/allergy medications or other drugs can build together to impair your abilities. Even medical conditions can make you appear to be intoxicated, and you actually could be impaired to the point you should not be driving or carrying.

I have had two incidents within the past couple of years where I have witnessed an erratic driver and called it in, then followed them with 911 on the line to direct police to the car. One was a woman who was driving terribly. She pulled out in front of two different vehicles and was crossing into other lanes frequently. The police got her stopped. I stuck around long enough to give the officer my name and contact info and see paramedics show up. The officer called me about 45 minutes later and told me she was actually diabetic and was having an episode due to her blood sugar levels. She also wanted him to thank me for calling in as she knew she was having issues but couldn't even think straight enough to stop driving and call for assistance. The other was a lady who was apparently bipolar and off her meds and the officers called a family member to come an get her and would not let her drive until she was back stable on her medication.

So, it IS up the officer discretion to determine if you are intoxicated, drinking or not, for both driving and carrying alike, if you are UNDER .08% BAC. .08% or over and it is cut and dried. The difference is they will have to prove you were intoxicated with some other evidence as in dash-cam video or a blood tox-screen if you were under .08.