TexasCHLforum.com

.....is the headline I want to see here in Texas.

Instead our friends in the far east (and a bit north) are saying it.


http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2011 ... ar-1237278" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Virginia's bars and restaurants did not turn into shooting galleries as some had feared during the first year of a new state law that allows patrons with permits to carry concealed guns into alcohol-serving businesses, a Richmond Times-Dispatch analysis found.

"Keep in mind," Van Cleave added, "what the other side was saying — that this was going to be a blood bath, that restaurants will be dangerous and people will stop going. But there was nothing to base the fear-mongering on."

I understand the idea behind 51% signs, and realize why it was needed at the time the law was enacted, but it is time for it to go.

Many times I to go out with clients who are unaware I am carrying. We usually stroll through downtown or the stockyards, and they typically want to go into at least one place that bears the 51% sign. I have only had to use it once, but I just simply say "I have to run to the car to grab some antacid, man that meal was spicy!"

Just like 30.06, these signs serve no purpose other than insuring that only the bad guys will be armed.


Edited to add: When you go to the link it shows 8/14/2012, they story itself shows 8/14/2011. My apologies for posting dated info...but my sentiments are still the same.

I agree, but have one addition: If we're going to take down the 51% signs, we should also clarify in the law what carrying while intoxicated is more clearly. Is it like driving, than anything under .08% is okay? Or is it like a minor, where any booze at all is enough to get you in trouble?


I'd prefer to see it clarified at .08% so if I wanted a glass of wine or a beer with dinner I could still carry with no issues.

But either way, I'd like some clarification on that point.

74novaman wrote:I agree, but have one addition: If we're going to take down the 51% signs, we should also clarify in the law what carrying while intoxicated is more clearly. Is it like driving, than anything under .08% is okay? Or is it like a minor, where any booze at all is enough to get you in trouble?


I'd prefer to see it clarified at .08% so if I wanted a glass of wine or a beer with dinner I could still carry with no issues.

But either way, I'd like some clarification on that point.

Wish list:

51% removed

Intoxicated changed to be defined as .08 BAC (with regards to alcohol, as opposed to pills, etc)

30.06 removed, at the same time write the law in such a way that if caught you can only be asked to leave, and then charge with simple trespass if your do not.

Campus Carry

and the final wish shall not be spoken off as to not start a conversation.



....can someone hijack there own thread?

74novaman wrote:I agree, but have one addition: If we're going to take down the 51% signs, we should also clarify in the law what carrying while intoxicated is more clearly. Is it like driving, than anything under .08% is okay? Or is it like a minor, where any booze at all is enough to get you in trouble?


I'd prefer to see it clarified at .08% so if I wanted a glass of wine or a beer with dinner I could still carry with no issues.

But either way, I'd like some clarification on that point.

I agree with the 51% sign portion...

However, I disagree with the .08% part. You would have serious problems if you had to use your firearm after having a drink. Prosecutors would have a field day if they knew that you had any alcohol in your system when you let the lead fly.

GunNewb wrote:

74novaman wrote:I agree, but have one addition: If we're going to take down the 51% signs, we should also clarify in the law what carrying while intoxicated is more clearly. Is it like driving, than anything under .08% is okay? Or is it like a minor, where any booze at all is enough to get you in trouble?


I'd prefer to see it clarified at .08% so if I wanted a glass of wine or a beer with dinner I could still carry with no issues.

But either way, I'd like some clarification on that point.

I agree with the 51% sign portion...

However, I disagree with the .08% part. You would have serious problems if you had to use your firearm after having a drink. Prosecutors would have a field day if they knew that you had any alcohol in your system when you let the lead fly.

I wonder how those same Prosecutors (who carry) would respond to the topic? I guess they don't drink when out with Clients/Friends?

GunNewb wrote:

74novaman wrote:I agree, but have one addition: If we're going to take down the 51% signs, we should also clarify in the law what carrying while intoxicated is more clearly. Is it like driving, than anything under .08% is okay? Or is it like a minor, where any booze at all is enough to get you in trouble?


I'd prefer to see it clarified at .08% so if I wanted a glass of wine or a beer with dinner I could still carry with no issues.

But either way, I'd like some clarification on that point.

I agree with the 51% sign portion...

However, I disagree with the .08% part. You would have serious problems if you had to use your firearm after having a drink. Prosecutors would have a field day if they knew that you had any alcohol in your system when you let the lead fly.

If the legal limit was .08%....I think you'll be okay.

Edit: To clarify: A good shoot isn't going to get to a jury trial for a prosecutor to drag you over any coals anyway.

I really don't think it would be an issue.

GunNewb wrote:However, I disagree with the .08% part. You would have serious problems if you had to use your firearm after having a drink. Prosecutors would have a field day if they knew that you had any alcohol in your system when you let the lead fly.

So you'd prefer to leave it up to the judgement of the police officer as to whether you were too "impaired" to carry? Frankly, that's just bad law. Laws should be clear cut, not unambiguous.

Also, it is far, far more dangerous to drive while legally intoxicated (.08%) than to carry after a beer or glass of wine with dinner (most likely well under .08%).

RottenApple wrote:

GunNewb wrote:However, I disagree with the .08% part. You would have serious problems if you had to use your firearm after having a drink. Prosecutors would have a field day if they knew that you had any alcohol in your system when you let the lead fly.

