TexasCHLforum.com

Keith B wrote:OK, this has really gone off topic (and I must admit i contributed to the off-topic portion). Let's get this back to how to improve the CHL program with constructive posts.

I, for one, think the fees should be lower and allow for earlier application on renewal.

oops, sorry Keith. I think I just fanned the flames with about 5 consecutive DWI-related posts before seeing your post.

KD5NRH wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:Drunk driving laws have reduced drunk driving and drunk driving related deaths.

And banning cars would reduce them even further. Banning guns might even reduce gun deaths. Then again, there are some of us who don't like the idea of giving up rights for safety.

But now you're making a huge leap from those of us who're against banning drunken carrying of firearms are saying. I'm not saying ban alcohol or its consumption. I'm not saying ban guns or their use. I'm saying make it illegal to be drunk while possessing a firearm. Period. The fine print of how authorities determine if you're too drunk to carry is more detail than is necessary at this point.

And I do not take lightly giving up liberty for safety. I know the Benjamin Franklin quote by heart and have used it often. But unlike an infringement of my rights that I will resist - like banning all guns all the time - illegalizing CCWI has a discernable cause and effect and narrow focus. To say "it's too dangerous for regular citizens to walk around with guns" is to assume, with no basis, that all citizens are incapable of properly carrying guns." But to say "it's too dangerous for drunk citizens to walk arond with guns" is based on very sound discernable cause and effect evidene and a narrow focus of only removing the RKBA when someone makes the conscious decision to get drunk.

You don't have to drink, folks. If you want to carry, don't drink. If you want to drink, don't carry.

mr.72 wrote:

austinrealtor wrote: There is simply no way you can legitimately compare some supposed "right" to get drunk and do stupid things (like driving and carry a gun) with the well established right to keep and bear arms.

I think the point is being missed altogether but that's because when it comes to drinking, for most of us it becomes an emotional argument that has little to do with logic.

Actually it has everything to do with logic. It's very logical to assume that someone under the influence of mind-altering drugs (of which alcohol is the most widely used in the country) will be less able to perform even basic tasks correctly, and more complicated tasks involving dangerous machinery should be avoided.

mr.72 wrote:People have every right to do stupid things, including getting drunk and doing stupid things, as long as those stupid things don't wind up harming another person.

BUT THE PROBLEM with drunk driving laws and the assault on carrying a gun while drinking is that you are not prosecuting someone for actually harming another person, but you are prosecuting them because you have identified that they are in a state wherein they may potentially harm someone else. But folks, every person on earth may potentially harm someone else. Being drunk doesn't guarantee you are going to hurt somebody.

This is asinine that we prosecute people for their potential crimes. Haven't we seen "Minority Report"?

That argument is the same as saying I can't shoot a bad guy who points a gun at me and says "give me all your money or I'll kill you" because he hasn't actually harmed me yet.

Pre-emption of dangerous activity is not necessarily always akin to the death of liberty and freedom. By pre-empting drunk driving and drunk gun use, you're trading one liberty for another. The drunk loses his freedom, but I gain/retain my right to life.

If stopping a threat before it happens is always negative, then why do we arrest terrorists who are planning attacks? They haven't hurt anyone yet. It's a free country, keep on making your plans to build bombs, hijack airplanes, etc.

marksiwel wrote:SO
What if?

What if you are drunk as a skunk at home, a Bad guy breaks into your house, and attacks you, you manage to grab your gun and shoot him.
The cops show up, and you are still pretty drunk.

What happens then?

Then you have a lot of explaining to do most likely. Not saying it wouldn't all end up as a "good shoot" for you, but you've opened yourself up to a huge pile of potential problems, criminal and civil action, etc. When it's a "he said" vs "dead men don't talk" scenario and the only one talkin is drunk, you gotta know you're in for a very long interrogation, detention, and possibly even arrest until the police can get a DA to decide if charges are warranted. Does same thing happen to sober people? Certainly. But I'm willing to guess you all but guarntee that scenario if you're a drunk shooter.

chabouk wrote:

Keith B wrote:

chabouk wrote:See where I'm going? The argument is the same. Some of those things are illegal in Texas, while others are illegal in other states. Where do you draw the line? I draw it at personal responsibility and accountability for your own actions, instead of punishing or restricting people based on what someone else might do.

