CHL-16 clarification for 30.06 sign

[wgoforth]

...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..."

Very likely...and the fact is, if he found I was carrying, there are likely other issues involved too. Just hate when those charged with enforcement don't seem to know what it is they are supposed to be enforcing!

[wgoforth]

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...

[hillfighter]

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.

To go back to the original question, he sounds like the sort of criminal bully who would use the threat of deadly force to kidnap someone who walked past one of those signs on government property. Before someone objects, morally it is kidnapping because he knows or should know his victim didn't commit a crime by ignoring the sign, and therefore morally it's not an arrest. It's kidnapping, plain and simple, and he should be convicted and then thrown in general population at Huntsville to get what he well and truly deserves.

[C-dub]

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.

[wgoforth]

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.

No, I was responding to his saying he wouldn't want to be a test case. I was saying I'd love to be the test case for carrying at churches, because the law clearly says we may, sans 30.06. Don't think I'd even need a lawyer.

[speedsix]

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

[wgoforth]

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

Leave it to you broh!

[hillfighter]

It seems like churches are not off limits unless you get notice and drinking is not off limits unless you're intoxicated, unless I missed the point.

[BritOnTour]

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", while saying this, he held up his hand and formed a big "0" with his thumb and forefinger!

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.

[wgoforth]

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.

That is correct that there is "no legal limit." As you say, one of the test questions deal with that. But what does that mean? it means do you have to be at .08% to be intoxicated? No, there is no minimum.... .08 is the maximum. You may have loss of proper use of functions, and not be able to pass sobriety test at much lower. Same with driving.

[BritOnTour]

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.

[wgoforth]

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.

That is what my understanding from instructor training was as well. That is not my understanding from Penal Code. I do tell my class "According to the DPS...." and let them decide. I have talked with many law enforcement, and their understanding seems to be 0 as well. Don't think it could be made to stick with penal code however.

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.

[Crossfire]

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"

[wgoforth]

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

[BritOnTour]

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?