TexasCHLforum.com

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?

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"

BritOnTour wrote:I edited my post slightly before I saw your reply.

My instructor held up his hand and formed a big "0" while making his statement. When it was questioned, he repeatedly said no legal limit, meaning zero alcohol.

BritOnTour wrote:I just completed my course this Saturday and the instructor was very clear, repeating it many times that "There is no legal limit for alcohol while carrying".

Also, one of the test questions repeated this statement.

He did add afterwards, that if you intended to have a drink, then you had better make sure your firearm is out of reach from the drivers seat of your car. It didn't matter if it was loaded or not, it just had to be out of reach and out of sight.

I don't want to be a test case either, but I really wish this was clearly defined and not left open for interpretation.

speedsix wrote:...of course you'd need a lawyer, you couldn't spend all that money by yourself!!!

C-dub wrote:

wgoforth wrote:

recaffeination wrote:

Maxwell wrote:Fair enough on the clarifications but I certainly do not want to be a test case on any BAC with regard to my CHL.

I don't want to be a test case that:
Churches are not off limits unless they post a sign.
Gun shows on government property are not of limits.
The wind blowing up my shirt tails is not intentional failure to conceal.
A generic no guns sign is not 30.06 notice.
The parking lot bill means anything.
Etc.

However, concealed is concealed, so I'm not worried.

Really? I'd love to be a test case on the church aspect, as that one is spelled out so clearly, I'd like to receive a lawsuit payout...

Good afternoon W. I'm not sure what you're asking about here. He clearly and correctly states that churches are not off limits unless they post a sign and by that I hope he means a proper 30.06 sign.

He's also correct about gun shows on government property, but as we all know they are all posted and have LEOs onsite checking. Some even have metal detectors. I don't want to nor can I afford to be a test case for one of those. They say it's because they've had too many problems with ND's by CHLs and others. I don't think that is a valid exception to the law.

recaffeination wrote:

Maxwell wrote:Fair enough on the clarifications but I certainly do not want to be a test case on any BAC with regard to my CHL.

I don't want to be a test case that:
Churches are not off limits unless they post a sign.
Gun shows on government property are not of limits.
The wind blowing up my shirt tails is not intentional failure to conceal.
A generic no guns sign is not 30.06 notice.
The parking lot bill means anything.
Etc.

However, concealed is concealed, so I'm not worried.

speedsix wrote:...there's a lot of brag and bluff and bluster out there...that can only be settled when it happens...by punitive action by a dept. or by civil suit settlement...but we "hear"(and read) a lot more of the blustering than we see being carried out on the street...a lot of these kind are just talk...
...I'm not nearly so interested in cramming it down the throat of a guy like this...as telling him to do what he needs to do, then I'll do what I need to do...he probably just doesn't know how to say "I'm sorry, I was wrong..."

sjfcontrol wrote:

wgoforth wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

wgoforth wrote: Like any other branch of LEO, some are, some aren't. The fellow that is over the local DPS office in our county told me in no uncertain terms that he would arrest anyone going past ANY no gun sign. I was shocked and asked "Even if it is not a 30.06 sign??" He said "Even if." So, not always about not wanting us to get in trouble, but sometimes is their own ignorance.

Think you could get him to say that in writing?

Hmmm.... could be interesting. I was just chatting him up about signage, and he got downright hateful. He said "Don't you dare carry past a no gun sign." I said I was talking about generic, not the 30.06. He said "I don't care. Don't you dare carry past any 30.06 sign. I'd arrest anyone who did." I tried to use our mall as an illustration, which used to have numerous no gun signs. He said "Well they used to have one of those kinds of signs up there somewhere, so don't you dare." I just thanked him and left it alone. He was in no mindset to discuss it.

Did you misstate that? Or did he say not to carry past "no gun" and "30.06" signs in two different statements?

At any rate. I'd be tempted to get him to "clarify" his position in writing (make the request in writing). If he responds in writing not to carry past any "no guns" sign, I'd think DPS and/or Mr. Cotton might be interested. Just a suggestion.

sjfcontrol wrote:

wgoforth wrote: Like any other branch of LEO, some are, some aren't. The fellow that is over the local DPS office in our county told me in no uncertain terms that he would arrest anyone going past ANY no gun sign. I was shocked and asked "Even if it is not a 30.06 sign??" He said "Even if." So, not always about not wanting us to get in trouble, but sometimes is their own ignorance.

Think you could get him to say that in writing?

TexasGal wrote:The DPS is pro CHL.
They are not trying to ignore the law. They are teaching instructors to caution students to consider carefully when they carry past signs and when they choose to have any alcohol. They are doing this for one reason ONLY. They want us and the CHL program to stay out of trouble. They don't want people to be arrested (which will most likely remain on your record). They don't want them to have to pay lots of money to lawyers, and they especially don't want CHL's on the evening news. This is unfortunately because some cities and areas of Texas are anti-chl. Some are not. The media overwhelmingly is.

We were told to be aware of which way sentiment is running in our cities so we can help our students make smart choices when carrying. As for the alcohol, the law does seem to allow a minor consumption that would be imperceptible to an officer conducting a sobriety test. But, the problem pointed out by the DPS during the instructor training was if you find yourself in a shooting, you will be tested for alcohol. The other side's lawyers will have a field day if you test positive for any amount. It can be argued that you were impaired and that you have a disregard for the gravity of carrying a gun. I fail to see why this is viewed by so many as some plot by the DPS to do away with our rights. It was obvious at the Instructor's conference in Houston some weeks back, that the DPS is excited about plans to get the laws loosened in some areas in the coming legislative session and tightened in others to our benefit. For instance, they hope to get the law on the 30.06 sign clarified to add a penalty when it is posted improperly. Does that sound like they don't care? They simply don't want bad press to be used against our interests in Austin or for any of us to get into trouble we could have avoided.

C-dub wrote:

wgoforth wrote: Always hate it when things are left open to individual interpretation and discretion. Get in trouble with one and another tells you it's fine. Let us know what you hear! Keep in mind, some was not just what was said in class, but the questions that came up during break which of course will vary.

There's a lot of irony in there. Sometimes we don't like it when a judge or whoever doesn't have any room for discretion because of the law and sometimes, in cases like this, we don't like it because there is. Funny isn't it?

Keith B wrote:

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.

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.

Keith B wrote:

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.