-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Do not Support HB 195 if you like beer
- Thread starter zekester
- Start date
zekester
Regular Member
Back in the fray....
Again........this is not about only carrying a handgun.....this is about possession of a handgun "on or ABOUT his person"
Simple statement that apparently some do not understand.....
This bill is flawed and it is not in my best interest to give up my liberties for a few that are willing to give up their own.
I will try to make this clear one last time.....
Scenario:
Neighbor next door has a domestic problem and the LEO is called.
LEO comes to you to see if you heard or saw anything......You open the door, holding a beer and the officers sees a handgun in your holster on your hip or even on your coffee table.
This bill ( as written ) will allow him to make his own determination whether you are "intoxicated" and can arrest you because you have a handgun "on or ABOUT his person"
Will it happen?....Perhaps not, but why give them opportunity to do so if they wish.
I thought our goal was to have less power for Government and more power to the legal gun owners.
Can't make it more simple.
Change the language and I will buy a front page add to support it!
Z
PS....one last dig to Jack
My son was 4 years old (21 years ago).
During a get together on my friends ranch, a coyote came out of nowhere and headed toward my son. Yes...we were drinking and yes, I admit, most likely "intoxicated"....but it did not stop me from pulling my "handgun" and shooting that SOB....otherwise I would be driving everyday to my son's grave and wishing that I had a "handgun" on me at the time. Jack...you can hate drinking, carrying and/ or owning a firearm....but I can tell you...with that attitude...YOU have become the coyote....it shows that you perhaps thought that "Hey...they are drinking, they are not supposed to have 'handguns' , now is my chance to take advantage of the situation". Just like most people that rob people everyday, because they believe that most people are vulnerable. This bill, would make me saving my son's life a crime.
Again........this is not about only carrying a handgun.....this is about possession of a handgun "on or ABOUT his person"
Simple statement that apparently some do not understand.....
This bill is flawed and it is not in my best interest to give up my liberties for a few that are willing to give up their own.
I will try to make this clear one last time.....
Scenario:
Neighbor next door has a domestic problem and the LEO is called.
LEO comes to you to see if you heard or saw anything......You open the door, holding a beer and the officers sees a handgun in your holster on your hip or even on your coffee table.
This bill ( as written ) will allow him to make his own determination whether you are "intoxicated" and can arrest you because you have a handgun "on or ABOUT his person"
Will it happen?....Perhaps not, but why give them opportunity to do so if they wish.
I thought our goal was to have less power for Government and more power to the legal gun owners.
Can't make it more simple.
Change the language and I will buy a front page add to support it!
Z
PS....one last dig to Jack
My son was 4 years old (21 years ago).
During a get together on my friends ranch, a coyote came out of nowhere and headed toward my son. Yes...we were drinking and yes, I admit, most likely "intoxicated"....but it did not stop me from pulling my "handgun" and shooting that SOB....otherwise I would be driving everyday to my son's grave and wishing that I had a "handgun" on me at the time. Jack...you can hate drinking, carrying and/ or owning a firearm....but I can tell you...with that attitude...YOU have become the coyote....it shows that you perhaps thought that "Hey...they are drinking, they are not supposed to have 'handguns' , now is my chance to take advantage of the situation". Just like most people that rob people everyday, because they believe that most people are vulnerable. This bill, would make me saving my son's life a crime.
Last edited:
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
Knowing the likely outcome of that scenario, why, when you have all the power needed to stop the scenario from being carried out, would you carry it out? I believe I've already agreed that the law should not introduce new restrictions in the home... So since HB195 is still the best bill for your rights in Texas, why don't you do something to help make sure HB195 is adjusted to fix this issue, instead of just trying to torpedo it?
OC for ME
Regular Member
Scrap it...HB 195...polishing a t**d will not make it more appealing.
I provided the statutes in MO re booze and guns...take it or leave it.
I provided the statutes in MO re booze and guns...take it or leave it.
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
HB195 is without a doubt the best gun rights bill you'll see this session. The carrying while intoxicated issue can be fixed. Scrapping it would certainly be one of the most ignorant things a Texas gun rights advocate could do right now.
OC for ME
Regular Member
zekester
Regular Member
Yepper
I stated this in the original post...
And to bring the point home!!!!!!
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?120411-Another-crazy-Temple-arrest
I know some will argue, "If it not written, it isn't a crime"......my point is.....if it is written IT IS A CRIME!
I stated this in the original post...
And to bring the point home!!!!!!
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?120411-Another-crazy-Temple-arrest
I know some will argue, "If it not written, it isn't a crime"......my point is.....if it is written IT IS A CRIME!
