TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:53 am

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).

Both 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.
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.

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.

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.

TexanVeteran wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 11:59 pm I agree with the initially quote here, and here's why. If someone will drink and drive, what is to stop them from drinking (getting drunk) and recklessly firing their weapon anywhere? I think the 5 year thing may be a little much, but I do like that they have to wait.

I understand your thinking, and I agree that there are some people I do not think should be carrying. But I also think it is a right and our rights should not be impaired.

Suppose someone else thinks that because you sometimes cannot control yourself and travel at an excessive speed, you should not be allowed to carry because it is a sign you may be impulsive with your weapon? They then say that no one with a speeding ticket can get a license for five years. Would you also support that? How do you draw a line that says what is allowed to interfere with the right?

I prefer to defend our rights as rights that do not need government or anyone else's permission. There is an old saying that the best way to defend my rights is to defend yours. I don't drink and drive, but I don't know what behavior someone else will try to use as an excuse to interfere with my rights, so I try to protect those who do to keep my ability secure. I do not expect to see it soon (or possibly in my lifetime) but I want us to keep working towards repealing Chapter 46, the federal GCA of 1968, and the NFA of 1934, especially the closure of the registry from the FOPA of 1986.

infoman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:57 pm I’m glad we don’t have constitutional carry. I like that LTC holders must pass a background check based on current standards in LTC law book. I’d rather not open the door wide open for any & everyone to freely carry wherever they like. Sorry, but if you get convicted of a DWI, I’m glad you’re not eligible for 5 years. (as an example) You have a title 5 felony def adj, I’m glad you’re disqualified for life. (another example).

Just out of curiosity, could you explain exactly what DWI has to do with carrying a pistol? I have problems with the whole concept of deferred adjudication, but I have an even bigger problem with losing any rights for a crime I was found not guilty of (which is what the end result of deferred adjudication is).

Do yu have any other rights you think you should be licensed before you can exercise?