TexasCHLforum.com

wgoforth wrote: Always hate it when things are left open to individual interpretation and discretion. Get in trouble with one and another tells you it's fine. Let us know what you hear! Keep in mind, some was not just what was said in class, but the questions that came up during break which of course will vary.

There's a lot of irony in there. Sometimes we don't like it when a judge or whoever doesn't have any room for discretion because of the law and sometimes, in cases like this, we don't like it because there is. Funny isn't it?

I hate when the law is clear but some cops and instructors misinterpret the law, intentionally or not, because the written laws don't match their personal biases.

C-dub wrote:

wgoforth wrote: Always hate it when things are left open to individual interpretation and discretion. Get in trouble with one and another tells you it's fine. Let us know what you hear! Keep in mind, some was not just what was said in class, but the questions that came up during break which of course will vary.

There's a lot of irony in there. Sometimes we don't like it when a judge or whoever doesn't have any room for discretion because of the law and sometimes, in cases like this, we don't like it because there is. Funny isn't it?

"Discretion" is not the same as "getting in trouble" when no crime has been committed... Discretion is an officer choosing to write or not write a ticket because you went 5 miles over speed limit. Saying you "might get in trouble carrying past a generic no-gun sign" isn't discretion, it is creating a law where there is none...

wgoforth wrote:

C-dub wrote:

wgoforth wrote: Always hate it when things are left open to individual interpretation and discretion. Get in trouble with one and another tells you it's fine. Let us know what you hear! Keep in mind, some was not just what was said in class, but the questions that came up during break which of course will vary.

There's a lot of irony in there. Sometimes we don't like it when a judge or whoever doesn't have any room for discretion because of the law and sometimes, in cases like this, we don't like it because there is. Funny isn't it?

"Discretion" is not the same as "getting in trouble" when no crime has been committed... Discretion is an officer choosing to write or not write a ticket because you went 5 miles over speed limit. Saying you "might get in trouble carrying past a generic no-gun sign" isn't discretion, it is creating a law where there is none...

Ya got me there, but I was thinking about the alcohol thing.

Maxwell wrote:Steve,

I was taught that "intoxicated" with relation to CHL fell under the same level as "Public intoxication" so it would be an officer's discretion. In other words, and with regard to CHL, the only option is ZERO alcohol if carrying, NOT the Legal driving limit!

I certainly hope you are not teaching people they can have a couple of beers and still carry...

Actually, the standard for carrying while intoxicated is lower than for public intoxication. And none of these are really up to the officer's discretion for the trial. Everything is up to his discretion for the arrest, of course.

The law is clear that intoxication is defined as either having a BAC of .08 or higher OR not having the normal use of your faculties due to the consumption of an intoxicant (alcohol or drug). This applies to either driving or carrying. The law for public intoxication is slightly higher since you have to be intoxicated to the point where you are a danger to yourself or others.

So, yes, I have said that you can have a beer or two and still carry. Just like you can have a beer or two and still drive. If you are legal to drive, you are legal to carry.

Fair enough on the clarifications but I certainly do not want to be a test case on any BAC with regard to my CHL.

Obviously our opinions differ. I'll stay 100% sober when carrying and always advise my friends to do the same.

.

The DPS is pro CHL.
They are not trying to ignore the law. They are teaching instructors to caution students to consider carefully when they carry past signs and when they choose to have any alcohol. They are doing this for one reason ONLY. They want us and the CHL program to stay out of trouble. They don't want people to be arrested (which will most likely remain on your record). They don't want them to have to pay lots of money to lawyers, and they especially don't want CHL's on the evening news. This is unfortunately because some cities and areas of Texas are anti-chl. Some are not. The media overwhelmingly is.

We were told to be aware of which way sentiment is running in our cities so we can help our students make smart choices when carrying. As for the alcohol, the law does seem to allow a minor consumption that would be imperceptible to an officer conducting a sobriety test. But, the problem pointed out by the DPS during the instructor training was if you find yourself in a shooting, you will be tested for alcohol. The other side's lawyers will have a field day if you test positive for any amount. It can be argued that you were impaired and that you have a disregard for the gravity of carrying a gun. I fail to see why this is viewed by so many as some plot by the DPS to do away with our rights. It was obvious at the Instructor's conference in Houston some weeks back, that the DPS is excited about plans to get the laws loosened in some areas in the coming legislative session and tightened in others to our benefit. For instance, they hope to get the law on the 30.06 sign clarified to add a penalty when it is posted improperly. Does that sound like they don't care? They simply don't want bad press to be used against our interests in Austin or for any of us to get into trouble we could have avoided.

