Re: Well... there goes Constitutional Carry
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:13 pm
Savage. lolbigtek wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:08 pm It's almost as perplexing as an organization claiming to be pro gun giving Straus an A grade.
TexasCHLforum.com
The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
Well... there goes Constitutional Carry
Page 3 of 3
Re: Well... there goes Constitutional Carry
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 7:21 pm
What grade would you have given him and why? What did he do to get pro-gun bills passed?bigtek wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:08 pm03Lightningrocks wrote: Mon Nov 26, 2018 6:43 pm I always find it perplexing to read posts from those claiming to be pro gun who mention laws that are anti gun they like.
It's almost as perplexing as an organization claiming to be pro gun giving Straus an A grade.
Chas.
Re: Well... there goes Constitutional Carry
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:52 pm
Minor technical correction, but location does make a difference. Note that 46.035(d) only makes carrying while intoxicated illegal if you are a license holder carrying under the authority of the license. You are only carrying under the authority of your license if it would be illegal to carry otherwise. Since it is not illegal to carry on your own premises or premises under your control, 46.035 dos not apply to you in those locations.C-dub wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:53 amBoth parts of this are wrong. It is illegal to be intoxicated while carrying, but not simply drinking an alcoholic beverage. Location is irrelevant. Intoxicated is still intoxicated. The probability of being caught are much lower unless your next statement comes into play.TexanVeteran wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 7:43 pm It is actually already illegal to carry while you're drinking (unless you're on your own property, obviously).
If you're going to a restaurant that happens to serve alcohol, you're probably not going to get drunk. One or two glasses of beer or wine is not gonna hurt anything.
It could get even trickier if you happen to have multiple ways to carry. For example, is a police officer who has an LTC carrying under the authority of his LTC or his commission? He should not be intoxicated either, but I doubt anyone would try to apply that law to him.
Re: Well... there goes Constitutional Carry
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2018 12:06 am
What about if you’re intoxicated, and carrying under authority of the MPA?srothstein wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:52 pmMinor technical correction, but location does make a difference. Note that 46.035(d) only makes carrying while intoxicated illegal if you are a license holder carrying under the authority of the license. You are only carrying under the authority of your license if it would be illegal to carry otherwise. Since it is not illegal to carry on your own premises or premises under your control, 46.035 dos not apply to you in those locations.C-dub wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:53 amBoth parts of this are wrong. It is illegal to be intoxicated while carrying, but not simply drinking an alcoholic beverage. Location is irrelevant. Intoxicated is still intoxicated. The probability of being caught are much lower unless your next statement comes into play.TexanVeteran wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 7:43 pm It is actually already illegal to carry while you're drinking (unless you're on your own property, obviously).
If you're going to a restaurant that happens to serve alcohol, you're probably not going to get drunk. One or two glasses of beer or wine is not gonna hurt anything.
It could get even trickier if you happen to have multiple ways to carry. For example, is a police officer who has an LTC carrying under the authority of his LTC or his commission? He should not be intoxicated either, but I doubt anyone would try to apply that law to him.
Re: Well... there goes Constitutional Carry
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2018 7:41 am
The Annoyed Man wrote: Fri Nov 30, 2018 12:06 am
What about if you’re intoxicated, and carrying under authority of the MPA?
Re: Well... there goes Constitutional Carry
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2018 12:55 pm
Good riddance to Straus and hopefully the Republicans choose a conservative speaker this time instead of rubber stamping the Democrats' choice.Charles L. Cotton wrote: Fri Nov 09, 2018 1:59 pmSome of our more important bills didn't get a committee vote or floor debate because of two people: Speaker Straus or Lt. Gov. Patrick. Majorities are certainly important, but never underestimate the impact that the Speaker and Lt. Gov. have on legislation. Anything they truly support passes in their chamber; anything they oppose dies.
Re: Well... there goes Constitutional Carry
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2018 2:14 pm
srothstein wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:52 pmMinor technical correction, but location does make a difference. Note that 46.035(d) only makes carrying while intoxicated illegal if you are a license holder carrying under the authority of the license. You are only carrying under the authority of your license if it would be illegal to carry otherwise. Since it is not illegal to carry on your own premises or premises under your control, 46.035 dos not apply to you in those locations.C-dub wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:53 amBoth parts of this are wrong. It is illegal to be intoxicated while carrying, but not simply drinking an alcoholic beverage. Location is irrelevant. Intoxicated is still intoxicated. The probability of being caught are much lower unless your next statement comes into play.TexanVeteran wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 7:43 pm It is actually already illegal to carry while you're drinking (unless you're on your own property, obviously).
