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.
This is definitely a possibility, but it doesn't sound like it is being presented this way. Especially when the DPS attorney tells people that a gunbuster sign is good enough notice. It sounds like many cities that think they can post 30.06 signs on city property when they probably are fully aware that those signs are unenforceable, but rely on our law abiding nature to obey it rather than challenge it and end up in court if it actually got that far. It is also much like my own company not changing their weapons policy regarding their parking lot because their is no penalty for them if they don't. They're either in a wait and see mode, they absolutely don't care about the law, or they're completely ignorant about the law. I highly doubt the later because I talked with one of the VP's, who also has his CHL, and he said they are not going to change the policy.