TexasCHLforum.com

kauboy wrote:I just remembered that my folks did this for me for an early Christmas present so I could go hunting. I wasn't old enough to buy it, so they did. Was that legal?

A minor can't technically own a firearm, at least in Texas. They just lent it to you permanently.

However, there are states where it is illegal for a minor to have a weapon outside of the parents' direct supervision.

- Jim

I agree with Kevin. Some examples:

It is illegal (federal law) to have a firearm other than unloaded and locked in a case withing 1,000 feet of a school, except under authority of a CHL. Millions of people break that law when they go to the range, go hunting, or other activities that are otherwise legal. The law is almost never prosecuted, but there it is.

What's a school, anyway? Is a church a school if Sunday school is held there once a week?

Straw purchases are illegal, but you can give a firearm as a gift or sell to an individual without verifying that the recipient is legally permitted to possess it. Where is the line drawn? (Ask Mayor Bloomberg of New York.)

- Jim

Odin wrote:But the "Intoxicated while CHL" charge isn't a Class C like a basic PI is, it's enhanced if you're CHL when you get the PI.

Right. It's a class A if not otherwise enhanced by being in a 51% establishment, etc., PC §46.035(g).

- Jim

txinvestigator wrote:Having a BAC under .08% is not a walk and not a pass in the sense that you state. A person CAN be convicted of DWI with a BAC below .08%. The state simply needs to show that the person met the other definition.

I know that and should have stated it more clearly.

In the scenario that is being tossed around, someone who had one beer and smells like beer is going to have a BAC well below 0.08 and isn't going to show signs of being drunk such as staggering or slurred speech. I just can't see that being prosecuted successfully.

- Jim

FWIW, it's standard operating procedure to arrest drunks (people who are drunk beyond a shadow of a doubt) and release them the next day if they haven't done anything else wrong. It's a public-safety measure.

There aren't enough prosecutors, courtooms, or jail cells to prosecute every misdemeanor, not by a long shot. Only about 3% of arrests lead to trials.

As you say, if the police want to mess with you and are willing to break the law to do it, they have many ways to make life really miserable.

- Jim

Odin wrote:True, but if the officer doesn't intend on arresting you for DWI, only for carrying under CHL while intoxicated, the officer is not obliged to offer you the chance to take a BAC test.

As I said, it's possible.

But I doubt that an officer has the discretion to stop you for suspected drunk driving, then fail to arrest you when he determines that you are drunk.

That kind of thing used to happen all the time (20 or so years ago). Then the drunk would cause a disaster and the police would be blamed for not stopping him earlier.

Getting hit with drunk driving is way worse than a class C misdemeanor that will probably be dismissed after the judge lectures you. You can lose your driver license, lose other professional licenses, get fired, and even lose custody of your children if you're divorced. If a LEO wants to put the heat on you, that's a way to do it.

Odin wrote:... I just have a problem with laws not being as clear, concise, and universally applied as possible.

You and me both. A citizen of ordinary intelligence and education should be able to read the plain text of the law and know what is illegal, or not. It aint' that way, hasn't been for over 100 years.

- Jim

Odin wrote:I believe that staggering or slurred speech would be reasonable suspicion, not probable cause. Reasonable suspicion would allow the officer to investigate further.

You're right, of course.

Odin wrote:I do worry that some people who are not intoxicated (but have had a drink or two) could possibly encounter a police officer who is unfriendly towards CHL holders and decides to make an arrest based on something other than the intent of the law. A person could have one beer and be stopped for a traffic offense and the officer smells the beer.

It is a potential problem.

If the person is driving, they can take a breath test and pass (BAC under 0.08). I can't see the DA's office trying to press an intoxication charge when DWI wouldn't stick and the person was not otherwise doing something illegal.

I can't see too many realistic scenarios where someone who is not driving would be stopped and searched by police. They need reasonable suspicion to stop you if you're walking in a public place.

All crimes that have subjective standards, like disorderly conduct, are open to interpretation and potential abuse by police. There was a minor uproar several years ago when someone went to the Santa Fe, Texas, police station and asked about the procedure for filing a complaint against an officer. (He did not actually file a complaint.) The minute he left the station, he was arrested for jaywalking.

BTW, I avoid drinking beer for just this reason: After one sip you smell like beer. If you happen to spill some on your clothing...

- Jim

HankB wrote:So first, WHY would anyone who's NOT driving consent to a field sobriety or other test, ...

It is illegal to be intoxicated in public, whether in a bar or walking down the street. If a LEO has probable cause to believe someone is intoxicated (because of staggering, slurred speech, etc.), he can investigate further.

Failing to cooperate will result in an arrest for something, probably 99% of the time.

- Jim