LTC & Intoxication

[jmorris]

I did not catch this in reading HB1927 and it was not mentioned at the in-person update (of course) but according to the new instructor outline:

The Penal Code previously prohibited the carrying a handgun under the authority of an LTC while intoxicated. Per HB 1927, the prohibition against carrying while intoxicated has been moved to Penal Code 46.02 and therefore only applies to the unlicensed it does not apply to LTC holders. However, there remain important reasons why a license holder should not carry while intoxicated.

[03Lightningrocks]

I did not catch this in reading HB1927 and it was not mentioned at the in-person update (of course) but according to the new instructor outline:

The Penal Code previously prohibited the carrying a handgun under the authority of an LTC while intoxicated. Per HB 1927, the prohibition against carrying while intoxicated has been moved to Penal Code 46.02 and therefore only applies to the unlicensed it does not apply to LTC holders. However, there remain important reasons why a license holder should not carry while intoxicated.

Now that is a great reason to renew your LTC. Get rip snorting drunk and still legal to carry! Oh heck yeah!

[longtooth]

As a retired instructor I still strongly advise against drinking while armed. Just because it is legal does not make it a good idea.

[Tex1961]

First let me state that I welcome an open discussion on this and will concede if wrong... BUT that being said, I am going to disagree with you.

You are correct that it is now under 46.02 a-6 (1)... However... 46.02 applies to any carry of a weapon.. In my opinion it does not distinguish between LTC and non LTC.... It' a blanket law..... Unless there is a sections that specifically states that it does not apply to LTC then I would argue it does.

[ScottDLS]

First let me state that I welcome an open discussion on this and will concede if wrong... BUT that being said, I am going to disagree with you.

You are correct that it is now under 46.02 a-6 (1)... However... 46.02 applies to any carry of a weapon.. In my opinion it does not distinguish between LTC and non LTC.... It' a blanket law..... Unless there is a sections that specifically states that it does not apply to LTC then I would argue it does.

" However... 46.02 applies to any carry of a weapon.. "

As does the 46.15 non-applicability (technically a defense to prosecution) of ALL OF 46.02, when carrying under the authority of your LTC.

This is a "gem" that I missed when reading the law. Not that I plan on doing it, but now it eliminates the what if I had one beer at the restaurant while carrying argument.

[Tex1961]

First let me state that I welcome an open discussion on this and will concede if wrong... BUT that being said, I am going to disagree with you.

You are correct that it is now under 46.02 a-6 (1)... However... 46.02 applies to any carry of a weapon.. In my opinion it does not distinguish between LTC and non LTC.... It' a blanket law..... Unless there is a sections that specifically states that it does not apply to LTC then I would argue it does.

" However... 46.02 applies to any carry of a weapon.. "

As does the 46.15 non-applicability (technically a defense to prosecution) of ALL OF 46.02, when carrying under the authority of your LTC.

This is a "gem" that I missed when reading the law. Not that I plan on doing it, but now it eliminates the what if I had one beer at the restaurant while carrying argument.

Can you post exactly where under 46.15 because I found no reference to carry while intoxicated there. Unless I missed it.

[ScottDLS]

First let me state that I welcome an open discussion on this and will concede if wrong... BUT that being said, I am going to disagree with you.

You are correct that it is now under 46.02 a-6 (1)... However... 46.02 applies to any carry of a weapon.. In my opinion it does not distinguish between LTC and non LTC.... It' a blanket law..... Unless there is a sections that specifically states that it does not apply to LTC then I would argue it does.

" However... 46.02 applies to any carry of a weapon.. "

As does the 46.15 non-applicability (technically a defense to prosecution) of ALL OF 46.02, when carrying under the authority of your LTC.

This is a "gem" that I missed when reading the law. Not that I plan on doing it, but now it eliminates the what if I had one beer at the restaurant while carrying argument.

Can you post exactly where under 46.15 because I found no reference to carry while intoxicated there. Unless I missed it.

Sec. 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.
...
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
...
(6) is carrying:
(A) a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a handgun; and
(B) a handgun:
(i) in a concealed manner; or
(ii) in a holster;

The non-applicability applies to all of section 46.02, if you meet the conditions A & B.

[Tex1961]

First let me state that I welcome an open discussion on this and will concede if wrong... BUT that being said, I am going to disagree with you.

You are correct that it is now under 46.02 a-6 (1)... However... 46.02 applies to any carry of a weapon.. In my opinion it does not distinguish between LTC and non LTC.... It' a blanket law..... Unless there is a sections that specifically states that it does not apply to LTC then I would argue it does.

