Do not Support HB 195 if you like beer

zekester said:

I have carried a handgun since I was 14 yrs old...I can shoot a hog like no buddies business...I have shot more snakes than you can shake a stick at..a coyote that was attacking my son..............all with a handgun and ......most while I was "legally intoxicated"......it is apparent that you have never lived in the country, despise drinking and have no clue what you are talking about.......

I would love for you to come face to face with a 300 pound hog charging you, and, with this law...a stick to defend yourself.

Are you even from Texas?

My guess is, you are trying to make a name for yourself based on this bill or some other crap....

This is about the lives of Texans.......I am convinced, even though I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt,,,,,your concern is with yourself.

Find a new cause....if you cannot understand the meaning of this bill as written.....it is simple....you can't read.

Click to expand...

Wow.

I understand your point... And there is some validity to it... But you're going to find very few people that believe this a big enough deal to refuse to support for HB195.

Title of this thread should be "do not support HB195 if you want to carry a handgun while drunk"

I like beer, but there's no way I'm dropping support for HB195 over this.

The fact is, Texas law is very broken. HB195 would fix a huge portion of it. If HB195 passes, though, there will still be a lot of broken law to fix. That's just the way it is.

stealthyeliminator said:

Wow.

I understand your point... And there is some validity to it... But you're going to find very few people that believe this a big enough deal to refuse to support for HB195.

Title of this thread should be "do not support HB195 if you want to carry a handgun while drunk"

I like beer, but there's no way I'm dropping support for HB195 over this.

The fact is, Texas law is very broken. HB195 would fix a huge portion of it. If HB195 passes, though, there will still be a lot of broken law to fix. That's just the way it is.

Click to expand...

Do you not see, it gives the authority for the LEO to arrest you for "possession" of a handgun while "legally intoxicated"...not drunk...even in your own home....whether you did something wrong or not.....

That is my point....fix it NOW!!!

As written I will fight this.....Sorry.....it is just wrong

zekester said:

Do you not see, it gives the authority for the LEO to arrest you for "possession" of a handgun while "legally intoxicated"...not drunk...even in your own home....whether you did something wrong or not.....

That is my point....fix it NOW!!!

As written I will fight this.....Sorry.....it is just wrong

Click to expand...

I don't know enough about how the process works to know if it can be modified by the sponsor at this point or if it would have to be modified in committee, or however else. I agree with you that it should be fixed. I'm still supporting HB195 though. If it came to it, I'd just not answer the door...

The only gun law that I could support is one that repeals another gun law and leaves nothing in its place.

All gun laws are void.

davidmcbeth said:

The only gun law that I could support is one that repeals another gun law and leaves nothing in its place.

All gun laws are void.

Click to expand...

Except one that says you have to own them...

zekester said:

I have carried a handgun since I was 14 yrs old...I can shoot a hog like no buddies business...I have shot more snakes than you can shake a stick at..a coyote that was attacking my son..............all with a handgun and ......most while I was "legally intoxicated"......it is apparent that you have never lived in the country, despise drinking and have no clue what you are talking about.......

Click to expand...

I do not believe you.

zekester said:

it is apparent that you [...] despise drinking [...]

I would love for you to come face to face with a 300 pound hog charging you, and, with this law...a stick to defend yourself.

Click to expand...

If I were to despise drinking so much, then how would it be that I could become intoxicated and therefore disarmed under this law? :uhoh:

Thing is I am not perpetually intoxicated, unlike you apparently.

zekester said:

My guess is, you are trying to make a name for yourself based on this bill or some other crap....

Click to expand...

Well now, that is an interesting statement with no basis in reality whatsoever. Are you saying that I am Senator Strickland? :lol:

zekester said:

This is about the lives of Texans.......I am convinced, even though I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt,,,,,your concern is with yourself.

Click to expand...

Well, you are right about one thing. I have no concern for alcoholics. Though I find it rather hypocritical when you talk about me looking out only for myself, while condemning the only law that would restore the right of the poor and young to carry handguns, all because it would make it illegal for you to get wasted while carrying a handgun. Seems you're the one here that is only concerned for themselves.

zekester said:

Find a new cause....if you cannot understand the meaning of this bill as written.....it is simple....you can't read.

Click to expand...

I can't read? You're the one claiming that this law would make it illegal to simply own a handgun and become intoxicated, which is utterly untrue. The law states while carrying on or about the person. Most likely this is going to be found to mean in a purse or backpack or some such or in a car where the intoxicated individual can access the weapon.

I don't know what I'm talking about? You keep demanding that the "on private property" exception be reinstated in the proposed bill when it would do nothing at all for your cause. An exception to the CHL requirement which has been removed by HB 195.

stealthyeliminator said:

Wow.

I understand your point... And there is some validity to it... But you're going to find very few people that believe this a big enough deal to refuse to support for HB195.

Title of this thread should be "do not support HB195 if you want to carry a handgun while drunk"

I like beer, but there's no way I'm dropping support for HB195 over this.

The fact is, Texas law is very broken. HB195 would fix a huge portion of it. If HB195 passes, though, there will still be a lot of broken law to fix. That's just the way it is.

Click to expand...

The law doesn't need to be "fixed." It's fine as it stands. That is unless you feel that people should be allowed to carry while intoxicated? Even if so, they can still carry long guns.

I wouldn't oppose a bill striking "while intoxicated" from PC 46.035, but I don't oppose it being there either.

