TexasCHLforum.com

wgoforth wrote:
BritOnTour wrote:
wgoforth wrote:
Crossfire wrote:
wgoforth wrote:Now here IS a good philosophy, and it is that, a philosophy. You are out with wife and have wine with dinner. On the way back to car you have to defend yourself from a mugger. Once the media and prosecutor find out, are they going to say "The shooter had been drinking?" Difference between good idea and law.
Of course they are. That's why you should give the gun to your wife, and say, "Here, honey, I've had a drink. YOU take care of this"
ROFL.... of course I am a tea totaler, but I realize a goodly percent in my class isn't. I'll be sure and quote you on this next class
First, I would have to persuade my wife that she should get her CHL. I'm working on it, but she is still a little freaked about me having a loaded gun in the house with two young children. I've told her that it will be either locked in my bedside safe or in my holster and I will never leave it lying around.

Secondly, the only way I could get my wife not to have a drink with dinner would be by getting her pregnant again! I don't think that is going to happen any time soon either.

So, it's down to me for family protection, and I would like to feel that I could have a drink with dinner like I always have done before, without having to leave my firearm in the back of the car.

If I took my instructors words as he strongly implied them, if I have a drink, i should not consider going near my firearm until I have completely sobered up!

What if i am at home? Is there still no legal limit for alcohol? Am I not allowed to use my firearm for protection of my family or home if I relax and have a beer in the evening?

Can someone explain to me how I could be tested for a BAC of 0.00? I know the breathalyzer test isn't accurate enough, so would it have to be a blood test? Can it reliably test down to zero?
The question really boils down to ~could~ you get in trouble for carrying while drinking? Yes. Could it hurt your credibility if you were intoxicated and shot a burglar at your home? Yes. It would give them fodder to be able to argue that it was unnecessary to shoot the intruder as he was unarmed, was just at wrong house, etc. Doesn't mean you WILL get in trouble with law, but opens you up to more possibilities of civil litigation. In order to get around the immunity afforded you in Castle Law, they have to be able to say you didn't follow everything properly.

Will you get in trouble? Probably not. COULD you be in trouble? Yes. Sorry, no one has that crystal ball thing perfected yet.

This scenario of having a drink all boils down to perception of the officer you deal with on a carrying while intoxicated charge, or any subsequent investigation/investigators and prosecutors you may have to deal with after a self defense shooting. If you have alcohol or any type of drugs (legal or not) in your system, it's just one more thing that could possibly be used as an argument that you were impaired and unable to make a sound decision on whether you needed to shoot someone or not. Same goes for remarks made on 911 calls, responses to officers, etc. They all can weigh negatively on whether or not you were involved in a justifiable self defense shooting.

wgoforth wrote:
tacticool wrote:
Maxwell wrote:In other words, and with regard to CHL, the only option is ZERO alcohol if carrying, NOT the Legal driving limit!
Did they also teach you that any sign is good enough for 30.06 notice and that churches are off limits with or without a sign? That seems to be the holy trinity for a certain type of instructor.
As I have pointed out before... I would hesitate to blame the instructor altogether...that IS what is taught in instructor class by the DPS. And yes, they did also teach that all gun signs should be obeyed. Were they correct? No. But as I tried to talk with many other students in the class during break, most I talked with came away agreeing all no gun signs should be obeyed...including a lawyer in the class which I thought should have been able to read the law better than that.

We were told that the .08 is for driving only and goes out the window when it comes to CHL. We were told one could not have a wine with meal and carry and that ANY discernable amount would have us in trouble. The problem here is, that although it is not what the penal code says, the law enforcement is virtually lockstep on this. I have spoken with LEO's of many varieties on this, and all have been in agreement. Correct? No. Get in trouble for it? yes. All the instructors fault? No. Reapeating what they have been taught by those who should know.

I believe what is taught is that you MAY get in trouble for passing a no guns sign; the beat the rap but not the ride scenario. Also, what I believe is taught is that officers discretion plays into both driving and CHL and that the general consensus is if you are caught carrying with alcohol on your breath that most officers will be more likely to say you are not capable of making a rational decision vs. driving with a little alcohol on your system. Right or wrong on the capabilities, the 'officer discretion' side leave it open to interpretation by the individual officer.

