TexasCHLforum.com

I will start off by saying I searched several websites but am a bit confused at this point.

I currently have my CHL but it is fairly new to me. This passed weekend I was picked up for Public Intoxication and charged. I pled no contest as at that time with out research I figured a simple class C like this would not harm my CHL or renewal. Now I am reading different stories about different cases and I am starting to get concerned. I have never been arrested before, just got caught in the wrong place at the wrong time after drinking and about to get a ride home.

Can someone cite something or give solid evidence that shows a PI class C does not harm your CHL? I have seen that disorderly conduct does but that is not what I was charged with. Also will the fact that I pled no contest be a problem with renewal? Thanks for the input and time guys, I am sure it comes up often but I am concerned that this once and only mistake will affect more than just the pocket book

No, I was not carrying. My firearm was left in my vehicle, when the officer called a truck to impound it I informed him there was a firearm and they put it into holding for safety purposes (it was never filed as evidence)

You can read the CHL 16 if you want the facts.

If you want opinions, mine is that the ship has sailed if you already plead out. What will be will be.

victory wrote:You can read the CHL 16 if you want the facts.

If you want opinions, mine is that the ship has sailed if you already plead out. What will be will be.

Now that's some response.

You don't need to read all, or even any of CHL 16, to find this one discrete answer. A primary reason the Forum exists is to be a resource for people with questions, not a card catalog telling people where else to start looking.

A Class C Misdemeanor is not disqualifying, unless it's under Chp. 42 "Disorderly Conduct" or involving domestic violence. Public intoxication is is TPC §49.02, not Chp. 42, so you will be fine as long as there are no other charges.

Chas.

Tex. Penal Code §49.02(a)&(c) wrote:Sec. 49.02. PUBLIC INTOXICATION. (a) A person commits an offense if the person appears in a public place while intoxicated to the degree that the person may endanger the person or another.

(a-1) For the purposes of this section, a premises licensed or permitted under the Alcoholic Beverage Code is a public place.

(b) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the alcohol or other substance was administered for therapeutic purposes and as a part of the person's professional medical treatment by a licensed physician.

(c) Except as provided by Subsection (e), an offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

(d) An offense under this section is not a lesser included offense under Section 49.04.

(e) An offense under this section committed by a person younger than 21 years of age is punishable in the same manner as if the minor committed an offense to which Section 106.071, Alcoholic Beverage Code, applies.

The CHL 16 document contains the text of GC §411.186 and 187. Those are the facts.

victory wrote:The CHL 16 document contains the text of GC §411.186 and 187. Those are the facts.

But it is not that clear. New members come here looking for assistance and clarification. If you can't provide that then don't comment.

victory wrote:The CHL 16 document contains the text of GC §411.186 and 187. Those are the facts.

You schooling Charles on the law makes me .

But it is not that clear.

this is exactly why I wanted to ask, so that people with more experience than I understanding these documents could cite and clarify. With that being said thanks to those who had something to CONTRIBUTE.

I have learned a lesson, even though it was all in trying to keep a friend out of trouble. Trolling this forum for some time now and reading great thoughts and advice is what gave me the confidence to create an account and post. Hopefully the future posts/threads will not involve bone head items.

Welcome to the forum txturbo10. If anyone knows the correct answer, it's Mr. Cotton.

txglock21 wrote:Welcome to the forum txturbo10. If anyone knows the correct answer, it's Mr. Cotton.

Agreed welcome and the statement about "the only Justice west [abbreviated profanity deleted] the Pecos" Cotton is correct.

Also maybe it would be wise to consider this arrest to be the big G's way of saying "straighten up and fly right sonny!"

