TexasCHLforum.com

I've purposefully have stayed clear of the direction this thread has taken, but I have to say a couple of things. Let me start by saying that I do not drink at all but I realize that drinking in and of itself is not a sin, drunkenness is. That said there is a legal and a moral definition of drunkenness. The legal is now .08% BAC, however I've known plenty of people who could exceed that handily without any loss of judgment, my father was one. He was real quick to refrain from driving when he was at that level.

The argument has been made (in response to one's position that drinking and gun carry are a matter of personal responsibility) that under that logic we should allow psychotic people and those on LSD to carry if we allow people to carry while drinking. This is a progressive fallacy (slippery slope, boiling frog argument) in that it is presumed that one degree is the same as or must necessarily lead to the next degree. I.E. One who drinks and/or reaches a level of intoxication must necessarily be dangerous if they have access to a firearm. Then it is presumed that allowing this person to have one we must allow those that have a disconnect with reality and/or are delusional. Surely, we can see the fallacy of a progressive, qualitative comparison from one who consumes an intoxicant vs. one who is either psychotic or under the influence of a psychoactive hallucinogen.

The argument has been made that operating a motor vehicle while above the legal limit and carrying a weapon present the same level of danger to the public at large. This is clearly fallacious, one can be of sound judgment but have poor reflex and coordinated responses. Using the same logic we can say that a person who suffers from Cerebral Palsy, advanced Parkinson's or MS that may not be allowed to operate a motor vehicle do not have the right to carry. The ability to operate a complex piece of equipment hurdling down the road cannot be rationally compared to the carry and use of a firearm. Judgment is a function of experience, maturity and wisdom. If one is of sound judgment, it will not be easily unsettled by consumption of alcohol. I would posit that in fact, one who possesses sound judgment will be the first to realize their impairment and take appropriate action.

I will agree that consumption of alcohol MAY effect one's judgment, mood and inhibitions. But denying one the right to protect themselves when they have had a few drinks because they MAY react and use it carelessly is presupposing an event that has not occurred will necessarily follow. Also, poor judgment exists without the use of alcohol and there are those that would make me nervous with a firearm (short tempered, belligerent, etc.) but I would not want them judging my fitness to be armed, so nervous as I may be, I will not judge theirs. So judgment is the issue, not whether one has had anything to drink,. I would suggest that if one was intoxicated enough to be a danger to themselves or others, than a PI would be chargeable...maybe "aggravated" if carrying.

I would hope that we CHLers would know ourselves well enough to know when not to carry or when to hand it over to someone else. Also, for the time being the laws are what they are and these arguments are largely academic.

But we cannot logically compare driving with carrying, drinking with drunkenness or for sensibility's sake; drinking with psychosis or hallucinogenic use.

Miltias historically had children as young as 15 in the revolutionary period. Younger still in some farming communities. I had to prove myself capable with a BB gun and then was allowed to go out with a single shot .410, then a 22 bolt action repeating rifle and finally a .22 sidearm by the time I was 16 and an avid snake collector. I was periodically checked upon by LEO's but other than asking what I was up to, none gave me a second thought nor seemed the least bit worried about the pistol on my hip, or the rifle in my hand.

I have trained and would trust either of my kids, the youngest is 13, with any weapon in the house. Albeit, the 13 year old is more avid than the older one.

Age limits (for bearing arms) should be left as a judgment call by the parents, and if that judgment is found in error, the parents are the ones that bear that responsibility. The access to minors law should have an accidental access clause in it, as it reads now I could potentially be given a good deal of grief for my kids' knowing where the defense weapons are...better yet, rescind it all together.

austinrealtor wrote: 5. Licensed CHL may carry on premises of polling place and in courtrooms/court offices. Intentional failure to conceal ("brandishing") without the "defense to prosecution" of legally justified self defense goes up a notch to a felony instead of Class A misdemeanor if committed in these areas. At courtrooms, CHL holder must pro-actively show CHL to court officials before entering any metal detector. Court official/LEO will pull CHL holder aside and verify all information and check for other contraband before allow CHL holder to enter.

I would rather a secure locker be provided at court houses (and at least this should be done) with armed attendants. I am a very calm and pragmatic person, but I can speak from personal experience that in one case, if I had had it on me I may well have used it.

Agreed, New Hampshire (surprisingly) has some of the best gun laws. Too bad it is where it is. Those laws did'nt stop David Ridley from having a problem. [youtube][/youtube]
No language that I noticed. The other guy is an idiot though.

I like Vermont's...something like, "It is lawful to carry a firearm openly or concealed provided the firearm is not carried with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow man. There is no permit required to carry concealed." Simple, if you're not intent on a crime, carry away if you are a BG a permit wouldn't have made the difference anyway (my interpretation). See, common sense does survive in small pockets.