TexasCHLforum.com

alvins wrote:what i dont get is why anyone thinks alcohol,guns,driving go together period.

As a CHL holder I personally hold myself to a higher standard even if other people don't. I would never put myself in a situation where I could even be thought of as under the influence while carrying. If I am going to carry, and by carry, I mean have to almost instantaneously determine if I am justified in taking someones life. I think that would be a difficult task for a completely sober person, much less someone who has even had a drop of alcohol.

SQLGeek wrote:Yet another reason I'm glad I live where I do. All of my drinking is done (not that it is all that much) at home or at a neighbor's house.

At a neighbors house you would be subject to arrest if carrying (under CHL) while intoxicated... Just sayin'

MoJo wrote:Makes sense. Another reason to not drink and drive and shoots a hole in the argument "I'm carrying under MPA not my CHL."

Actually it tends to a support the argument of carrying under MPA and not CHL, since a UCW (46.02) charge wouldn't stick if you were carrying under CHL, though they'd probably just turn around and charge you with 46.035(d).

hirundo82 wrote:

loadedliberal wrote:My question is why does this not happen to police, we have had a few APD officers arrested for DWI in the past few years and all were allowed to continue working and as far as I know were not charged with UCW even though I know of one case where he was on duty therefor presumably carrying a weapon.

Because it's not illegal for police to carry while intoxicated. A CHL holder can be charged under §46.035, Unlawful Carrying of Hangun by License Holder (subsection (d) to be specific); there is no equivalent offense for police.

Then this would make a mighty fine "Bill" for the 2013 session.

alvins wrote:what i dont get is why anyone thinks alcohol,guns,driving go together period.

Sometimes stuff that'd be really dangerous in populated areas becomes mostly harmless if you're out in the boonies.

So, maybe you're out there, relaxing and drinking a bit after a long day of doing, um, boony stuff, and you see something that needs to be shot RIGHT NOW!!! and it's too far away to walk? Or maybe you're trying to be the first person to drive to the north pole, and halfway through you realize that you're not actually in any country, and since there aren't any "drink driving" laws, your passenger makes you a gin & tonic, then a polar bear attacks you while you've stopped to wee.

Personally, though, I don't have to worry about either of those situations. I avoid the non-frozen boonies because they have too many insects and not enough AC, and if I'm ever in the frozen boonies, my short-term desire to get toasty would be overridden by my long-term desire to not get killed to death (plus, I don't like gin & tonic).

loadedliberal wrote:My question is why does this not happen to police, we have had a few APD officers arrested for DWI in the past few years and all were allowed to continue working

Now that's ridiculous, even ignoring the gun. Most places I've worked, if you're charged with DUI off the clock, you're not touching a company car until you're acquitted. If you're convicted, some of them had alcohol abuse programs they would put you through; others just never let you touch a company vehicle again. Conviction for (or admission of) DUI on the clock has been an immediate termination offense at all of them.

8-12 months of bike and foot patrol might be a good incentive for those cops to be more responsible.

ScottDLS wrote:

SQLGeek wrote:Yet another reason I'm glad I live where I do. All of my drinking is done (not that it is all that much) at home or at a neighbor's house.

At a neighbors house you would be subject to arrest if carrying (under CHL) while intoxicated... Just sayin'

True enough, I was more talking about the drinking and driving part. If I'm drinking, I wouldn't be carrying.

KD5NRH wrote:Most places I've worked, if you're charged with DUI off the clock, you're not touching a company car until you're acquitted. If you're convicted, some of them had alcohol abuse programs they would put you through; others just never let you touch a company vehicle again. Conviction for (or admission of) DUI on the clock has been an immediate termination offense at all of them.

Seems to take two times to get fired from APD for wrecking a department vehicle while drunk on duty. Must be nice to be unionized.

If a person has a CHL then they are carrying under a CHL the way I see it. MPA is for non-CHLs. That doesn't mean a LEO or court might see it different but I wouldn't bet on it. It isn't really a matter of opinion but what the court says so, I'll leave that to them.

I think if a person is carrying and driving while drunk they should lose their drivers license and CHL for 10 years. I think if they are caught again they should never get to exercise either privilege again. There are no rights under CHL or to drive so the State can do as it wishes to control both.

hirundo82 wrote:

loadedliberal wrote:My question is why does this not happen to police, we have had a few APD officers arrested for DWI in the past few years and all were allowed to continue working and as far as I know were not charged with UCW even though I know of one case where he was on duty therefor presumably carrying a weapon.

Because it's not illegal for police to carry while intoxicated. A CHL holder can be charged under §46.035, Unlawful Carrying of Hangun by License Holder (subsection (d) to be specific); there is no equivalent offense for police.

What about officers with chl's?

shootthesheet wrote:If a person has a CHL then they are carrying under a CHL the way I see it. MPA is for non-CHLs. That doesn't mean a LEO or court might see it different but I wouldn't bet on it. It isn't really a matter of opinion but what the court says so, I'll leave that to them.

I think if a person is carrying and driving while drunk they should lose their drivers license and CHL for 10 years. I think if they are caught again they should never get to exercise either privilege again. There are no rights under CHL or to drive so the State can do as it wishes to control both.

Why should ANYBODY lose rights (or privileges, if you prefer) by acquiring a license? The license should only allow you to do something that would otherwise be illegal without it.

shootthesheet wrote:If a person has a CHL then they are carrying under a CHL the way I see it. MPA is for non-CHLs. That doesn't mean a LEO or court might see it different but I wouldn't bet on it. It isn't really a matter of opinion but what the court says so, I'll leave that to them.

I think if a person is carrying and driving while drunk they should lose their drivers license and CHL for 10 years. I think if they are caught again they should never get to exercise either privilege again. There are no rights under CHL or to drive so the State can do as it wishes to control both.

OK so what about cops (who happen to have a CHL) open carrying on duty?
- Guilty of 46.035(a) Failure to Conceal?

What about (CHL) homeowner open carrying in his house?
- Guilty of 46.035(a) Failure to Conceal?

Revolver only (NSA) CHL is never allowed to carry a semi-auto at the range or in a sporting activity?
- Guilty of 46.02 UCW since they are only using the CHL 46.15(b)(6) Defense to 46.02, or can they use the Sporting Activity 46.15(b)(1) ?

Skaven wrote:

alvins wrote:what i dont get is why anyone thinks alcohol,guns,driving go together period.

As a CHL holder I personally hold myself to a higher standard even if other people don't. I would never put myself in a situation where I could even be thought of as under the influence while carrying. If I am going to carry, and by carry, I mean have to almost instantaneously determine if I am justified in taking someones life. I think that would be a difficult task for a completely sober person, much less someone who has even had a drop of alcohol.

...nails it for me!!!

shootthesheet wrote:There are no rights under CHL or to drive so the State can do as it wishes to control both.

No offense, but the State certainly can control driving, it is a privilege. The Right to bear arms is not. I am not saying that this is the way it works today, but I would certainly hope anyone who is a supporter of 2A rights would see this as the truth.

Cab's are cheap compared to DUI's; not sure why anyone would drink and drive in this day in age.

Simplest solution DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE/CARRY .