I read this forum daily, but I don't post a lot. Both the site admin and the moderators define the rules and make corrections where needed. As I understand it we are to treat each other with respect and if responding to a question always provide documentation to substantiate your position. Now to the question of the class c arrest and whether or not there would be any repercussions was asked.
Now I agree "Victory's" response was to say the "least" correct. He could have gone farther in many areas, but I did manage to find CHL-16 on the DPS website, put it on my iPad and read the section outlined in the response.
Now here is where things get confusing:
A moderator, Charles, responds telling readers of this thread not to read CHL-16 at all for this, quotes the penal code for P.I. and simply proclaims it is not a problem as long as there are no other charges.
Now I read the related sections on CHL-16 and they are indeed correct and answer the question or questions. It is dry, but I got it.
Is CHL-16 obsolete or irrelevant for me as CHL holder? Should I look somewhere else for rules? (CHL)

rogersinsel wrote:I read this forum daily, but I don't post a lot. Both the site admin and the moderators define the rules and make corrections where needed. As I understand it we are to treat each other with respect and if responding to a question always provide documentation to substantiate your position. Now to the question of the class c arrest and whether or not there would be any repercussions was asked.
Now I agree "Victory's" response was to say the "least" correct. He could have gone farther in many areas, but I did manage to find CHL-16 on the DPS website, put it on my iPad and read the section outlined in the response.
Now here is where things get confusing:
A moderator, Charles, responds telling readers of this thread not to read CHL-16 at all for this, quotes the penal code for P.I. and simply proclaims it is not a problem as long as there are no other charges.
Now I read the related sections on CHL-16 and they are indeed correct and answer the question or questions. It is dry, but I got it.
Is CHL-16 obsolete or irrelevant for me as CHL holder? Should I look somewhere else for rules? (CHL)

Nope, the CHL 16 is still the standard. However, just telling someone to go look it up is not the way to respond to a request. Linking to a document and pointing out the relevant section would be appropriate. I personally despised those teachers who when you asked a question would tell you 'It's in the book'. Well, duh, I am sure it is teach, but I either can't find it or don't understand what it is telling me, hence the question.

rogersinsel wrote:I read this forum daily, but I don't post a lot. Both the site admin and the moderators define the rules and make corrections where needed. As I understand it we are to treat each other with respect and if responding to a question always provide documentation to substantiate your position. Now to the question of the class c arrest and whether or not there would be any repercussions was asked.
Now I agree "Victory's" response was to say the "least" correct. He could have gone farther in many areas, but I did manage to find CHL-16 on the DPS website, put it on my iPad and read the section outlined in the response.
Now here is where things get confusing:
A moderator, Charles, responds telling readers of this thread not to read CHL-16 at all for this, quotes the penal code for P.I. and simply proclaims it is not a problem as long as there are no other charges.
Now I read the related sections on CHL-16 and they are indeed correct and answer the question or questions. It is dry, but I got it.
Is CHL-16 obsolete or irrelevant for me as CHL holder? Should I look somewhere else for rules? (CHL)

As Keith noted, the CHL-16 is fine. The problem with the response at issue is that it didn't provide an answer to the OP's question. Referring someone to a source that may or may not answer the question is not how we work. We are a resource, not an index. Victory has been a member for only 5 days and he may not know our customs, but I wanted to make sure another new Member knows that it's fine to ask questions and expect to get answer from people who are knowledgeable on the subject matter.

We also frown on telling people to use the "search" feature because it's been answered before. The Forum is a great resource because people can get answers.

Chas.

rogersinsel wrote:As I understand it . . . if responding to a question always provide documentation to substantiate your position.

We do not expect Members to provide links to documentation when answering a question. I do so when I have time, as to other Members, but it's not a requirement. It is never sufficient to merely link to another source and tell someone to find the answer themselves. In this particular thread, the CHL-16 does not include TPC §49.02(a) on "public intoxication" so even if the OP read all 74 pages of CHL-16, he wouldn't have a complete answer. Yes he would know that the general rule is that a Class C is not disqualifying, but there are exceptions (Chp. 42 - disorderly conduct; family violence). Since the CHL-16 doesn't include the particular Code section under which he was convicted, he could have read 74 pages of irrelevant information and not have an answer.

Chas.