Should the law be changed?

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton


Originalist
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 463
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Re: Should the law be changed?

#16

Post by Originalist »

Dave01 wrote:
txfour wrote:Does anyone know what the thought process was when they wrote that you can not carry in an establishment that has 51% of their sales coming from alcohol? I understand a bar. We all know that when having a firearm on your person there is no legal limit as far alcohol consumption is concerned. I know I would never take a gun to a bar regardless if it was legal.
This topic comes up every now and again. It is important to note that it is not illegal to have a drink while your carrying. It is illegal to be intoxicated while carrying. The 0.08 BAC (or BrAC) does not necessarily apply here...it is most up to the officer to determine "intoxication". Regardless, I still don't understand why carrying in a bar is off limits. Just because I'm in a bar doesn't mean I'm drinking. Under the current law, I can't sit in a bar and drink ginger ale while armed (my drink of choice when driving). I don't need regulation to force me to be responsible.

Alcohol and guns don't mix, but let me choose which one I want.
I would like to clear one thing up......... 0.08 BAC/BrAC in only the presumptive level, which means if your BAC/BrAC is .08 or more that you are presumed intoxicated.... You can be arrested, tried and convicted of DWI or CFWI (carrying a firearm while intoxicated) even if, I say again EVEN IF, your BAC/BrAC was 0.02. Your performance of the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (as provided by the NHTSA) would be used, along with officers observations as evidence to indicate you were intoxicated, NOT the officers determination. Just like, you could technically beat the presumptive level in court if you could prove you had normal use of physical or mental faculties.

Definition of Intoxication from Penal Code:
(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.
US Air Force Security Forces Craftsman
Glock 27/22
Remington Model 770 .270/Escort Magnum SA 12 gauge Shotgun/Olympic Arm AR-15
Project One Million: Texas - Get Involved!

Originalist
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 463
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Re: Should the law be changed?

#17

Post by Originalist »

As far as the liquor license goes, there is one that is supposed to be posted and someone here once told of this great trick........ They are color coded. One color means they are a 51% establishment and the other color means they are not.............. I just dont remember who offered that piece of info or what the actual colors were. I think it was Mr. Rostein, but I am not sure. SORRY IF I KILLED YOUR NAME!!

Bryan
US Air Force Security Forces Craftsman
Glock 27/22
Remington Model 770 .270/Escort Magnum SA 12 gauge Shotgun/Olympic Arm AR-15
Project One Million: Texas - Get Involved!

Dave01
Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 130
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 4:06 pm
Location: Rockwall, TX

Re: Should the law be changed?

#18

Post by Dave01 »

Mike1951 wrote:I do not think that the original concealed carry law could have ever passed without this restriction, which was a concession to the "blood in the streets" believers.

Now, I do not see any large group getting behind the effort to remove this.

And were it changed, sooner or later, there would be a shooting in a bar by a licensee.

You're probably right about the concession. I also have not seen a group effort behind this which is somewhat of a surprise. It would seem people care more about how they can carry (i.e open carry) than where they can carry. I'm the opposite.

In regard to a license holder being involved in a bar shooting...it probably would happen eventually. But who's to say it won't be a justified one? Any stiuation may happen eventually, but it's no excuse to prevent law abiding citizens from exercising their rights.
User avatar

Captain Matt
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 507
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 1:43 pm
Location: blue water

Re: Should the law be changed?

#19

Post by Captain Matt »

nitrogen wrote:Because guns + alcohol = bad juju.
If that's true then off duty cops carrying should be illegal in 51% bars too. Also the intoxicated rule should apply to cops too or it should be repealed.
"hic sunt dracones"

Topic author
txfour
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:02 am

Re: Should the law be changed?

#20

Post by txfour »

The sign I speak of at this particular establishment is RED 51%

LittleGun
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 5:42 pm

Re: Should the law be changed?

#21

Post by LittleGun »

I'd like to raise a question about the 0.8 blood alcohol level. I my CHL class, my instructor said the value was changed to 0.0 for CHL holders. Did anyone else hear that in class?

mr.72
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1619
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 10:14 am

Re: Should the law be changed?

#22

Post by mr.72 »

LittleGun wrote:I'd like to raise a question about the 0.8 blood alcohol level. I my CHL class, my instructor said the value was changed to 0.0 for CHL holders. Did anyone else hear that in class?
Well, first of all, for driving, it's 0.08, not 0.8. 0.8 would be very likely to kill you.

And secondly, this is a common misconception. It is a gray area in the law anyway and opinions vary widely on what the true meaning of "intoxicated" while carrying is.
non-conformist CHL holder
User avatar

boomerang
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2629
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Should the law be changed?

#23

Post by boomerang »

Pick your poison. Intoxication doesn't require any alcohol in your body.

46.06 defines "Intoxicated" as "substantial impairment of mental or physical capacity resulting from introduction of any substance into the body."

49.01 defines "Intoxicated" as (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.
"Ees gun! Ees not safe!"

KBCraig
Banned
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 5251
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 3:32 am
Location: Texarkana

Re: Should the law be changed?

#24

Post by KBCraig »

Mike1951 wrote:And were it changed, sooner or later, there would be a shooting in a bar by a licensee.
Even without the law being changed, there has been a shooting in a bar by a licensee. Probably more than one, but Billy Joe Shaver is the one who comes to mind.

So like all "gun free zones", the 51% sign does nothing to stop guns -- especially those that would be illegally carried whether it was a bar or not.
User avatar

Keith B
Moderator
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 18502
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:29 pm

Re: Should the law be changed?