Last edited:
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
Clearly you haven't read it closely enough if you think the Temple arrest you're pointing to is an example of reason to not support hb195. Yes, please go see the other thread for the sort of thing that hb195 would solve.
zekester
Regular Member
I support this bill, but not as written
By removing the language,,,,,oh snap.......said it so many times, it is not worth it anymore...
Just change the language....
By removing the language,,,,,oh snap.......said it so many times, it is not worth it anymore...
Just change the language....
Last edited:
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
Striking the prohibition entirely is preferable in many ways to changing the old, convoluted law or replacing it with new law that "allows" possession of a handgun. You write laws to prohibit things. To remove the prohibition, strike it from the law. Simple. Anything else is permitting the activity, which implies permission is necessary and subject to revocation.
If I could modify the bill, zekester, I would. I'm not sure why you continue harping here, trying to reduce support for the bill, instead of contacting those that can actually make a change in the bill to suite your desires. Instead of joining the doers and working to restore the recognition of rights in Texas, you bitch at them over a technicality that would likely never impact you.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Good luck fixing the many things needing fixing after HB 195 is enacted, if enacted. That is some bad law right there, but it does give Texans handgun carry. i especially like the "cops can drink booze" exemption.
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
Most of the things that will need fixing need fixing regardless of hb195. It's not a fault of hb195 that it has and accomplishes a goal, instead of all goals. It probably would be a fault if it attempted to fix literally everything that needed to be fixed.
Last edited:
Jack House
Regular Member
Are you delusional? There is no such exemption.
zekester
Regular Member
Awesome....I don't see the exemption either
Which means a LEO is not allowed to become intoxicated in his or her own home while in "POSSESSION" of a handgun.
How is that going to work out?
I am sorry, surely I am way ahead of myself. Cops don't drink....what was I thinking?
pos·ses·sion
/pəˈzeSHən/
noun
noun: possession; plural noun: possessions
1.
the state of having, owning, or controlling something.
Which means a LEO is not allowed to become intoxicated in his or her own home while in "POSSESSION" of a handgun.
How is that going to work out?
I am sorry, surely I am way ahead of myself. Cops don't drink....what was I thinking?
pos·ses·sion
/pəˈzeSHən/
noun
noun: possession; plural noun: possessions
1.
the state of having, owning, or controlling something.
Last edited:
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
Probably just fine. Seriously guy, there are a lot of Texas laws that need to be fixed. They probably aren't all going to be fixed at the same time no matter how long you wait. It is not wise the try and hold all progress back to try and wait for a time that both the ones you want will pass at the same time.
By the way, I enjoyed a beer last night with my pistol securely attached to my hip. I still support HB 195 fully.
Dictionary definitions are more or less meaningless
Last edited:
zekester
Regular Member
Well
Unless you are in the court of law!
I doubt if this bill will ever come to a vote anyway, but why pass a flawed bill and try to fix it after the fact......
Oh...BTW....I am glad you enjoyed your beer....
Unless you are in the court of law!
I doubt if this bill will ever come to a vote anyway, but why pass a flawed bill and try to fix it after the fact......
Oh...BTW....I am glad you enjoyed your beer....
Last edited:
Primus
Regular Member
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/possession
Possession in the legal realm is not what you think it is my friend....
In MA is generally (I say generally because this isn't about MA and not getting deep into it) reaching and lunging distance. So a gun on your table and your shattered within reach, then possession while drunk. Gun in another room or locked in safe. No possession.
That link goes on to explain possession is NOT MERE OWNERSHIP.
If your wife takes your car to the store. You own it but are not in possession of it. She's possessing it but not owning it.
Read the link.
davidmcbeth
Banned
I would much rather have a completely sober guy targeting me than a guy so wasted he cannot see w/o having double vision.
Law should be anyone who wants to shoot ME must be highly drunk and high on both crack and meth and must have huffed 30 gallons of gas 30 min ago.
Law should be anyone who wants to shoot ME must be highly drunk and high on both crack and meth and must have huffed 30 gallons of gas 30 min ago.
Primus
Regular Member
So you can only shoot yourself?
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
The extent of the definition of possession isn't all that relevant, you misunderstand the bill when you say "Which means a LEO is not allowed to become intoxicated in his or her own home while in "POSSESSION" of a handgun." Possession of the handgun is not the condition. The condition is carrying the handgun on or about your person while in possession of the handgun. As a side note - equal application of the law to law enforcement is a good thing.
Edit: I also understand that this doesn't effect the basis for your objection to hb195
Last edited: