TexasCHLforum.com

Sec. 411.172. ELIGIBILITY. (a) A person is eligible for a license to carry a concealed handgun if the person:
8) has not, in the five years preceding the date of application, been convicted of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor or equivalent offense or of an offense under Section 42.01, Penal Code, or equivalent offense;

Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

Sec. 411.186. REVOCATION. (a) The department shall revoke a license under this section if the license holder:
(c) A license holder whose license is revoked for a reason listed in Subsections (a)(1)-(5) may reapply as a new applicant for the issuance of a license under this subchapter after the second anniversary of the date of the revocation if the cause for revocation does not exist on the date of the second anniversary. If the cause for revocation exists on the date of the second anniversary after the date of revocation, the license holder may not apply for a new license until the cause for revocation no longer exists and has not existed for a period of two years.

Beiruty wrote:Why non-violent disorderly conduct is cause to loose your CHL for 5 yrs?!
42.01 is unconstitutional under the 1stA. Since the "feel of peace" of the audience is not a cause to sensor the actor.

sjfcontrol wrote:

Beiruty wrote:Why non-violent disorderly conduct is cause to loose your CHL for 5 yrs?!
42.01 is unconstitutional under the 1stA. Since the "feel of peace" of the audience is not a cause to sensor the actor.

As TAM said, it is what it is.

It is believed that 42.01 is actionable as a class C because there are a couple of firearms-related clauses in that code section.

jws wrote:Thank you for your replies,
So a question and scenario , let say you are driving down the road with your tunes blaring and you are stopped for loud and unreasonable noise and receive a citation, you plea NOLO and pay a fine, under 42.01 , your CHL would also be revoked.
Under my circumstances if I would have taken a plea for class C assault and paid a fine I could have kept my CHL
I'm the one that stated I would not take an assault and suggested the disorderly. The DA wanted this action cleared off his docket rather quickly and even said w want this to go away.

The circumstances was I was in law enforcement, have over 20 years in, I walked into my house and two grown siblings were physically fighting and I separated them and got the one causing the trouble out the door and the problem was stopped.

Beiruty wrote:Why non-violent disorderly conduct is cause to loose your CHL for 5 yrs?!
42.01 is unconstitutional under the 1stA. Since the "feel of peace" of the audience is not a cause to sensor the actor.

The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight.... Derisive and annoying words can be taken as coming within the purview of the statute ... only when they have this characteristic of plainly tending to excite the addressee to a breach of the peace.

See Gooding v. Wilson, supra, at 522, quoting with approval the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 18 A.2d 754, 758, 762 (1941). See generally, Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 20 (1971); Bachellar v. Maryland, 397 U.S. 564, 567 (1970); and Gooding, supra. The "line between speech unconditionally guaranteed and speech which may legitimately be regulated, suppressed, or punished is finely drawn," Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 525 (1958).

Speech punishable under the Penal Code provision does not include language merely harsh and insulting, see Gooding, supra at 525, and it should not include speech, actual or symbolic, that is only "inappropriate," "naughty," "disgusting," "repulsive," "tactless," "gross," or "appalling." Annot., 2 A.L.R.4th 1331. Conviction under a statute specifying a "breach of the peace" as an element of the offense must be based on jury instructions including an admonition that proof of "actual or threatened violence is essential." Woods v. State, 213 S.W.2d 685, 687 (Tex.Crim.App.1948). In other words, anything short of the use of "fighting words" does not constitute a breach of the statute. See Jimmerson v. State, 561 S.W.2d 5 (Tex.Crim.App.1978). Speech is protected against punishment unless "shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest." Terminello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949).