I don't see consistency at all. I am stating that carry while intoxicated should be illegal (as it is) and no different than operating a motor vehicle.

The difference is that having a gun is not the same as operating a gun. To be consistent, you should want people charged with DWI for having car keys in their pockets even if there's no evidence they intended to drive.

Another illogical analogy. A drunk with car keys is the same as a drunk with bullets. Without the car/gun, you're not going to do much damage with either.

And I was always taught that as soon as you load a firearm and place it in your hands (or holster), you are in effecting "using" the firearm until you unload it and/or store it. People who find out for first time that I carry concealed often ask "wow, have you ever used you gun?" and I always answer "I use it every day".

This active mindset - I am USING a gun right now - is what keeps me safe while carrying a deadly weapon on my person.

mr.72 wrote:

frazzled wrote: Cut the garbage. Guns and booze don't miz just as cars and booze don't mix. If you think you should be able to drink while caryring you need to stay home and not endanger the rest of our families-just your own.

I can say the same thing about "booze" mixing with all kinds of other of your rights, those protected by the Constitution as well as those you might hold dear that are not protected by the Constitution, and the argument will be just as valid.

Let's have a sobriety checkpoint at the entrance of a polling place.

I'm actually all for this one. Drunken idiots shouldn't vote. How do you think we got into this mess in the first place?

But this is not a valid comparison to drunk driving or drunk gun play because no one was ever killed by a drunk voter.

mr.72 wrote:Howabout you cannot exercise your freedom of speech after you have had a drink.

A drunk with sticks and stones (or a car or a gun) may break your bones, but drunken words will never hurt you.

mr.72 wrote:Or maybe you cannot be free to choose your own religion while you have been drinking.

So many jokes are set up so perfectly by that line, but forum decorum and general sense of decency prohibit me from elaborating further.

mr.72 wrote:Maybe your right to a fair trial only applies if you do not drink. Or maybe your right to raise your own children ends where your right to drink alcohol begins. Maybe even your very right to reproduce should be restricted to only those who don't drink.

Your rights to drink (to excess) around children or while pregnant are already infringed. The charge is something like "endangering a child", but you gotta be pretty drunk, abusive, and stupid to be charged with it.

mr.72 wrote:This is a ridiculous argument.

Agree with you there.

mr.72 wrote:Drinking and driving, as an issue, has enjoyed some special status of broad and sweeping rights infringement in this country for decades. You can do anything to bend the Constitution into a complete spiral and ignore the rule of law as long as it has the intent of reducing "drunk driving". We are spreading this idealism of special-status infringement to other things as well, such as hate crimes and now even those who claim to support our right to keep and bear arms are supporting this infringement when it comes to carrying a gun. Why don't we just outlaw drinking instead? Of course, if we criminalize alcohol, then only the criminals will have alcohol.

We tried that once, and the guys with the booze also had the .45-cal machine guns. Didn't work out too well. Hey, kinda like today - the guys with the illegal drugs have the machine guns too

mr.72 wrote:Point is that rights infringement, overreaching government efforts to control behavior and special-class laws do not work, period. Drunk driving laws are not stopping drunk driving. Banning alcohol didn't stop the sale of alcohol. Banning carrying and drinking is not going to stop the practice. If you've ever known an alcoholic, you know good and well that stopping them from drinking from some external influence is impossible, and they are going to drink first and then add on every other thing they do in their lives. Drinking and anything doesn't really mix. But if drinking and <insert anything here> can mix, then you dang well better be able to drink and do the things that you have a Constitutionally-protected right to do. Drinking does not require one to waive their rights before they can take a drink.

Drunk driving laws have reduced drunk driving and drunk driving related deaths. I don't have the statistics handy to prove this, but they're out there. And drunk driving laws are not strictly meant to stop alcoholics, which is a whole different class of drunk. It's meant to also stop the careless frat boy, and countless other potential drunken killers of me and my children on the roadway.

There is simply no way you can legitimately compare some supposed "right" to get drunk and do stupid things (like driving and carry a gun) with the well established right to keep and bear arms.