" However... 46.02 applies to any carry of a weapon.. "

As does the 46.15 non-applicability (technically a defense to prosecution) of ALL OF 46.02, when carrying under the authority of your LTC.

This is a "gem" that I missed when reading the law. Not that I plan on doing it, but now it eliminates the what if I had one beer at the restaurant while carrying argument.

Can you post exactly where under 46.15 because I found no reference to carry while intoxicated there. Unless I missed it.

Sec. 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.
...
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
...
(6) is carrying:
(A) a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a handgun; and
(B) a handgun:
(i) in a concealed manner; or
(ii) in a holster;

The non-applicability applies to all of section 46.02, if you meet the conditions A & B.

Well, as I originally said. I concede. An like you said. A Gem that I missed.

[jmorris]

.......

Well, as I originally said. I concede. An like you said. A Gem that I missed.

I know you conceded but I want to point out those weren't my words but from the new DPS class outline.

[Tex1961]

.......

Well, as I originally said. I concede. An like you said. A Gem that I missed.

I know you conceded but I want to point out those weren't my words but from the new DPS class outline.

Yeah I know. It’s just (in my opinion) that 1927 was not thought out very well. I know that there are plenty of things that aren’t very clear and some just don’t make sense to me. That’s why this forum is so important, we read the laws and think we have a handle on all of the new changes, but it’s so easy to miss things. These discussions force me to go back and reread them. I know that knowledge is powerful stuff and hopefully makes me a better instructor, sans better informed students. I’ve seen plenty of very heated discussions on many forums with very smart and knowledgeable people but a lot of times they get it wrong too. And I’ve definitely been on both sides. I’m not afraid to admit when I’m wrong but I want to see proof first.

[chasfm11]

Yeah I know. It’s just (in my opinion) that 1927 was not thought out very well. I know that there are plenty of things that aren’t very clear and some just don’t make sense to me. That’s why this forum is so important, we read the laws and think we have a handle on all of the new changes, but it’s so easy to miss things. These discussions force me to go back and reread them. I know that knowledge is powerful stuff and hopefully makes me a better instructor, sans better informed students. I’ve seen plenty of very heated discussions on many forums with very smart and knowledgeable people but a lot of times they get it wrong too. And I’ve definitely been on both sides. I’m not afraid to admit when I’m wrong but I want to see proof first.

But here is the real problem: the number of users of this forum are but a fraction of the LTC holders in Texas. Even if every forum user read and understood everything posted here, it is hardly a dent in the overall LTC population and the general understanding. That is why it is important for the Texas Legislature to not make these matters any more convoluted then necessary. We are responsible to understand the law but there is no way to really do that if it a labyrinth of "go here" references. If you accept the fact that people who don't follow up on any educational material after taking a class on it lose 80% of what they learned in the class, it is easy to see why people might be in the dark about the finer points of these discussions.

That said, the LTC population has done a remarkable job of staying out of trouble with the law in spite of how difficult it seems on paper to do that. In the end, it comes down more to common sense and reason than the words in the TPC. All the fine print might come to play in a court but as the group, the LTC community has done a great job of staying out of courts. We sometimes lament that there isn't case law to support some of the more questionable areas. But that means that people haven't done things to get arrested and tried over those areas.

In my business, we used to talk about measuring things with a micrometer - and then cutting them with an axe. We mostly live our lives in axe mode.

[RPBrown]

Yeah I know. It’s just (in my opinion) that 1927 was not thought out very well. I know that there are plenty of things that aren’t very clear and some just don’t make sense to me. That’s why this forum is so important, we read the laws and think we have a handle on all of the new changes, but it’s so easy to miss things. These discussions force me to go back and reread them. I know that knowledge is powerful stuff and hopefully makes me a better instructor, sans better informed students. I’ve seen plenty of very heated discussions on many forums with very smart and knowledgeable people but a lot of times they get it wrong too. And I’ve definitely been on both sides. I’m not afraid to admit when I’m wrong but I want to see proof first.

But here is the real problem: the number of users of this forum are but a fraction of the LTC holders in Texas. Even if every forum user read and understood everything posted here, it is hardly a dent in the overall LTC population and the general understanding. That is why it is important for the Texas Legislature to not make these matters any more convoluted then necessary. We are responsible to understand the law but there is no way to really do that if it a labyrinth of "go here" references. If you accept the fact that people who don't follow up on any educational material after taking a class on it lose 80% of what they learned in the class, it is easy to see why people might be in the dark about the finer points of these discussions.

