TexasCHLforum.com

ScottDLS wrote:

SMRoot wrote:Is there any way to clearly tighten up the wording of the statutes so that having a glass of wine with dinner doesn't mean that you have to leave your handgun at home, but still doesn't allow people to carry while truly impaired?

It already is the law. The standard for intoxication for carrying IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS FOR DRIVING. If you can't have a glass without being INTOXICATED, then don't carry and don't drive. Intoxication is not having the normal use of your faculties OR being 0.08 or more BAC. In the absence of a BAC test, the prosecution will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not have normal use of your faculties. There are plenty of DWI lawyers that specializing in raising a doubt, and if you are not driving I am not aware of a requirement for you to submit to a blood/breath test.

This is straight from the Department of Redundancy Department

TresHuevos wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

SMRoot wrote:Is there any way to clearly tighten up the wording of the statutes so that having a glass of wine with dinner doesn't mean that you have to leave your handgun at home, but still doesn't allow people to carry while truly impaired?

It already is the law. The standard for intoxication for carrying IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS FOR DRIVING. If you can't have a glass without being INTOXICATED, then don't carry and don't drive. Intoxication is not having the normal use of your faculties OR being 0.08 or more BAC. In the absence of a BAC test, the prosecution will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not have normal use of your faculties. There are plenty of DWI lawyers that specializing in raising a doubt, and if you are not driving I am not aware of a requirement for you to submit to a blood/breath test.

This is straight from the Department of Redundancy Department

I thought it was the Department of Redundancy, Repetition, and Echo Chamber Department Department.

ScottDLS wrote:

SMRoot wrote:Is there any way to clearly tighten up the wording of the statutes so that having a glass of wine with dinner doesn't mean that you have to leave your handgun at home, but still doesn't allow people to carry while truly impaired?

It already is the law. The standard for intoxication for carrying IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS FOR DRIVING. If you can't have a glass without being INTOXICATED, then don't carry and don't drive. Intoxication is not having the normal use of your faculties OR being 0.08 or more BAC. In the absence of a BAC test, the prosecution will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not have normal use of your faculties. There are plenty of DWI lawyers that specializing in raising a doubt, and if you are not driving I am not aware of a requirement for you to submit to a blood/breath test.

While LTC's are covered in law about carrying and intoxicated....are non license holders? Is that the demographic this bill purports to address?

E.Marquez wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

SMRoot wrote:Is there any way to clearly tighten up the wording of the statutes so that having a glass of wine with dinner doesn't mean that you have to leave your handgun at home, but still doesn't allow people to carry while truly impaired?

It already is the law. The standard for intoxication for carrying IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS FOR DRIVING. If you can't have a glass without being INTOXICATED, then don't carry and don't drive. Intoxication is not having the normal use of your faculties OR being 0.08 or more BAC. In the absence of a BAC test, the prosecution will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not have normal use of your faculties. There are plenty of DWI lawyers that specializing in raising a doubt, and if you are not driving I am not aware of a requirement for you to submit to a blood/breath test.

While LTC's are covered in law about carrying and intoxicated....are non license holders? Is that the demographic this bill purports to address?

No they are not, but with few exceptions it is illegal to carry a handgun anyway without a license. This bill is redundancy or criminalizes private conduct which probably should not be criminal. A solution in search of a problem...

ScottDLS wrote:

SMRoot wrote:Is there any way to clearly tighten up the wording of the statutes so that having a glass of wine with dinner doesn't mean that you have to leave your handgun at home, but still doesn't allow people to carry while truly impaired?

It already is the law. The standard for intoxication for carrying IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS FOR DRIVING. If you can't have a glass without being INTOXICATED, then don't carry and don't drive. Intoxication is not having the normal use of your faculties OR being 0.08 or more BAC. In the absence of a BAC test, the prosecution will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not have normal use of your faculties. There are plenty of DWI lawyers that specializing in raising a doubt, and if you are not driving I am not aware of a requirement for you to submit to a blood/breath test.

Maybe I have been misinformed, but I thought that many folks on this site were of the opinion that an officer could and would arrest you if you had ANY alcohol in your system. The theory was that even one drink removed the normal use of your faculties. Is that just baseless paranoia talking?

It's already illegal to carry while intoxicated so let's repeal that law and immediately make it illegal again! Only change I see is they add "in a public place"

H.B. No. 1827 wrote: Sec. 46.025. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF FIREARM WHILE INTOXICATED. (a) A person commits an offense if, while intoxicated, the person carries a firearm, including a handgun or long gun, in a public place.
...
SECTION 5. Section 46.035(d), Penal Code, is repealed.

And here is the repealed section:

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 or carried in a shoulder or belt holster.

SMRoot wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

SMRoot wrote:Is there any way to clearly tighten up the wording of the statutes so that having a glass of wine with dinner doesn't mean that you have to leave your handgun at home, but still doesn't allow people to carry while truly impaired?

