• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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

zekester

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
664
Location
Uvalde, Texas
I suggest you read this bill in it entirety! It will allow the LEO to knock on your door and arrest you only because you have had a few beers and own a handgun.

If you are a hunter with a handgun and like to have few beers, you are subject to arrest. IN YOUR OWN HOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Section (8) has changed to “while intoxicated” and the following section has been removed;

"[(1) on the person's own premises, or premises under the
person's control, or with permission of the premises owner;]"


If this passes....as written....your are subject to arrest in your own home, our your friends home for possession of a handgun and having a few beers....


Have it re-written....or do not support...

Section (8) should be written as follows.......IMHO


Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS.

Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF A 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 AND handles or uses such handgun in either a negligent
or unlawful manner or discharges it other than in self-defense;

We use the "word" of law to our defense......Don't think that the LEO won't use it to their offense.

I want OC...but this bill is very flawed...FIX IT!!!

Accepting a fee (CHL) to move things along is one thing, but to give the GOV the right to knock on my door and arrest me for nothing more than having a few beers and owning a handgun,,,,,,sorry...if there was ever a definition for tyranny.....this would be that.

As it is written, I cannot accept or support this bill...
 
Last edited:

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
How about just don't open your ******* door? With current CHL laws, if you have a CHL, they could still try to nail you on your own property for being in possession while intoxicated, if they wanted to. You might be able to beat it in court, but you'd have to have a good lawyer. And if the licensed OC bill passes, it'd be the same scenario.

No, I don't care that much about beer that I'll refuse the closest thing to constitutional carry that we can muster just so I can keep my handgun on my hip while I get hammered. If you're that worried about it, just carry something other than a handgun when you drink - which probably isn't a good idea anyway, regardless of the legalities.
 

Ian

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
710
Location
Austin, TX
Do you honestly believe it's a good idea to carry a firearm while drinking? If I'm carrying, I don't touch alcohol, period. If I had to use my firearm, I imagine I would grilled alive in court if it was found out that I had even only one drink. Guns and alcohol don't mix, no matter the amount.
 
Last edited:

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
You're a damn fool, Zekester.

HB 195 clarifies intoxicated as to mean substantial impairment or a BAC of .08 or greater. This makes it harder for them to secure a conviction for carrying while intoxicated. As it stands, intoxicated is undefined and can mean virtually anything.

Further, there was never a "while on own premises" defense for carrying while intoxicated.

You're so incredibly far from being right, it causes me to suspect that you are infact opposed to HB 195 due to the removal of the license requirement.

In short: you're either an idiot or you're lying.
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
Do you honestly believe it's a good idea to carry a firearm while drinking? If I'm carrying, I don't touch alcohol, period. If I had to use my firearm, I imagine I would grilled alive in court if it was found out that I had even only one drink. Guns and alcohol don't mix, no matter the amount.
Good idea? No more a good idea than buying a sports car over a fuel efficient car. Is have a single beer with your dinner while carrying a bad idea? Yeah, if you have less tolerance for alcohol than a 10 year old, sure. A single isn't going to impair anyone. If you're the type of person that can't stop drinking once they've started, then no you shouldn't carry when you drink. But then, you probably shouldn't be drinking anyway.

It's important to note that as I've already pointed out, Zekester is not only wrong, but the truth is very much the opposite of what he has stated.

Currently, intoxicated is not defined. This has caused a lot of debate as to whether that means a single beer or actual intoxication. HB 195 defines intoxication for carrying same as it is defined for driving. This actually strengthens your defense, should you need one, that a single beer does not intoxication make. So for those that drink responsibly, this is a good thing. For those that want to get wasted while carrying, yeah now it's applied to all firearms. But I fail to see the issue.
 

Ian

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
710
Location
Austin, TX
Good idea? No more a good idea than buying a sports car over a fuel efficient car. Is have a single beer with your dinner while carrying a bad idea? Yeah, if you have less tolerance for alcohol than a 10 year old, sure. A single isn't going to impair anyone. If you're the type of person that can't stop drinking once they've started, then no you shouldn't carry when you drink. But then, you probably shouldn't be drinking anyway.