But if y'all want to drink and carry, I'm not going to try to stop you. When you have an "accident" and kill someone though, I hope they throw the book at you and I'll stay 1,000 away from that special building in Huntsville when they give you your justice.

chamberc wrote:Comparing driving to carrying a firearm is not valid, and even dangerous. Driving is not a right in the constitution, whereas bearing firearms is.

Jumping slightly off topic here and playing devil's advocate for a moment, so bear with me.

IMHO, constantly falling back on "RKBA is in 2A of the Constitution" for EVERY gun argument grows very tiresome for the 60% of the population that is "in the middle" on the gun debate, and really any political debate in this country (20% strongly to each side, 60% in the middle ... I won't waste time backing up that assertion; it's been discussed ad nauseum in a plethora of political analysis).

To the average Joe who may or may not think that much about the gun issue in daily life, saying you have an absolute right to carry a gun (which he doesn't do and may not see/understand the need for) but not an absolute right to drive a car (which he DOES do and very much needs to do and understands this need) makes you seem a bit nutty. But saying that absolute right extends to drunken carry of firearms while drunken driving can be outlawed makes you seem positively insane, and likely pushes this "60 percenter" closer to the anti-gun 20% point of view. It makes this person, who normally doesn't think much about guns, take sides in the gun debate because "carrying a gun while drunk can't possibly be safe and I can't support anyone who says so and maybe I shouldn't even be supporting this crazy person's right to have a gun in the first place. Maybe I'll take a look at this Brady Campaign web site my liberal neighbor told me about. "

Who cares? Well, here's where the absolute RKBA argument gets dangerous. Despite what we were all taught in school, RKBA (as defined by 2A, not talking about "inalienable rights of man" here), nothing in the Constitution is absolute. It can all be changed with enough votes. If you get enough of the 60% in this issue to become part of the ever-growing formerly 20% anti-gun crowd, you then have the potential for enough political power to legally overturn 2A. You only need 66% of the House and Senate to propose a change to the Constitution and 75% to pass. The Dems are over 60% in both right now. Would this doomsday scenario happen overnight? Of course not, but the gun restrictions we currently have didn't happen overnight either.

A better discussion tactic is to explain why "gun rights (which, by the way, are guaranteed by RKBA/2A) are just as important as a perceived right to drive a car (which, by the way, is not guaranteed by the Constitution), and here's why ..." Even if we don't convince the middle 60% of Americans to join us in gun ownership and use; if we can just convince them of why it is vitally important to us (and by extension all Americans), then we at least keep them in the middle and away from the reactionary anti-gun crowd.

To dismiss every argument for gun restrictions as "well that's against 2A and unConstitutional" is dismissive to many legitimate concerns (like drunken use of firearms) and short-sighted to the ultimate goal of maintaining the rights we do have and expanding them as we can. Heck, even conservative Supreme Court stalwart Scalia said that "some" regulation of private ownership and use of guns IS CONSTITUTIONAL. And he's on OUR SIDE!

/soapbox

mr.72 wrote:If they come to confiscate your guns, are you going to risk your life to defend your right to keep them?

Yes.


just so happens that is where I personally draw the line and my days of compromising end

mr.72 wrote:what's with all of the "trade one infringement for another" or "make this infringement worse while making this other one less".

The powers of government are conferred from the people. That means whatever power the government has, the people have. There is no power the government has which is higher than that of the people. This is a basic principle upon which this country is founded. So a police officer having the power to open-carry a gun anywhere is a power conferred by the people, and implicitly is a power which is held also by the people. A soldier having the power to carry a select-fire M16 is a power granted by the people, without the exclusion of the people who grant it. All of these CHL laws and the entire concept of having to get a license to do something for which we have a natural right, infringement of which is prohibited by the 2nd Amendment, is all 100% infringement.

There is no age restriction in the 2A. There is no range qualification. None of that. The whole set of CHL laws needs to be completely repealed and we need to amend the TX Constitution. This whole debate about intensifying or rearranging the state of infringement is just getting sort-of in bed with the antis, disarming ourselves willfully of our resolve, which will be followed by our willful disarmament of our arms.

