TexasCHLforum.com

OK folks, enough of the chastizing.

Stick to constructive comments or don't comment at all.

Keith B wrote:OK folks, enough of the chastizing.

Stick to constructive comments or don't comment at all.

Photoman wrote:I guess you didn't ask for opinions... but I can't resist...

Getting drunk in public, sleeping in cars and associating with drug users leads me to believe you need to do some "growing up" before you carry a gun again. I'm not pointing a finger (I did some of the same stupid things in my past too), just giving an opinion (for which you didn't ask but got anyway).

I too was a miss guided youth and in my late 30's before I was able to get my CHL.
I tend to say that spent my 20's messing up
My 30's paying for my 20's
My 40's are going to be great.
Even though I'll be 41 when I'm done paying., but I will be payed in full
I no longer drink any alcohol outside of my house, and no longer associate with people who have illegal habits.

Edited to add: Sorry oldgringo, I wasn't chastising, just wanted to share.

I had to wait a few hours since, being declared a hostile witness, I was limited in how I could respond.

When: 7 years. Will I: Probably unless there is another disqualifying event which occurs during the 7 years.

British dry humor....

sugar land dave wrote:British dry humor....

Right you are! I got my ears boxed for my first reponse.

I'm not quite sure I understand-what exactly was the license revoked for?

croc870 wrote:I'm not quite sure I understand-what exactly was the license revoked for?

Yeah that's a good question. None of his charges would actually make him ineligible. He was charged with a PI, and he admitted he had his gun on him, BUT the state didn't charge him with UCW by licence holder which would have made him ineligible.

I'm confused too

Jusster

Sec. 46.035.  UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER.
......
(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.
......

Lucky.

slightly off topic, but I find it interesting the wording is "Regardless of if the pistol is concealed".

We don't have open carry here, so why does that part even need to be included?

74novaman wrote:slightly off topic, but I find it interesting the wording is "Regardless of if the pistol is concealed".

We don't have open carry here, so why does that part even need to be included?

Because the UCW statute also covers intentional exposure of the gun, so it is just for clarification that it doesn't matter if it is concealed or not if you are intoxicated.

Cool. Thanks for explaining.

No I get how getting convicted of 46.035 carry while intoxicated would have it revoked- but doesn't he have to actually be convicted of that?

I believe the charge that got him revoked would be the combination of the drug paraphernalia charge and the PI. The definition of a chemically dependent person is two convictions of any offense that pertains to alcohol or drugs within a ten year period. I know they are both class C and the law refers to class B convictions, but the law also says it does not preclude other proof of dependency. The two charges combined with the having a weapon and sleeping it off in a car not at his home might have been used.

Note that if this was the cause, they can argue for a ten year bar (plus the two for revocation). But, if there is still time left, he can appeal the revocation and ask for proof.

My advice would be to contact a lawyer as soon as you get ANY notice from DPS about a suspension or revocation of ANY license, especially your CHL and DL.