It's important to note that as I've already pointed out, Zekester is not only wrong, but the truth is very much the opposite of what he has stated.

Currently, intoxicated is not defined. This has caused a lot of debate as to whether that means a single beer or actual intoxication. HB 195 defines intoxication for carrying same as it is defined for driving. This actually strengthens your defense, should you need one, that a single beer does not intoxication make. So for those that drink responsibly, this is a good thing. For those that want to get wasted while carrying, yeah now it's applied to all firearms. But I fail to see the issue.

Seems like you're borderline attacking me personally which is not necessary. I'm not saying I am intoxicated after one beer, nor that if I drink one I can't stop. I'm saying that the prosecutor would paint me to a jury that my judgement is impaired because there is no current legal clarification on "intoxication" for firearms. I'm simply thinking about "after the bang." This is only personal opinion. As is standard protocol here, can you please link the section that says .08 BAC is considered intoxication with a CHL?
 
Last edited:

Ian

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
710
Location
Austin, TX
In HB195,

(3) "Intoxicated" has the meaning assigned by Section
49.01, Penal Code.
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/html/HB00195I.htm

I did NOT notice this earlier, so thank you Jack House for pointing that out. This is a very important clarification in the law. All the MORE REASON TO SUPPORT HB195 as Jack House has explained.

Thanks stealthy, and thanks for pointing it out Jack as I did not see that either. This makes me even more excited about this bill.
 

zekester

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
664
Location
Uvalde, Texas
Not really in to name calling, but I see that some are.

I do not advocate drinking and carrying.

Regardless of what 49.01 defines, the way this bill is written, being in “possession” of a handgun while intoxicated is a crime.

It does not distinguish between whether you are in your car, your office or even in your own house.

Like I mentioned before...by striking the language:

[(1) on the person's own premises, or premises under the
person's control, or with permission of the premises owner]

Then taking section 8 and changing it to “while intoxicated”.....it give the authorities the right to arrest you in your home just because you had a few drinks and are in possession of a handgun.

Had an incident in Missouri a while back....and the State ruled that the statue had to be changed to the following:

"Has a firearm or projectile weapon readily capable of lethal use on his/her person, while he/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"


Like I have said if I am reading it wrong let me know....but take all the words that are stricken out of the text in the entire bill and I think you see that I am right.

The way it reads now is:


Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS
Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally,
knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a
handgun;
(8) While intoxicated

"ABOUT" is the word..."about" is possession. "About " is vicinity..... No matter where you are!!!

And do not think for one second that a Prosecutor will not use this language against you.
 
Last edited:

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
Seems like you're borderline attacking me personally which is not necessary. I'm not saying I am intoxicated after one beer, nor that if I drink one I can't stop. I'm saying that the prosecutor would paint me to a jury that my judgement is impaired because there is no current legal clarification on "intoxication" for firearms. I'm simply thinking about "after the bang." This is only personal opinion. As is standard protocol here, can you please link the section that says .08 BAC is considered intoxication with a CHL?
I was wondering for the longest time what you were talking about.

Is have a single beer with your dinner while carrying a bad idea? Yeah, if you have less tolerance for alcohol than a 10 year old, sure. A single isn't going to impair anyone. If you're the type of person that can't stop drinking once they've started, then no you shouldn't carry when you drink. But then, you probably shouldn't be drinking anyway.
I believe you mean this, it wasn't aimed at you. I apologize that I gave that impression, not intentional.

In HB195, (3) "Intoxicated" has the meaning assigned by Section 49.01, Penal Code. http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/html/HB00195I.htm I did NOT notice this earlier, so thank you Jack House for pointing that out. This is a very important clarification in the law. All the MORE REASON TO SUPPORT HB195 as Jack House has explained.
No problem, fellas. I've read most of the proposed bills pretty thoroughly and spent a lot of time studying the current laws.

Like I mentioned before...by striking the language: [(1) on the person's own premises, or premises under the person's control, or with permission of the premises owner;
I see what you are saying now. Previously only license holders carrying under the "CHL defense" were subject to intoxication laws. This makes everyone carrying a handgun subject to intoxication laws(still exempts long guns though).