It already is the law. The standard for intoxication for carrying IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS FOR DRIVING. If you can't have a glass without being INTOXICATED, then don't carry and don't drive. Intoxication is not having the normal use of your faculties OR being 0.08 or more BAC. In the absence of a BAC test, the prosecution will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not have normal use of your faculties. There are plenty of DWI lawyers that specializing in raising a doubt, and if you are not driving I am not aware of a requirement for you to submit to a blood/breath test.

Maybe I have been misinformed, but I thought that many folks on this site were of the opinion that an officer could and would arrest you if you had ANY alcohol in your system. The theory was that even one drink removed the normal use of your faculties. Is that just baseless paranoia talking?

Do people normally get arrested for walking on the sidewalk with any alcohol in their system... automatic public intoxication? How about driving their vehicle with any alcohol in their system... automatic DUI/DWI?

casp625 wrote:It's already illegal to carry while intoxicated so let's repeal that law and immediately make it illegal again! Only change I see is they add "in a public place"

H.B. No. 1827 wrote: Sec. 46.025. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF FIREARM WHILE INTOXICATED. (a) A person commits an offense if, while intoxicated, the person carries a firearm, including a handgun or long gun, in a public place.
...
SECTION 5. Section 46.035(d), Penal Code, is repealed.

And here is the repealed section:

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 or carried in a shoulder or belt holster.

They added firearm....instead of weapon...which adds in long guns. It's already illegal to shoot people negligently, so why add the intoxication offense... Do we really have an epidemic of drunks shooting people with long guns...? And how did we survive the last 180 years without such a law?

ScottDLS wrote:but with few exceptions it is illegal to carry a handgun anyway without a license.

I don't believe this bill (which i could do without so we are clear) is targeting just or only handguns "bill against carrying firearms while intoxicated"

SMRoot wrote:Maybe I have been misinformed, but I thought that many folks on this site were of the opinion that an officer could and would arrest you if you had ANY alcohol in your system. The theory was that even one drink removed the normal use of your faculties. Is that just baseless paranoia talking?

The term "intoxicated" has the same definition for both driving and carrying a firearm. For driving there is an additional presumption that you are intoxicated if your BAC is above a certain level, so theoretically you could be intoxicated for purposes of getting a DUI, but not intoxicated for purposes of carrying a gun. But, by definition you must at least be too intoxicated to drive if you are too intoxicated to legally carry a gun.

As far as "many people's opinions" I should also add that by getting out of bed in the morning you run the risk of "taking a ride" and "not beating the ride" and a bunch of other terrible things that have to do with being transported somewhere.

The definition of intoxicated for carrying includes the 0.08 BAC, just like for DWI, because they both rely on the definition in TXPC 49.01...

ScottDLS wrote:

casp625 wrote:It's already illegal to carry while intoxicated so let's repeal that law and immediately make it illegal again! Only change I see is they add "in a public place"

H.B. No. 1827 wrote: Sec. 46.025. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF FIREARM WHILE INTOXICATED. (a) A person commits an offense if, while intoxicated, the person carries a firearm, including a handgun or long gun, in a public place.
...
SECTION 5. Section 46.035(d), Penal Code, is repealed.

And here is the repealed section:

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 or carried in a shoulder or belt holster.

They added firearm....instead of weapon...which adds in long guns. It's already illegal to shoot people negligently, so why add the intoxication offense... Do we really have an epidemic of drunks shooting people with long guns...? And how did we survive the last 180 years without such a law?

Good catch. At least with this new bill, I can carry any handgun or longun intoxicated while I am on my own private property... /sarcasm

ScottDLS wrote:The definition of intoxicated for carrying includes the 0.08 BAC, just like for DWI, because they both rely on the definition in TXPC 49.01...

I stand corrected. So it sounds like they are the exact same standard, then. That makes things easier.

dhoobler wrote:I am suspicious of bills like this. I think that they are meant to frame the debate in a manner to discredit the NRA and Second Amendment supporters. Here is an example of what I am talking about:

The NRA Fights to Keep Guns in the Hands of Wife Beaters
http://www.rawstory.com/2013/03/the-nra ... e-beaters/

I can see the headlines now:
The NRA Fights to Keep Guns in the Hands of Drunks.

Exactly. Often, it isn't about a bill to fix a problem, but rather a bill to make the opposition look foolish for opposing it. It's a specialty of the left to stir the hornet's nest like this when they are plainly getting their butts kicked by actual facts.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

dhoobler wrote:I am suspicious of bills like this. I think that they are meant to frame the debate in a manner to discredit the NRA and Second Amendment supporters. Here is an example of what I am talking about:

The NRA Fights to Keep Guns in the Hands of Wife Beaters
http://www.rawstory.com/2013/03/the-nra ... e-beaters/

I can see the headlines now:
The NRA Fights to Keep Guns in the Hands of Drunks.

Exactly. Often, it isn't about a bill to fix a problem, but rather a bill to make the opposition look foolish for opposing it. It's a specialty of the left to stir the hornet's nest like this when they are plainly getting their butts kicked by actual facts.

Exactly. Another "common sense" and "reasonable" law.