Well... there goes Constitutional Carry

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1

User avatar

PriestTheRunner
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 573
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: Well... there goes Constitutional Carry

#31

Post by PriestTheRunner » Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:13 pm

bigtek wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:08 pm
It's almost as perplexing as an organization claiming to be pro gun giving Straus an A grade.
Savage. lol :tiphat:

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 17568
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Well... there goes Constitutional Carry

#32

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Thu Nov 29, 2018 7:21 pm

bigtek wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:08 pm
03Lightningrocks wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 6:43 pm
I always find it perplexing to read posts from those claiming to be pro gun who mention laws that are anti gun they like.
:iagree:

It's almost as perplexing as an organization claiming to be pro gun giving Straus an A grade.
What grade would you have given him and why? What did he do to get pro-gun bills passed?

Chas.


srothstein
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 4200
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

Re: Well... there goes Constitutional Carry

#33

Post by srothstein » Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:52 pm

C-dub wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:53 am
TexanVeteran wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 7:43 pm
It is actually already illegal to carry while you're drinking (unless you're on your own property, obviously).
Both parts of this are wrong. It is illegal to be intoxicated while carrying, but not simply drinking an alcoholic beverage. Location is irrelevant. Intoxicated is still intoxicated. The probability of being caught are much lower unless your next statement comes into play.
If you're going to a restaurant that happens to serve alcohol, you're probably not going to get drunk. One or two glasses of beer or wine is not gonna hurt anything.
Minor technical correction, but location does make a difference. Note that 46.035(d) only makes carrying while intoxicated illegal if you are a license holder carrying under the authority of the license. You are only carrying under the authority of your license if it would be illegal to carry otherwise. Since it is not illegal to carry on your own premises or premises under your control, 46.035 dos not apply to you in those locations.

It could get even trickier if you happen to have multiple ways to carry. For example, is a police officer who has an LTC carrying under the authority of his LTC or his commission? He should not be intoxicated either, but I doubt anyone would try to apply that law to him.
Steve Rothstein

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 25462
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Well... there goes Constitutional Carry

#34

Post by The Annoyed Man » Fri Nov 30, 2018 12:06 am

srothstein wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:52 pm
C-dub wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:53 am
TexanVeteran wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 7:43 pm
It is actually already illegal to carry while you're drinking (unless you're on your own property, obviously).
Both parts of this are wrong. It is illegal to be intoxicated while carrying, but not simply drinking an alcoholic beverage. Location is irrelevant. Intoxicated is still intoxicated. The probability of being caught are much lower unless your next statement comes into play.
If you're going to a restaurant that happens to serve alcohol, you're probably not going to get drunk. One or two glasses of beer or wine is not gonna hurt anything.
Minor technical correction, but location does make a difference. Note that 46.035(d) only makes carrying while intoxicated illegal if you are a license holder carrying under the authority of the license. You are only carrying under the authority of your license if it would be illegal to carry otherwise. Since it is not illegal to carry on your own premises or premises under your control, 46.035 dos not apply to you in those locations.

It could get even trickier if you happen to have multiple ways to carry. For example, is a police officer who has an LTC carrying under the authority of his LTC or his commission? He should not be intoxicated either, but I doubt anyone would try to apply that law to him.
What about if you’re intoxicated, and carrying under authority of the MPA? "rlol"
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy
My dream is to have lived my life so well that future generations of leftists will demand my name be removed from buildings.

User avatar

03Lightningrocks
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 8711
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: DFW area

Re: Well... there goes Constitutional Carry

#35

Post by 03Lightningrocks » Fri Nov 30, 2018 7:41 am

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Fri Nov 30, 2018 12:06 am

What about if you’re intoxicated, and carrying under authority of the MPA? "rlol"
:smilelol5:

User avatar

spectre
Banned
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:44 am

Re: Well... there goes Constitutional Carry

#36

Post by spectre » Fri Nov 30, 2018 12:55 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 1:59 pm
Some of our more important bills didn't get a committee vote or floor debate because of two people: Speaker Straus or Lt. Gov. Patrick. Majorities are certainly important, but never underestimate the impact that the Speaker and Lt. Gov. have on legislation. Anything they truly support passes in their chamber; anything they oppose dies.
Good riddance to Straus and hopefully the Republicans choose a conservative speaker this time instead of rubber stamping the Democrats' choice.
I'm in a good place right now
Not emotionally or financially
But I am at the gun store

User avatar

C-dub
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 12818
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Well... there goes Constitutional Carry

#37

Post by C-dub » Fri Nov 30, 2018 2:14 pm

srothstein wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:52 pm
C-dub wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:53 am
TexanVeteran wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 7:43 pm
It is actually already illegal to carry while you're drinking (unless you're on your own property, obviously).
Both parts of this are wrong. It is illegal to be intoxicated while carrying, but not simply drinking an alcoholic beverage. Location is irrelevant. Intoxicated is still intoxicated. The probability of being caught are much lower unless your next statement comes into play.
If you're going to a restaurant that happens to serve alcohol, you're probably not going to get drunk. One or two glasses of beer or wine is not gonna hurt anything.
Minor technical correction, but location does make a difference. Note that 46.035(d) only makes carrying while intoxicated illegal if you are a license holder carrying under the authority of the license. You are only carrying under the authority of your license if it would be illegal to carry otherwise. Since it is not illegal to carry on your own premises or premises under your control, 46.035 dos not apply to you in those locations.