I will know this for sure by next weekend.

Maxwell wrote:Steve,

I was taught that "intoxicated" with relation to CHL fell under the same level as "Public intoxication" so it would be an officer's discretion. In other words, and with regard to CHL, the only option is ZERO alcohol if carrying, NOT the Legal driving limit!

I certainly hope you are not teaching people they can have a couple of beers and still carry...

Intoxicated for driving, boating, flying, public intoxication and CHL is clearly spelled out in TPC 49.01 which says

(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.

For CHL 46.035 refers you to Government Code 411, Subchapter H (411.171) which then references TPC 49.01.

So, for driving, public intox, or CHL it depends totally on the individual's capability to handle the alcohol AND officers discretion. Zero alcohol is not the law.

sugar land dave wrote: For my sake, I would assume that the police chief had apparent authority.

Unless the Chief he was talking about was in a different city.

PvilleStang wrote:The City Council meeting room doubles as our court, EDB / P&Z / public hearing chambers, too. So my other question would be defining a court room. If you hold court once a month in a conference room, is it now permanently deemed a court room and off limits for carry?

This is just my personal take, but I think it depends on what the rooms is designated as. if it is called 'Court Room', but has other meetings in it, then it is a court. If it is called 'The City Council Meeting Room', then it would not be unless they were actually holding Court in the room.

Multi-use areas are at best a really gray subject if they can sometimes be statutorily off-limits.

sugar land dave wrote:If the chief of police informed you that firearms would not be permitted into the government meeting, then you have verbally been given 30.06 notice.

That's is a good point. The only caveat is the Chief must have the authority over that meeting to not allow concealed carry. More than likely he would have, but not sure that would blanket cover everything.

PvilleStang wrote:
Chief of Police for the city I used to work for informed me it was illegal to carry within the meetings.

Here's my thing, you cannot legally notify a CHL holder of 30.06 since it is a null factor in government buildings, correct? Want to be covered before I carry into something of the sort. Don't want to be a test case.

Incorrect. This is the only exception of when a 30.06 is valid on government property is when it is posted at a meeting of a governmental entity. It used to be that way, but when the change was made to add section (i), then they were required to post a 30.06. Could be he is thinking of the old rules and doesn't know about the addition of (i).

Be aware also that if the location is already statutorily off limits then you can't carry (like in a court or the secured area of a police station.)

The other issue is I am not sure if they had a 30.06 sign posted all the time if it would be valid just because they decide to hold a meeting there. And example would be City Hall with a permanent 30.06. Would it suddenly become valid when they had a City Council meeting? I think that they would have to post the 30.06 at the entrance of the meeting and only when the meeting was being held, but don't think there is any case law to back up my theory.

PvilleStang wrote:
Keith B wrote:
PvilleStang wrote:Also, any government functions are off limits, i.e. City Council, Planning and Zoning, school board meetings, EDB, etc.
Only if posted with a 30.06.
Considering government functions tend to take place in State / City / County owned buildings, 30.06 is invalid anyways.

Legally I've been informed you CANNOT carry to things like City Council meetings, EDB, Court Hearings, P&Z, School Board meetings, etc. Check me on it...

Informed legally by who?

Here is the statute. Subsection (c) is overridden in (i) below, just like hospitals, churches, and amusement parks and says they must post a 30.06 sign.