You're not entirely wrong. Honestly I believe that the courts would hold that a gun is not "on or about your person" if the gun is out of reach. Even moreso if the gun is locked away without immediate access. Think a safe with a key lock where the key is hidden away and not on you.

Perhaps not the best wording, but it's also not an immediate threat to your right. Currently we have few options for open carry and no other option for constitutional carry. It is, in my opinion, extremely foolish to reject our best chance at acquiring constitutional carry on the grounds that the intoxicated offense was broadened a wee bit. Especially when there are options available for safe guarding yourself against a conviction.

If it has you that worried, just lock up your handgun(s) in another room and hide the key.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Honestly I believe that the courts would hold that a gun is not "on or about your person" if the gun is out of reach. <snip>.

And I believe that your common sense aspect would not be embraced by the courts. Possession never has required the gun to be within reach.
 

zekester

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
664
Location
Uvalde, Texas
I live on a ranch.....I carry a gun every where I go....

As written, if a LEO....came and talked to me....and I had a few beers..(with clients)...I will lose my gun, subject to arrest and who knows how much money I would have to spend to defend myself.

I like the bill in principal, but fix it now so that we won't have to fight this years down the road.

Just change (8) to:

(8) while intoxicated AND handles or uses such handgun in either a negligent
or unlawful manner or discharges it other than in self-defense;


And bring back (1)

"[(1) on the person's own premises, or premises under the
person's control, or with permission of the premises owner;]"
 
Last edited:

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
I live on a ranch.....I carry a gun every where I go....

As written, if a LEO....came and talked to me....and I had a few beers.....I will lose my gun, subject to arrest and who knows how much money I would have to spend to defend myself.
Don't carry while intoxicated. I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp.

And bring back (1)

"[(1) on the person's own premises, or premises under the
person's control, or with permission of the premises owner;]"
Bringing that back won't change anything, since that never impacted the intoxicated law directly. All it did was provide an exemption to 46.02 so as not to require a license while on your own property. Exemption from the carrying while intoxicated while on your own property only happens now because you don't need a license to carry on your own property and the intoxicated law only applies to those carrying under the authority of their license. But even then it's going to be an uphill battle.
 

zekester

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
664
Location
Uvalde, Texas
Don't carry while intoxicated. I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp.


Bringing that back won't change anything, since that never impacted the intoxicated law directly. All it did was provide an exemption to 46.02 so as not to require a license while on your own property. Exemption from the carrying while intoxicated while on your own property only happens now because you don't need a license to carry on your own property and the intoxicated law only applies to those carrying under the authority of their license. But even then it's going to be an uphill battle.

Wrong.......This is not about carry....but....POSSESSION!!!!!!.....can YOU...grasp that?????

The way the law is written, on private property you cannot be intoxicated and "possess" a handgun

This is a "handgun bill"...plain and simple......

Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally,
knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a
handgun;
(8) While intoxicated


And as far as carrying while intoxicated......I hope one day you come upon a wild hog,,,,,a coyote....or a rattlesnake (which I have)
and decide that ..."Damn...I had a few beers....I guess I will allow my children to get killed today, because the State of Texas says that I can't protect you. But it is ok...I am not going to jail......we passed a flawed carry bill.....that is all that matters."

"Honey..Who was that tombstone maker?"

"I think his name was Jack."

"Where can I find him?"

"Hiding behind HB 195."

"Awesome,...grab the shovel and get me a beer."
 
Last edited:

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
A handgun isn't going to protect you from a hog. A snake that is a threat to you will have already bitten you and taken off by the time you unholster your gun, especially if you are intoxicated. A rifle can still be carried while you are drunk off your ass. The keyword is carry, simply owning a gun and being drunk will not get you convicted of a crime.

I'll say it again: if you can't put the booze down, then don't pick up the gun.
 

zekester

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
664
Location
Uvalde, Texas
A handgun isn't going to protect you from a hog. A snake that is a threat to you will have already bitten you and taken off by the time you unholster your gun, especially if you are intoxicated. A rifle can still be carried while you are drunk off your ass. The keyword is carry, simply owning a gun and being drunk will not get you convicted of a crime.

I'll say it again: if you can't put the booze down, then don't pick up the gun.

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.
 
Last edited:
Top