TexasGal wrote:The DPS is pro CHL.
They are not trying to ignore the law. They are teaching instructors to caution students to consider carefully when they carry past signs and when they choose to have any alcohol. They are doing this for one reason ONLY. They want us and the CHL program to stay out of trouble. They don't want people to be arrested (which will most likely remain on your record). They don't want them to have to pay lots of money to lawyers, and they especially don't want CHL's on the evening news. This is unfortunately because some cities and areas of Texas are anti-chl. Some are not. The media overwhelmingly is.

We were told to be aware of which way sentiment is running in our cities so we can help our students make smart choices when carrying. As for the alcohol, the law does seem to allow a minor consumption that would be imperceptible to an officer conducting a sobriety test. But, the problem pointed out by the DPS during the instructor training was if you find yourself in a shooting, you will be tested for alcohol. The other side's lawyers will have a field day if you test positive for any amount. It can be argued that you were impaired and that you have a disregard for the gravity of carrying a gun. I fail to see why this is viewed by so many as some plot by the DPS to do away with our rights. It was obvious at the Instructor's conference in Houston some weeks back, that the DPS is excited about plans to get the laws loosened in some areas in the coming legislative session and tightened in others to our benefit. For instance, they hope to get the law on the 30.06 sign clarified to add a penalty when it is posted improperly. Does that sound like they don't care? They simply don't want bad press to be used against our interests in Austin or for any of us to get into trouble we could have avoided.

This is definitely a possibility, but it doesn't sound like it is being presented this way. Especially when the DPS attorney tells people that a gunbuster sign is good enough notice. It sounds like many cities that think they can post 30.06 signs on city property when they probably are fully aware that those signs are unenforceable, but rely on our law abiding nature to obey it rather than challenge it and end up in court if it actually got that far. It is also much like my own company not changing their weapons policy regarding their parking lot because their is no penalty for them if they don't. They're either in a wait and see mode, they absolutely don't care about the law, or they're completely ignorant about the law. I highly doubt the later because I talked with one of the VP's, who also has his CHL, and he said they are not going to change the policy.

TexasGal wrote:The DPS is pro CHL.
They are not trying to ignore the law. They are teaching instructors to caution students to consider carefully when they carry past signs and when they choose to have any alcohol. They are doing this for one reason ONLY. They want us and the CHL program to stay out of trouble. They don't want people to be arrested (which will most likely remain on your record). They don't want them to have to pay lots of money to lawyers, and they especially don't want CHL's on the evening news. This is unfortunately because some cities and areas of Texas are anti-chl. Some are not. The media overwhelmingly is.

We were told to be aware of which way sentiment is running in our cities so we can help our students make smart choices when carrying. As for the alcohol, the law does seem to allow a minor consumption that would be imperceptible to an officer conducting a sobriety test. But, the problem pointed out by the DPS during the instructor training was if you find yourself in a shooting, you will be tested for alcohol. The other side's lawyers will have a field day if you test positive for any amount. It can be argued that you were impaired and that you have a disregard for the gravity of carrying a gun. I fail to see why this is viewed by so many as some plot by the DPS to do away with our rights. It was obvious at the Instructor's conference in Houston some weeks back, that the DPS is excited about plans to get the laws loosened in some areas in the coming legislative session and tightened in others to our benefit. For instance, they hope to get the law on the 30.06 sign clarified to add a penalty when it is posted improperly. Does that sound like they don't care? They simply don't want bad press to be used against our interests in Austin or for any of us to get into trouble we could have avoided.

Like any other branch of LEO, some are, some aren't. The fellow that is over the local DPS office in our county told me in no uncertain terms that he would arrest any CHL holder going past ANY no gun sign with a gun. I was shocked and asked "Even if it is not a 30.06 sign??" He said "Even if." So, not always about not wanting us to get in trouble, but sometimes is their own ignorance.

And you were there in my class....remember when the Captn said if you see a business with an improper sign, we should call the DPS about them so they can get a correct sign? Then in the next class, the Sgt said do not call the DPS about signage, they didn't have time for that. All are not aware or on the same level of knowledge in regards to CHL.

wgoforth wrote: Like any other branch of LEO, some are, some aren't. The fellow that is over the local DPS office in our county told me in no uncertain terms that he would arrest anyone going past ANY no gun sign. I was shocked and asked "Even if it is not a 30.06 sign??" He said "Even if." So, not always about not wanting us to get in trouble, but sometimes is their own ignorance.