If you're going to a restaurant that happens to serve alcohol, you're probably not going to get drunk. One or two glasses of beer or wine is not gonna hurt anything.
It could get even trickier if you happen to have multiple ways to carry. For example, is a police officer who has an LTC carrying under the authority of his LTC or his commission? He should not be intoxicated either, but I doubt anyone would try to apply that law to him.
That's seems odd. So many possibilities there I'm surprised there isn't a general prohibition on this to be able to add that on in the case of a shooting that was not justified. Although, I'm a little glad there isn't. I'm sure that would/could get even more folks into trouble without ever having actually done anything wrong. Especially in their own home.Now that makes me even more curious regarding Amber Guyger's BAC. Could she even be charged with carrying while intoxicated if she were? Or any other off-duty LEO for that matter that does not have an LTC or equivalent?
Re: Well... there goes Constitutional Carry
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2018 2:29 pm
Driving or stationary?The Annoyed Man wrote: Fri Nov 30, 2018 12:06 amWhat about if you’re intoxicated, and carrying under authority of the MPA?srothstein wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:52 pmMinor technical correction, but location does make a difference. Note that 46.035(d) only makes carrying while intoxicated illegal if you are a license holder carrying under the authority of the license. You are only carrying under the authority of your license if it would be illegal to carry otherwise. Since it is not illegal to carry on your own premises or premises under your control, 46.035 dos not apply to you in those locations.C-dub wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:53 amBoth parts of this are wrong. It is illegal to be intoxicated while carrying, but not simply drinking an alcoholic beverage. Location is irrelevant. Intoxicated is still intoxicated. The probability of being caught are much lower unless your next statement comes into play.TexanVeteran wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 7:43 pm It is actually already illegal to carry while you're drinking (unless you're on your own property, obviously).
If you're going to a restaurant that happens to serve alcohol, you're probably not going to get drunk. One or two glasses of beer or wine is not gonna hurt anything.
It could get even trickier if you happen to have multiple ways to carry. For example, is a police officer who has an LTC carrying under the authority of his LTC or his commission? He should not be intoxicated either, but I doubt anyone would try to apply that law to him.
Re: Well... there goes Constitutional Carry
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2018 3:49 pm
As driver or passenger in own car?The Annoyed Man wrote: Fri Nov 30, 2018 12:06 amWhat about if you’re intoxicated, and carrying under authority of the MPA?srothstein wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:52 pmMinor technical correction, but location does make a difference. Note that 46.035(d) only makes carrying while intoxicated illegal if you are a license holder carrying under the authority of the license. You are only carrying under the authority of your license if it would be illegal to carry otherwise. Since it is not illegal to carry on your own premises or premises under your control, 46.035 dos not apply to you in those locations.C-dub wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:53 amBoth parts of this are wrong. It is illegal to be intoxicated while carrying, but not simply drinking an alcoholic beverage. Location is irrelevant. Intoxicated is still intoxicated. The probability of being caught are much lower unless your next statement comes into play.TexanVeteran wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 7:43 pm It is actually already illegal to carry while you're drinking (unless you're on your own property, obviously).
If you're going to a restaurant that happens to serve alcohol, you're probably not going to get drunk. One or two glasses of beer or wine is not gonna hurt anything.
It could get even trickier if you happen to have multiple ways to carry. For example, is a police officer who has an LTC carrying under the authority of his LTC or his commission? He should not be intoxicated either, but I doubt anyone would try to apply that law to him.
Re: Well... there goes Constitutional Carry
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 4:20 pm
I would have given him a grade based on results. Why? Because results are more important than a survey.Charles L. Cotton wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 7:21 pmWhat grade would you have given him and why? What did he do to get pro-gun bills passed?bigtek wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:08 pm03Lightningrocks wrote: Mon Nov 26, 2018 6:43 pm I always find it perplexing to read posts from those claiming to be pro gun who mention laws that are anti gun they like.
It's almost as perplexing as an organization claiming to be pro gun giving Straus an A grade.
Chas.
I have it on good authority many important pro-gun House bills didn't get a floor debate because of Speaker Straus. His grade should have reflected that reality. When it comes to pro gun organizations whose past grades didn't reflect true performance, we would be fools to trust future grades unless and until the system is fixed.