Mr. 72, I appreciate and admire your steadfast devotion to unimpeded RKBA under 2A. In a perfectly idealistic world I'd love to see your vision become reality. But we (pro-RKBA) are not a 100% majority and there is a sizeable and vocal anti-RKBA crowd against us as we all know. I'm not for compromising for compromising's sake, nor always giving up something in order to get something. But there are political realities to deal with. And we have to pick and choose our battles. Some facets of RKBA as specfically relates to Texas CHL are more important to me than others. What's important to me are school carry, polling place/court carry, bar carry, parking lot carry, placing liability for my personal safety on anyone who posts a 30.06. And if I have to give a little bit (lose the battle) to gain a lot (win the war), I'm willing to do so up to a point. If I can regain the rights that are important to me, and all I have to do is pay some money for a license, shoot 50 rounds to prove my proficiency, and conceal my firearm while I carry, I'm OK with that for now. The world moves best incrementally. IMHO YMMV

KD5NRH wrote:

This 0.05% rule also applies to intoxication within your private residence and/or vehicle IF your firearm is on your person or otherwise readily accessible (basically, if you're gonna drink at home, you lock up your guns).

Too much: .05 is two beers for a 160lb person. I wouldn't want somebody juggling loaded guns after a 6-pack, but saying that you can't leave your home defense gun out while having two drinks with dinner is going a bit too far.

I think I've discussed the idiocy of lowering the DUI limit to .08 rather than tougher punishment for the real drunk drivers elsewhere on the board, so I won't drift this thread on that.

chabouk wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:6. Replace 51% rule with a .05% rule. Legal for CHL to carry anywhere alcohol is sold, for on-premises consumption or otherwise (including sporting events, ballparks, stadiums, race tracks etc). ANY CHL found intoxicated above a .05% blood-alcohol level while carrying is charged and if convicted subject to same punishment as a second DWI offense (currently Class A misdemeanor), CHL is revoked for a minimum of 5 years. This 0.05% rule also applies to intoxication within your private residence and/or vehicle IF your firearm is on your person or otherwise readily accessible (basically, if you're gonna drink at home, you lock up your guns). ... current DWI standard is still 0.08%, correct? this is why I chose a more stringent 0.05% standard for "CCWI"

No.

Criminal charges should always be based on actions, not circumstances. What's the concern with intoxication? Isn't it that someone who is drinking might use a gun when he otherwise wouldn't?

Well, that use is either justified, or it isn't. The justification doesn't depend on blood alcohol content. Plenty of sober people do stupid things with guns or other weapons (like the Marine in Tampa Bay who bludgeoned a Greek Orthodox priest with a tire iron while telling 911 he had "captured a terrorist").

Someone who is staggering drunk is just as justified in using deadly force as someone who has never touched a drop, if the circumstances justify their actions.

I sometimes have a few beers at home, never in public. That's just my personal standard. If I lock up all my guns before cracking the first brewskie, I won't forget the combination or where the key is even if I get completely hammered (not that I do). Those guns are just as available to me unloaded in the safe as they are loaded on my hip. If I were inclined to do stupid things with guns, neither the gun's location or my BAC would make a difference.

Well, I happen to agree for the most part with current drunk driving laws. Should it be .10% instead of .08%? Probably, but now we get into the problem of having to change a state law that will in effect cause the state to lose highway money (which we're already WELL SHORT what we need) from the Feds. Messed up situation, I agree. But that has more to do with over-reaching by the Feds than anything.

This idea of "actions" vs. "circumstances" is just word spin. The ACTION one takes in violation of drunk driving laws is to get drunk and then drive. The ACTION one would take to violate my hypothetical "Concealed Carry While Intoxicated" law is getting drunk while carry a loaded firearm. Both scenarios - DWI and "CCWI" are dangerous enough that to only punish someone AFTER they've injured others (the "action" I can only assume you're referring to above) is not sufficient.

To say a person's BAC makes no difference whether they do something stupid with a gun (or a car) is just naive. And while I agree, fundamentally, that drunk people have just as much right to self defense as sober people, they DO NOT have just as much ABILITY. Intoxication greatly impairs fine motor skills and basic reasoning - some very important aspects of self defense. So, even if you're "justified" in shooting an attacker while you're drunk, good luck explaining that situation successfully to a judge/jury in both criminal AND civil court.