Think you could get him to say that in writing?

sjfcontrol wrote:

wgoforth wrote: Like any other branch of LEO, some are, some aren't. The fellow that is over the local DPS office in our county told me in no uncertain terms that he would arrest anyone going past ANY no gun sign. I was shocked and asked "Even if it is not a 30.06 sign??" He said "Even if." So, not always about not wanting us to get in trouble, but sometimes is their own ignorance.

Think you could get him to say that in writing?

Hmmm.... could be interesting. I was just chatting him up about signage, and he got downright hateful. He said "Don't you dare carry past a no gun sign." I said I was talking about generic, not the 30.06. He said "I don't care. Don't you dare carry past any 30.06 sign. I'd arrest anyone who did." I tried to use our mall as an illustration, which used to have numerous no gun signs. He said "Well they used to have one of those kinds of signs up there somewhere, so don't you dare." I just thanked him and left it alone. He was in no mindset to discuss it.

wgoforth wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

wgoforth wrote: Like any other branch of LEO, some are, some aren't. The fellow that is over the local DPS office in our county told me in no uncertain terms that he would arrest anyone going past ANY no gun sign. I was shocked and asked "Even if it is not a 30.06 sign??" He said "Even if." So, not always about not wanting us to get in trouble, but sometimes is their own ignorance.

Think you could get him to say that in writing?

Hmmm.... could be interesting. I was just chatting him up about signage, and he got downright hateful. He said "Don't you dare carry past a no gun sign." I said I was talking about generic, not the 30.06. He said "I don't care. Don't you dare carry past any 30.06 sign. I'd arrest anyone who did." I tried to use our mall as an illustration, which used to have numerous no gun signs. He said "Well they used to have one of those kinds of signs up there somewhere, so don't you dare." I just thanked him and left it alone. He was in no mindset to discuss it.

Did you misstate that? Or did he say not to carry past "no gun" and "30.06" signs in two different statements?

At any rate. I'd be tempted to get him to "clarify" his position in writing (make the request in writing). If he responds in writing not to carry past any "no guns" sign, I'd think DPS and/or Mr. Cotton might be interested. Just a suggestion.

...there's a lot of brag and bluff and bluster out there...that can only be settled when it happens...by punitive action by a dept. or by civil suit settlement...but we "hear"(and read) a lot more of the blustering than we see being carried out on the street...a lot of these kind are just talk...
...I'm not nearly so interested in cramming it down the throat of a guy like this...as telling him to do what he needs to do, then I'll do what I need to do...he probably just doesn't know how to say "I'm sorry, I was wrong..."

Maxwell wrote:Fair enough on the clarifications but I certainly do not want to be a test case on any BAC with regard to my CHL.

I don't want to be a test case that:
Churches are not off limits unless they post a sign.
Gun shows on government property are not of limits.
The wind blowing up my shirt tails is not intentional failure to conceal.
A generic no guns sign is not 30.06 notice.
The parking lot bill means anything.
Etc.

However, concealed is concealed, so I'm not worried.

sjfcontrol wrote:

wgoforth wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

wgoforth wrote: Like any other branch of LEO, some are, some aren't. The fellow that is over the local DPS office in our county told me in no uncertain terms that he would arrest anyone going past ANY no gun sign. I was shocked and asked "Even if it is not a 30.06 sign??" He said "Even if." So, not always about not wanting us to get in trouble, but sometimes is their own ignorance.

Think you could get him to say that in writing?

Hmmm.... could be interesting. I was just chatting him up about signage, and he got downright hateful. He said "Don't you dare carry past a no gun sign." I said I was talking about generic, not the 30.06. He said "I don't care. Don't you dare carry past any 30.06 sign. I'd arrest anyone who did." I tried to use our mall as an illustration, which used to have numerous no gun signs. He said "Well they used to have one of those kinds of signs up there somewhere, so don't you dare." I just thanked him and left it alone. He was in no mindset to discuss it.

Did you misstate that? Or did he say not to carry past "no gun" and "30.06" signs in two different statements?

At any rate. I'd be tempted to get him to "clarify" his position in writing (make the request in writing). If he responds in writing not to carry past any "no guns" sign, I'd think DPS and/or Mr. Cotton might be interested. Just a suggestion.

Glad you caught that! No, he said not to dare carry past ANY no gun sign. Thanks!