Just think though, even as we on this forum, and assuming other forums, read and discuss the laws, LEO's are told about them with very little additional training or information compared to what we receive here. I may be wrong on this and please let me know if I am. There are so many new laws that come out of every legislative session, they have to be briefed on all of them.

Now, if I understand correctly, it is now written that to be considered intoxicated, you have to register a .08 just as if you were driving where before it was at the discretion of the officer. If this is correct, at least they cleaned that up a little.

[K.Mooneyham]

Yeah I know. It’s just (in my opinion) that 1927 was not thought out very well. I know that there are plenty of things that aren’t very clear and some just don’t make sense to me. That’s why this forum is so important, we read the laws and think we have a handle on all of the new changes, but it’s so easy to miss things. These discussions force me to go back and reread them. I know that knowledge is powerful stuff and hopefully makes me a better instructor, sans better informed students. I’ve seen plenty of very heated discussions on many forums with very smart and knowledgeable people but a lot of times they get it wrong too. And I’ve definitely been on both sides. I’m not afraid to admit when I’m wrong but I want to see proof first.

But here is the real problem: the number of users of this forum are but a fraction of the LTC holders in Texas. Even if every forum user read and understood everything posted here, it is hardly a dent in the overall LTC population and the general understanding. That is why it is important for the Texas Legislature to not make these matters any more convoluted then necessary. We are responsible to understand the law but there is no way to really do that if it a labyrinth of "go here" references. If you accept the fact that people who don't follow up on any educational material after taking a class on it lose 80% of what they learned in the class, it is easy to see why people might be in the dark about the finer points of these discussions.

Just think though, even as we on this forum, and assuming other forums, read and discuss the laws, LEO's are told about them with very little additional training or information compared to what we receive here. I may be wrong on this and please let me know if I am. There are so many new laws that come out of every legislative session, they have to be briefed on all of them.

Now, if I understand correctly, it is now written that to be considered intoxicated, you have to register a .08 just as if you were driving where before it was at the discretion of the officer. If this is correct, at least they cleaned that up a little.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I've long been under the impression that one of the tenets of this forum was: "you might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride". In other words, if an officer smells alcohol, even though you are carrying under LTC, they'll still probably arrest you, cuff you, stuff you in the patrol car, haul you off to jail, book you, and toss you in a cell with common criminals. You'll have to get a lawyer to sort it all out, which will cost you time and money, and few people have either enough of to waste.

[Tex1961]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I've long been under the impression that one of the tenets of this forum was: "you might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride". In other words, if an officer smells alcohol, even though you are carrying under LTC, they'll still probably arrest you, cuff you, stuff you in the patrol car, haul you off to jail, book you, and toss you in a cell with common criminals. You'll have to get a lawyer to sort it all out, which will cost you time and money, and few people have either enough of to waste.

No.. Your not wrong at all.. What you described is the most likely scenario.

There are a couple of different personality types here... The wannabe lawyer, the gotta always be right guy, those who teach and those that just want to stay informed.. (Insert more here if you want :-) ). But beyond the obvious truth of what you said, it still boils down to knowing the exact laws of our state as they relate to carrying of a firearm. There are untold countless cases throughout the land (and not just firearm related) of people getting arrested because LEO didn't know the laws. There are cases that have been going on for years and even gone to the Supreme Court before the accused was exonerated... For me the important parts are.

a. Know the laws
b. Use common sense
c. Get prepaid legal service and keep that 1-800 number in your wallet.

[clarionite]

No.. Your not wrong at all.. What you described is the most likely scenario.

There are a couple of different personality types here... The wannabe lawyer, the gotta always be right guy, those who teach and those that just want to stay informed.. (Insert more here if you want :-) ). But beyond the obvious truth of what you said, it still boils down to knowing the exact laws of our state as they relate to carrying of a firearm. There are untold countless cases throughout the land (and not just firearm related) of people getting arrested because LEO didn't know the laws. There are cases that have been going on for years and even gone to the Supreme Court before the accused was exonerated... For me the important parts are.

a. Know the laws
b. Use common sense
c. Get prepaid legal service and keep that 1-800 number in your wallet.

What I tell my students is that the standards concerning drinking are the same for carrying as they are for driving. .08 is just a no return point... That even if you are below that level you can be charged if the officer believes you are impaired. But more importantly than that, if for some reason you have to use your weapon that the prosecutors can and will use the fact that you have alcohol in your system to cast doubt on your decision making skills.