Quote Originally Posted by zekester View Post

I have carried a handgun since I was 14 yrs old...I can shoot a hog like no buddies business...I have shot more snakes than you can shake a stick at..a coyote that was attacking my son..............all with a handgun and ......most while I was "legally intoxicated"......it is apparent that you have never lived in the country, despise drinking and have no clue what you are talking about.......

Don't know for sure but it seems to me that there has been a long history of when this guy gets to drinking, he gets to killing ....booze and firearms go hand and hand... one in the left hand and one in the right hand .... yeeeee hawwwww

I think the OP is making a mountain out of a gopher hole here. The way the law is written does NOT say the cops can take your gun just because you're drunk. It says that they can take it if you're "intoxicated AND handles or uses such handgun in either a negligent or unlawful manner or discharges it other than in self-defense." (extreme emphasis mine) That pretty much means that you have to both be drunk AND do something stupid with the gun.

Go back to school, Zeke. You lack comprehension and apparently common sense.


Obligatory disclaimer: I am not a snake (lawyer).

DeSchaine said:

I think the OP is making a mountain out of a gopher hole here. The way the law is written does NOT say the cops can take your gun just because you're drunk. It says that they can take it if you're "intoxicated AND handles or uses such handgun in either a negligent or unlawful manner or discharges it other than in self-defense." (extreme emphasis mine) That pretty much means that you have to both be drunk AND do something stupid with the gun.

Go back to school, Zeke. You lack comprehension and apparently common sense.


Obligatory disclaimer: I am not a snake (lawyer).

Click to expand...

Good thing your not a snake.... OP would have to get drunk and shoot you like no buddies business...

bushwacker said:

....booze and firearms go hand and hand... one in the left hand and one in the right hand .... yeeeee hawwwww

Click to expand...

Dammit! You made me spit my drink out on my desk.

The law may clarify intoxication, but if law enforcement says you are under the influence it doesn't matter if your bac is .0000008. You will be going to jail.

DeSchaine said:

I think the OP is making a mountain out of a gopher hole here. The way the law is written does NOT say the cops can take your gun just because you're drunk. It says that they can take it if you're "intoxicated AND handles or uses such handgun in either a negligent or unlawful manner or discharges it other than in self-defense." (extreme emphasis mine) That pretty much means that you have to both be drunk AND do something stupid with the gun.

Go back to school, Zeke. You lack comprehension and apparently common sense.

Click to expand...

Rather ironic. :lol:

What you quoted was zekester's proposed "fix" to the bill. You correctly identified his intent.

As it actually stands, however, HB 195 will enact the following law:

Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN

(a) A person in possession of a handgun commits an offense if they intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carry a handgun on or about their person:

...

(8) while intoxicated

Click to expand...

I might suggest that you read more carefully before you accuse others of this failing.

I agree with zekester; this is very bad law.

If I may interject. Please consider the wording we have here in Missouri regarding booze and guns as a possible alternative wording for the proposed legislation.

RSMo 571.010 Definitions: (11) "Intoxicated", substantially impaired mental or physical capacity resulting from introduction of any substance into the body;

RSMo 571.030.1 Unlawful Use of Weapon: (5) Has a firearm or projectile weapon readily capable of lethal use on his or her person, while he or she is intoxicated, and handles or otherwise uses such firearm or projectile weapon in either a negligent or unlawful manner or discharges such firearm or projectile weapon unless acting in self-defense;

RSMo 571.030.3. Subdivisions (1), (5), (8), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section do not apply when the actor is transporting such weapons in a nonfunctioning state or in an unloaded state when ammunition is not readily accessible or when such weapons are not readily accessible.

RSMo 571.030.5. Subdivisions (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply to persons who are engaged in a lawful act of defense pursuant to section 563.031 (defense of person).

Click to expand...

We do not have a exemption for defense of property while "intoxicated." This gives LE the authority to inject common sense and call it like they see it.

In my view, any arbitrary value that defines intoxicated is unwise. Personal opinions aside, lacking any other violation of law, why should being "in your cups" be a criminal offense regardless of the location or how deep you are in your cups?

marshaul said:

I agree with zekester; this is very bad law.

Click to expand...

Why do you feel this way?

Jack House said:

Why do you feel this way?

Click to expand...

Because it bans carry of a firearm in any place "while intoxicated", regardless of behavior. It's vague, over-broad, and it subjects a fundamental human right to arbitrary status limitations (thereby creating associated status crimes). Not acceptable, IMO.

zekester said:

Possession is possession....or as far as I am concerned ownership.

Click to expand...

Soory, meantt to0 wite posiden !

Ok, let's assume it should be fixed. I think you should write OCT, NAGR, or Rep. Stickland about it. Perhaps if enough of you write or call it can be fixed, I honestly don't know what the options are for modification at this point in the process.

marshaul said:

Because it bans carry of a firearm in any place "while intoxicated", regardless of behavior. It's vague, over-broad, and it subjects a fundamental human right to arbitrary status limitations (thereby creating associated status crimes). Not acceptable, IMO.

Click to expand...

It doesn't create anything. That is already there. In fact, it actually defines intoxicated more clearly than what it currently is.

Jack House said:

It doesn't create anything. That is already there. In fact, it actually defines intoxicated more clearly than what it currently is.

Click to expand...

Not true. The law would clearly now apply to non-"license holders", when before it did not.

marshaul said:

Not true. The law would clearly now apply to non-"license holders", when before it did not.

Click to expand...

Because previously non-license holders couldn't carry handguns except in limited circumstances.