So you'd prefer to leave it up to the judgement of the police officer as to whether you were too "impaired" to carry? Frankly, that's just bad law. Laws should be clear cut, not unambiguous.

Also, it is far, far more dangerous to drive while legally intoxicated (.08%) than to carry after a beer or glass of wine with dinner (most likely well under .08%).

110%

The law needs to be clarified. I'd prefer .08% but would be okay with .00 as long as it was settled.

If the state thinks I can operate a 3000 lbs weapon at 70mph after a beer and its no problem, I don't think carrying a gun should be an issue either.

74novaman wrote:

RottenApple wrote:

GunNewb wrote:However, I disagree with the .08% part. You would have serious problems if you had to use your firearm after having a drink. Prosecutors would have a field day if they knew that you had any alcohol in your system when you let the lead fly.

So you'd prefer to leave it up to the judgement of the police officer as to whether you were too "impaired" to carry? Frankly, that's just bad law. Laws should be clear cut, not unambiguous.

Also, it is far, far more dangerous to drive while legally intoxicated (.08%) than to carry after a beer or glass of wine with dinner (most likely well under .08%).

110%

The law needs to be clarified. I'd prefer .08% but would be okay with .00 as long as it was settled.

If the state thinks I can operate a 3000 lbs weapon at 70mph after a beer and its no problem, I don't think carrying a gun should be an issue either.

Actually, there is NO difference in driving or carrying. Both are the exact same rules, impaired or .08%.

And, you can already carry into alcohol-serving establishments, just not bars.

steveincowtown wrote: Wish list:

51% removed

Intoxicated changed to be defined as .08 BAC (with regards to alcohol, as opposed to pills, etc)

30.06 removed, at the same time write the law in such a way that if caught you can only be asked to leave, and then charge with simple trespass if your do not.

Campus Carry

and the final wish shall not be spoken off as to not start a conversation.

....can someone hijack there own thread?

Please add to this list: Repeal the Kleinschmidt bill (or did that not pass?).

Keith B wrote:
Actually, there is NO difference in driving or carrying. Both are the exact same rules, impaired or .08%.

[/quote]

This has been discussed in previous "drinking and carrying" threads, but the officer discretion to determine impairment bothers me a little bit. I will freely admit that I have carried to a restaurant, had a beer and gone home with no problems whatsoever.

I understand why they like giving officers some discretion in determining impairment but at the same time running into a cop who's opinion is that you shouldn't carry if a drop has passed your lips does concern me some.

Of course, all my tags are current, my lights work and I don't drive like an idiot so it will probably never been an issue (especially considering how rare it is for me to order a drink while I'm out...the upcharge for booze at restaurants is insane!) but still.

Maybe I'm worrying about nothing, I don't know.

Similar results in Ohio.

This is from the Clevelan Plain Dealer (notoriously anti-gun): Patrons carrying guns in Ohio bars: Whatever happened to ...?

Before Ohio changed their law last year, the antis trotted out the same old "blood running in the streets" rhetoric.

All we've heard since then has been the sound of crickets instead of gunfire. A complete non-event.

BTW, I'll also note the law also allows Ohioans to carry in sports stadiums. Haven't seen any CHL-involved shootings at any Indians, Reds, Browns, or Bengals games either.

There is no doubt in my mind that we can be similarly trusted to have our handguns in bars and sports stadiums here in Texas.

The no carrying in professional sports prohibition bothers me not because I think I might need it at the game (though you never know) but not having it while walking back to the car after an Astros night game is not exactly my idea of a good time.

74novaman wrote:

Keith B wrote:
Actually, there is NO difference in driving or carrying. Both are the exact same rules, impaired or .08%.

This has been discussed in previous "drinking and carrying" threads, but the officer discretion to determine impairment bothers me a little bit. I will freely admit that I have carried to a restaurant, had a beer and gone home with no problems whatsoever.

But Keith is absolutely correct. You earlier said that the law allows you to drive with up to a .08 BAC, and that's wrong.

The pertinent section of the Texas Penal Code is PC §49; the definition of "intoxicated" is in PC §49.01(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.

If you check the Texas Government Code GC §411.171, you'll see that item 6 points to the same definition of "intoxicated" as used for any other purposes, be they charges of public intoxication, DUI, or anything else. If you need further clarification of what is and isn't considered a "drug," see the Health and Safety Code, Title 6, Subtitle C.

And in that last bit is the rub regarding the text. "Intoxicated" is not limited to alcohol. There's a big range of ingested or injected influencers that can cause impairment of mental or physical faculties.

If I were a legislator, I don't know how I would word PC §49.01(2) any differently. It sets an absolute alcohol limit at .08 BAC: if you are .08 BAC you are absolutely intoxicated.

But how do you legislate for the guy who chews a couple of Qualudes, snorts "bath salts," and gets behind the wheel to head down I-35 at 80 mph? His BAC is zero, but he's flying higher than an entire Japanese kite festival.

Or the guy who does a few lines of coke, and maybe a little crystal, but has just one beer before starting up his Escalade to cruise the "strip"? He'd have a tiny BAC percentage, but his pupils are as big as the custom rims on his Caddy and his resting heart rate is 130.

How could we otherwise word the law to allow LEOs to take those guys off the road? Or be able to charge them with illegal carry?