TexasCHLforum.com

chabouk

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

Now you're just trying to shut down the internet discussion forums.

chabouk

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.

chabouk

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.

If I drink at home, there are guns there. Oh, wait, there are cars there too! There are also power tools, gasoline, gunpowder, matches...

chabouk

austinrealtor wrote: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).

I avoid the Constitutional argument because it perpetuates the false notion that our rights come from that document, and that we only have the rights it lists.

We've seen that very thing put forth in this thread, with the argument that we have RKBA, but not the right to travel, because the former is listed in the Constitution and the latter isn't.

chabouk

Keith B wrote:
chabouk wrote:
Keith B wrote:Intoxication impairs judgment. Intoxication impacts different people in different ways. Ever seen the guy that gets mean or is '10 foot tall and bullet proof' after a couple of drinks? I have. These people would be very quick in grabbing their gun and potentially using it where they might not when they are not under the influence.
Testosterone impacts different people in different ways. Ever seen the guy that gets mean or is '10 foot tall and bullet proof' when he gets all puffed up over a perceived insult? I have.

Your argument boils down to: Because some people might be inclined to act badly while drinking, all people should be banned from carrying while drinking. It's exactly the same argument used by the anti-gunners regarding carry in general.
That is not what I am saying. Having A drink is not what you were stating. Your statement was that it shouldn't matter if you were slobbering drunk (totally blotto in your words) while carrying as long as you were not driving. I disagree as normal judgment is impaired totally when you are intoxicated. Are you still a mellow drunk? Maybe, but would your decision to draw and shoot, and shoot safely be affected in that condition? I guarantee it would be. (Again, we're talking intoxicated, not the I had one drink scenario.)

No matter how impaired someone's judgement and motor skills might be, the legal standard for justification does not change. You assume that people will be more likely to act without justification while intoxicated; I don't share that assumption. Sure, some might; others might have the opposite reaction and be more hesitant because they're worried about their judgement.

My point is this: no matter the degree, when you argue that carry should be prohibited because of how some people might act, you're using Brady logic. Please understand I don't mean that as a personal insult, I'm just trying to get you to see the consistency.

"Because some people might act rashly in {Circumstance X}, no one should be able to carry a gun in {Circumstance X}."
Now, for {Circumstance X}, substitute:
- while intoxicated
- after a single drop of alcohol
- at a sporting event
- at a parade
- at a political rally
- inside a 51% business, even while not drinking
- at church
- in a hospital
- unless a LEO or member of the military

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.

chabouk

Keith B wrote:Intoxication impairs judgment. Intoxication impacts different people in different ways. Ever seen the guy that gets mean or is '10 foot tall and bullet proof' after a couple of drinks? I have. These people would be very quick in grabbing their gun and potentially using it where they might not when they are not under the influence.

Testosterone impacts different people in different ways. Ever seen the guy that gets mean or is '10 foot tall and bullet proof' when he gets all puffed up over a perceived insult? I have.

Your argument boils down to: Because some people might be inclined to act badly while drinking, all people should be banned from carrying while drinking. It's exactly the same argument used by the anti-gunners regarding carry in general.

chabouk

austinrealtor wrote: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.

I appreciate your concerns, but the logical solution to this problem is loosen restrictions, not create more.

You're conflating DWI and carrying while intoxicated in a way that many do, and that's understandable because so many people think carrying a gun and driving a car are equivalent.

In reality, they're not the same at all. Having a gun in a holster is more like having a car in your driveway: you could use it, but you're not actually using it. Your level of impairment doesn't matter.

Driving while impaired theoretically endangers everyone on the road, even if you don't actually drive dangerously (there is a separate argument about this, but this isn't the time nor place for that discussion); this is equivalent to randomly shooting into the air.

A gun in your holster is the same as a car in your driveway: until you actually operate it, it doesn't matter how intoxicated you are. And once you do operate it (by driving or firing), you should be responsible for you actions that harm or threaten others. Driving your 4,000 pound weapon while impaired endangers others. Being a passenger in that 4,000 pound weapon while totally blotto and carrying a concealed handgun doesn't endanger anyone.

chabouk

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.

chabouk

mgood wrote:A Vermont/Alaska system would be ideal, IMO, though maybe not very realistic at this time.

Vermont and Alaska both have serious weaknesses, including gun-free zones, and Alaska lacks strong preemption.

You really need to throw New Hampshire into the mix.

The mix would look like this:
- No license required for open carry (AK/NH/VT)
- No license required for concealed carry (AK/VT)
- License available for reciprocity purposes (AK/NH)
-- Dirt cheap (NH, $10 for 5 years)
-- Must issue, no test, no class, no fingerprints, no photographs, no notary, no ID requirements (NH)
-- Fast issue (NH, 14 days, and if they fail to comply they have to pay your legal fees if you take it to court)
- Strong statewide preemption where only the state legislature can regulate guns (NH, TX, PA, OH, others)
- Very short list of gun-free zones (NH, only courtrooms are off limits, and they must provide secure storage for your gun)

The weak spots in NH:
- No loaded car carry of handguns without a license (but it's a $10 license, not a huge deal)
- No loaded car carry of long guns at all (it's a game law)

chabouk

Repeal PC chapter 46 for starters.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 10 matches

Re: How would you improve the Texas CHL program?

Re: How would you improve the Texas CHL program?

Re: How would you improve the Texas CHL program?

Re: How would you improve the Texas CHL program?

Re: How would you improve the Texas CHL program?

Re: How would you improve the Texas CHL program?

Re: How would you improve the Texas CHL program?

Re: How would you improve the Texas CHL program?

Re: How would you improve the Texas CHL program?

Re: How would you improve the Texas CHL program?