§ 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE
HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.
(b) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, on or about the
license holder's person:
(1) on the premises of a business that has a permit or
license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, Alcoholic
Beverage Code, if the business derives 51 percent or more of its
income from the sale or service of alcoholic beverages for
on-premises consumption, as determined by the Texas Alcoholic
Beverage Commission under Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code;
(2) on the premises where a high school, collegiate,
or professional sporting event or interscholastic event is taking
place, unless the license holder is a participant in the event and a
handgun is used in the event;
(3) on the premises of a correctional facility;
(4) on the premises of a hospital licensed under
Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or on the premises of a nursing
home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, unless the
license holder has written authorization of the hospital or nursing
home administration, as appropriate;
(5) in an amusement park; or
(6) on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other
established place of religious worship.
(c) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, at any meeting of a
governmental entity.
(d) A license holder commits an offense if, while
intoxicated, the license holder carries a handgun under the
authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless
of whether the handgun is concealed.
(e) A license holder who is licensed as a security officer
under Chapter 1702, Occupations Code, and employed as a security
officer commits an offense if, while in the course and scope of the
security officer's employment, the security officer violates a
provision of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code.
(f) In this section:
(1) "Amusement park" means a permanent indoor or
outdoor facility or park where amusement rides are available for
use by the public that is located in a county with a population of
more than one million, encompasses at least 75 acres in surface
area, is enclosed with access only through controlled entries, is
open for operation more than 120 days in each calendar year, and has
security guards on the premises at all times. The term does not
include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or
walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.
(2) "License holder" means a person licensed to carry
a handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code.
(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a
building. The term does not include any public or private driveway,
street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other
parking area.
(g) An offense under Subsection (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e)
is a Class A misdemeanor, unless the offense is committed under
Subsection (b)(1) or (b)(3), in which event the offense is a felony
of the third degree.
(h) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that
the actor, at the time of the commission of the offense, displayed
the handgun under circumstances in which the actor would have been
justified in the use of deadly force under Chapter 9.
(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply
if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.
(j) Subsections (a) and (b)(1) do not apply to a historical
reenactment performed in compliance with the rules of the Texas
Alcoholic Beverage Commission.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 229, § 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, § 10.04, eff. Sept. 1,
1997; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1261, § 26, 27, eff. Sept. 1,
1997; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1420, § 14.833, eff. Sept. 1,
2001; Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 976, § 3, eff. Sept. 1, 2005.

snatchel wrote:
Keith B wrote:The building at 222 W. Harris is owned by the county. Not a legal posting, unless as stated, there is a court or other off-limits office in the building. Might be a good one to ask them about.

Noted. One of the long-time deputies is a fried of mine, and running for elections this year. I let him post a sign in my yard and helped him a little with the campaigning. Looking into this may be a way he could repay me!

The building at 222 W. Harris is owned by the county. Not a legal posting, unless as stated, there is a court or other off-limits office in the building. Might be a good one to ask them about.

snatchel wrote:
Keith B wrote:
Nano wrote:Very good information. How does this apply to a local city Police Department?
The open public area of a police department is OK to carry as long as there is not a court room in there. The secured area of a police station (meaning an area where there might be a holding cell, etc.) would be off limits per the statutes.

Strange... I walked up to my Sheriff office the other day going to drop off some paperwork and saw a 30.06 sign. This was posted on all entrances that I saw... and they were enforceable as far as literature/size/etc.

If they have something in there that is otherwise statutorily off-limits, then the 30.06 would be valid (not needed, but valid). Otherwise, they are posted incorrectly. What county?

PvilleStang wrote:Also, any government functions are off limits, i.e. City Council, Planning and Zoning, school board meetings, EDB, etc.

Only if posted with a 30.06.

Nano wrote:Very good information. How does this apply to a local city Police Department?

The open public area of a police department is OK to carry as long as there is not a court room in there. The secured area of a police station (meaning an area where there might be a holding cell, etc.) would be off limits per the statutes.

Nano wrote:I would like for someone to explain to me what (e) in red below means. It is a bit confusing to me. Thanks

(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: “Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun”; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

This should have been explained in detail in your CHL class. But, to recap for you, it is just what it says. If the building (premise) is owned by a governmental entity (state or local, not federal) then they can't restrict carry with a 30.06 sign unless it is a place already off limits as defined in 46.03 or 46.035.

EDIT TO ADD: 74novaman beat me to it.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 14 matches

Re: CHL-16 clarification for 30.06 sign

Re: CHL-16 clarification for 30.06 sign

Re: CHL-16 clarification for 30.06 sign

Re: CHL-16 clarification for 30.06 sign

Re: CHL-16 clarification for 30.06 sign

Re: CHL-16 clarification for 30.06 sign

Re: CHL-16 clarification for 30.06 sign

Re: CHL-16 clarification for 30.06 sign

Re: CHL-16 clarification for 30.06 sign

Re: CHL-16 clarification for 30.06 sign

Re: CHL-16 clarification for 30.06 sign

Re: CHL-16 clarification for 30.06 sign

Re: CHL-16 clarification for 30.06 sign

Re: CHL-16 clarification for 30.06 sign