#25

Post by Keith B »

mr.72 wrote: Well, first of all, for driving, it's 0.08, not 0.8. 0.8 would be very likely to kill you.
You would be dead way before .8, as usually anything above .4 results in death. However, I personally saw a guy who was still awake with a .38 blood level! He was even able to blow the breathalyser 3 times as we thought it was giving us false readings. The Lieutenant came in and recognized him as a local seasoned alcoholic and said he was constantly intoxicated and had apparently built up a very high tolerance. :eek6
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member

Psalm 82:3-4

srothstein
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 5298
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

Re: Should the law be changed?

#26

Post by srothstein »

Well, there are a few posts to answer that I am going to try to address all at once.

The first is why the 51% rule exists at all. The OP understood trying to ban in bars and was curious about how this applied to other stores. The answer was given in part (only applies for on premise consumption so liquor stores and convenience stores are okay), but let's look at it a little further. We know the rule was included for political reasons, but basically it is saying you cannot carry in bars. The problem is how to define a "bar". Yes, I know one when I see it, but the law generally has to be more specific and give us a way to identify what is a bar. So, someone came up with the concept that a restaurant will get most of its money from food, and a bar gets most of its money from booze. Most can be defined as more than half, so we get the 51% alcohol rule for bars. All it really is doing is trying to define what a bar is for us to understand.

The problem given next was how to tell if the place is properly posted. The best answer is to look at the license and see if it says "Sign = Red" or "Sign = Blue". A red sign is a 51% limit sign and a blue sign is the standard unlicensed possession sign. The bad news is that there is currently no public way to see what the actual sales are. TABC considers the sales numbers to be private information, so there is no public database to see and verify.

The next half of the problem is that the law does not say it is illegal to carry in a bar (51% place) but it is illegal to carry in a place "determined by TABC" to be 51%. So, the actual sales figures may be irrelevant and the license statement becomes the real deciding factor. TABC tries its best to keep the signs accurate in licensing, but they are dependent on the people giving them accurate figures when they apply for the license or renew it. If you really want a restaurant that is off limits to guns, tell TABC you get 49% from food and 51% from booze and they will issue the "red" type license. It can go for years with the wrong information until TABC gets enough data to verify it as wrong later.

The third point to discuss is the drinking at the hamburger stand in the convenience store. If the store has a "BF" license, then drinking on the premises is ilelgal. If they have a "BE" then they can sell for on or off premises consumption. This is not common for a convenience store, but could be what they applied for if they were smart. This means that it would be legal for them to sell from the refrigerator and let people pop one open and drink at the counter (I think, I would need to check the exact circumstances and rules more specifically).

The fourth point to discuss is what is intoxicated and how does it apply to a CHL. A CHL may not legally carry while intoxicated. Some instructors have either taught or confused their students into thinking this means no alcohol at all. This is not true. They get this because the definition of intoxication is in Chapter 49 and not in chapter 46 with weapons. And it says "in this chapter" so some people do not think it applies. BUT, the Code Construction Act (chapter 311 of the Government Code) tells us how to read laws. It says that we use the common meaning of words unless they have taken on a specific legal meaning by some definition in code or case law. In this case, I think the common meaning of intoxicated has become the legal meaning and most people only use that word in reference to the law. That way we differentiate it from the common meaning of the word drunk. And, intoxication has taken on a specific legal meaning through the definition in Chapter 49.

So, intoxication means what the law says in chapter 49, quoted in an earlier post. This clearly allows you to have a drink or two while carrying. I think this might be a bad idea, but that is my opinion. That is probably where the confused part of my earlier statement came in as instructors gave advice and students took it as rules. It also shows that a person is intoxicated if they have lost the normal use of their faculties through any subject OR if they have a .08 BAC. The important part to note is that it is illegal if you have a .08 and you are still capable of doing anything you normally can. But there really is a specific definition for intoxicated as to when you can carry, no matter if I think it is a good idea or not.

Finally, my last point was a specific one to AFCop. You got the name close enough for most people to figure out who you meant. :lol: That is all that really counts. I stopped worrying about how my name gets spelled a long time ago (except on checks).
Steve Rothstein

CainA
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 582
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 8:25 pm
Location: Houston-Spring

Re: Should the law be changed?

#27

Post by CainA »

Thanks for taking the time to write that up Steve.

-Cain

bdickens
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 2807
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:36 am
Location: Houston

Re: Should the law be changed?

#28

Post by bdickens »

Durn right the law should be changed! We should be able to carry anywhere we go. I agree with Dave01's point about people being more concerned with how they can carry than with where they can carry.

They also need to specify a specific blood-alchohol content limit just like for driving.
Byron Dickens

Morgan
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 581
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:55 am
Location: DFW

Re: Should the law be changed?

#29

Post by Morgan »

Keith B wrote:You would be dead way before .8, as usually anything above .4 results in death. However, I personally saw a guy who was still awake with a .38 blood level! He was even able to blow the breathalyser 3 times as we thought it was giving us false readings. The Lieutenant came in and recognized him as a local seasoned alcoholic and said he was constantly intoxicated and had apparently built up a very high tolerance. :eek6

Yeah, .4 is LD50, which means that it's the BAC that is lethal to 50% of the population. Wikipedia has an interesting write up on some individuals who survived higher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Morgan
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 581
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:55 am
Location: DFW

Re: Should the law be changed?

#30

Post by Morgan »

bdickens wrote:Durn right the law should be changed! We should be able to carry anywhere we go. I agree with Dave01's point about people being more concerned with how they can carry than with where they can carry.

They also need to specify a specific blood-alchohol content limit just like for driving.
I agree on all points. Even if they set that limit to like .02, which is 25% of the driving limit... basically you don't want to have to arrest a guy who just took communion.
Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”