Alcohol and guns simply don't mix folks. Period. Under my hypothetical law, if you wan to get drunk but want to maintain usable safety/self defense capabilities, then make sure you bring a long a CHL buddy as designated driver AND designated CHL for the night. As it stands right now, drinking or not, you have no permission to carry in a 51% establishment. This is the problem I want corrected. If I'm in a bar, but NOT DRINKING, I should have the same right to carry a gun for self defense as I do in any other public place.

Could this theoretical 0.05% "CCWI" limit be higher? Sure. But my reasoning behind my suggestion was to set some sort of verifiable quantitative measurement, which IMHO should be a higher standard (lower BAC threshold) than drinking and driving. As it stands now, you could very well be arrested for being intoxicated while carrying after two drinks over dinner because a police offers says you were. There is no objective basis for it. Don't think it can happen in your home? What if you get mad at your spouse or child, a big fight ensues, neighbors call police who roll up to your house on suspicion of domestic violence. You're carrying a gun in your CCW holster and you've had a few beers. You're still visibly upset from the argument and not at your most coherent best. Cop writes it up as domestic abuse with some special circumstances of intoxication and possessing a loaded firearm. Better have a good lawyer.

1. Place legal liability for the safety of people who enter any premises OPEN TO THE PUBLIC on the owner/operator of that premises if they choose to post 30.06. Basically if you allow me to enter your premises but do not allow me to bring my firearm, then you are now wholly responsible for my personal safety and security from any and all crime (regardless of reason for the crime or whether you could concievably have prevented it). Furthermore, businesses/entities that post 30.06 must provide for approved lockable containers for CHLers to secure theire firearms upon entering your establishment (we don't all drive cars; where are the bus riders and bicyclists supposed to store their firearms?) Private residences (which serve no business function such as an in-home day care, etc) would be exempted from these provisions, except during such time that said residences are placed for sale and open to public for showing.

2. Place similar legal liability for the safety of all employees on any business which specifically prohibits licensed employees from carrying CHL on premises, but does not prohibit the general public via 30.06

3. Make it absolutely legal in all cases, all places for a citizen of Texas to possess a legal firearm secured inside a locked vehicle under their control. Make it specifically illegal for any business or entity to place restrictions of any kind on Texas citizens' rights to possess a legal firearm in a motor vehicle under their control, regardless of any lease agreement or employement contract. Motor vehicle definition should include motorcyles and the like with lockable storage compartments to secure said firearms. Basically a broader version of a "parking lot bill".

4. Licensed CHL may carry on premises of all schools, public or private, regardless of grade level, and all school-sponsored events. The schools may - at their discretion - post legal 30.06 signage, but the same rules of legal liabilty apply as in #1 above.

5. Licensed CHL may carry on premises of polling place and in courtrooms/court offices. Intentional failure to conceal ("brandishing") without the "defense to prosecution" of legally justified self defense goes up a notch to a felony instead of Class A misdemeanor if committed in these areas. At courtrooms, CHL holder must pro-actively show CHL to court officials before entering any metal detector. Court official/LEO will pull CHL holder aside and verify all information and check for other contraband before allow CHL holder to enter.

6. Replace 51% rule with a .05% rule. Legal for CHL to carry anywhere alcohol is sold, for on-premises consumption or otherwise (including sporting events, ballparks, stadiums, race tracks etc). ANY CHL found intoxicated above a .05% blood-alcohol level while carrying is charged and if convicted subject to same punishment as a second DWI offense (currently Class A misdemeanor), CHL is revoked for a minimum of 5 years. This 0.05% rule also applies to intoxication within your private residence and/or vehicle IF your firearm is on your person or otherwise readily accessible (basically, if you're gonna drink at home, you lock up your guns). ... current DWI standard is still 0.08%, correct? this is why I chose a more stringent 0.05% standard for "CCWI"

7. Change the application process/time frame. Application with fingerprints, photos, affidavits etc. is made to state, all background checks and such are conducted and a preliminary OK is given by the state. The prospective CHL then takes the class and instructor may electronically send notice of successful completion to state which will immediately/automatically produce and mail CHL license. This way, you don't take (and pay for) the class and THEN find out the state has some problem with you. In fact, set it up so that you must receive your OK from the state before you are even allowed to take the class.

And lastly, we want som STINKING CHL BADGES!!!!

[youtube][/youtube]