It could get even trickier if you happen to have multiple ways to carry. For example, is a police officer who has an LTC carrying under the authority of his LTC or his commission? He should not be intoxicated either, but I doubt anyone would try to apply that law to him.
:shock: That's seems odd. So many possibilities there I'm surprised there isn't a general prohibition on this to be able to add that on in the case of a shooting that was not justified. Although, I'm a little glad there isn't. I'm sure that would/could get even more folks into trouble without ever having actually done anything wrong. Especially in their own home.

Now that makes me even more curious regarding Amber Guyger's BAC. Could she even be charged with carrying while intoxicated if she were? Or any other off-duty LEO for that matter that does not have an LTC or equivalent?
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016.
NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider

User avatar

J.R.@A&M
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 789
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:41 pm

Re: Well... there goes Constitutional Carry

#38

Post by J.R.@A&M » Fri Nov 30, 2018 2:29 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Fri Nov 30, 2018 12:06 am
srothstein wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:52 pm
C-dub wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:53 am
TexanVeteran wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 7:43 pm
It is actually already illegal to carry while you're drinking (unless you're on your own property, obviously).
Both parts of this are wrong. It is illegal to be intoxicated while carrying, but not simply drinking an alcoholic beverage. Location is irrelevant. Intoxicated is still intoxicated. The probability of being caught are much lower unless your next statement comes into play.
If you're going to a restaurant that happens to serve alcohol, you're probably not going to get drunk. One or two glasses of beer or wine is not gonna hurt anything.
Minor technical correction, but location does make a difference. Note that 46.035(d) only makes carrying while intoxicated illegal if you are a license holder carrying under the authority of the license. You are only carrying under the authority of your license if it would be illegal to carry otherwise. Since it is not illegal to carry on your own premises or premises under your control, 46.035 dos not apply to you in those locations.

It could get even trickier if you happen to have multiple ways to carry. For example, is a police officer who has an LTC carrying under the authority of his LTC or his commission? He should not be intoxicated either, but I doubt anyone would try to apply that law to him.
What about if you’re intoxicated, and carrying under authority of the MPA? "rlol"
Driving or stationary?
“[T]he liberties of the American people [are] dependent upon the ballot-box, the jury-box, and the cartridge-box; that without these no class of people could live and flourish in this country.” Life and Times of Frederick Douglass

User avatar

oljames3
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3416
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2014 1:21 pm
Location: Elgin, Texas
Contact:

Re: Well... there goes Constitutional Carry

#39

Post by oljames3 » Fri Nov 30, 2018 3:49 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Fri Nov 30, 2018 12:06 am
srothstein wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:52 pm
C-dub wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:53 am
TexanVeteran wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 7:43 pm
It is actually already illegal to carry while you're drinking (unless you're on your own property, obviously).
Both parts of this are wrong. It is illegal to be intoxicated while carrying, but not simply drinking an alcoholic beverage. Location is irrelevant. Intoxicated is still intoxicated. The probability of being caught are much lower unless your next statement comes into play.
If you're going to a restaurant that happens to serve alcohol, you're probably not going to get drunk. One or two glasses of beer or wine is not gonna hurt anything.
Minor technical correction, but location does make a difference. Note that 46.035(d) only makes carrying while intoxicated illegal if you are a license holder carrying under the authority of the license. You are only carrying under the authority of your license if it would be illegal to carry otherwise. Since it is not illegal to carry on your own premises or premises under your control, 46.035 dos not apply to you in those locations.

It could get even trickier if you happen to have multiple ways to carry. For example, is a police officer who has an LTC carrying under the authority of his LTC or his commission? He should not be intoxicated either, but I doubt anyone would try to apply that law to him.
What about if you’re intoxicated, and carrying under authority of the MPA? "rlol"
As driver or passenger in own car?
O. Lee James, III Captain, US Army (Retired 2012), Honorable Order of St. Barbara
2/19FA, 1st Cavalry Division 73-78; 56FA BDE (Pershing) 78-81
NRA Distinguished Life Member (Disabled Vet), TSRA, NAR L1

User avatar

bigtek
Banned
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 381
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2016 9:48 am

Re: Well... there goes Constitutional Carry

#40

Post by bigtek » Tue Dec 04, 2018 4:20 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 7:21 pm
bigtek wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:08 pm
03Lightningrocks wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 6:43 pm
I always find it perplexing to read posts from those claiming to be pro gun who mention laws that are anti gun they like.
:iagree:

It's almost as perplexing as an organization claiming to be pro gun giving Straus an A grade.
What grade would you have given him and why? What did he do to get pro-gun bills passed?

Chas.
I would have given him a grade based on results. Why? Because results are more important than a survey.

I have it on good authority many important pro-gun House bills didn't get a floor debate because of Speaker Straus. His grade should have reflected that reality. When it comes to pro gun organizations whose past grades didn't reflect true performance, we would be fools to trust future grades unless and until the system is fixed.
Deck the halls with nitroglycerin
Fa la la la la la la la la!
Strike a match and see who's missin'
Fa la la la la la la la la!

Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”