TexasCHLforum.com

They figured he would roll over and take the plea. They didn't realize some people are not built that way. Sounds to me like he has a good case.

Mrs. Oldgringo and I renewed our licenses yesterday. There was a test question dealing with alcohol and CC. The answer was, '...don't drink and carry...'. That may be contestable in the Court House but it sounds like pretty sage advice in the meantime.

honestly, I've always thought that was advice, not law. huh. I mean I know there are other Public Intox laws...why add "OMG, we was carrying a gun while we was doing X" it's like the hate laws, it's against the law to beat some one up shouldn't matter if they're brown, black or purple.

WildBill wrote:

Quote from 24hourcampfire website wrote:He knew certain hospitals in the state ban private gun owners, concealed weapons permits or not, from bringing guns inside the facilities. He said he checked the entrances of Metroplex for signs warning against carrying his gun inside, and, finding none, entered.

“There are still no signs,” said Sampson’s attorney Kurt Glass, a retired Army veteran.

The police officer reported smelling alcohol on Sampson’s breath, but Sampson said a test to determine blood-alcohol content was never administered.

Glass said Sampson rejected a plea offer that would have required him to pay a $100 fine and court costs and forfeit his weapon.

On Wednesday, the sides were at an impasse with a trial date set for Monday when Kalafut amended the charge to include a designation that alleges Sampson was intoxicated while in the hospital with his gun, a clear violation of the concealed handgun law.

It sounds like the DA is going to "Plan B".

It's probably a good thing that I'm not a lawyer, but my "counter-plea" (if you will) would be something along the lines of this:

If the arresting office forfeits his gun to my client, you (the DA) forfeit your gun to my client as well, compensate my client for the embarrassment YOU and your OFFICER have caused him, drop the charges, expunge his record, etc...then we will not pursue false arrest charges, unlawful imprisonment charges, etc. against YOU and the OFFICER. Understand?

Like I said, it's probably a good thing I'm not a lawyer.

I hate that the soldier is having to go through the legal battle in this, but hopefully it will be a good test case for CHL's and we can refer to it for any potential future issues if he is exonerated.

PUCKER wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Quote from 24hourcampfire website wrote:He knew certain hospitals in the state ban private gun owners, concealed weapons permits or not, from bringing guns inside the facilities. He said he checked the entrances of Metroplex for signs warning against carrying his gun inside, and, finding none, entered.

“There are still no signs,” said Sampson’s attorney Kurt Glass, a retired Army veteran.

The police officer reported smelling alcohol on Sampson’s breath, but Sampson said a test to determine blood-alcohol content was never administered.

Glass said Sampson rejected a plea offer that would have required him to pay a $100 fine and court costs and forfeit his weapon.

On Wednesday, the sides were at an impasse with a trial date set for Monday when Kalafut amended the charge to include a designation that alleges Sampson was intoxicated while in the hospital with his gun, a clear violation of the concealed handgun law.

It sounds like the DA is going to "Plan B".

It's probably a good thing that I'm not a lawyer, but my "counter-plea" (if you will) would be something along the lines of this:

If the arresting office forfeits his gun to my client, you (the DA) forfeit your gun to my client as well, compensate my client for the embarrassment YOU and your OFFICER have caused him, drop the charges, expunge his record, etc...then we will not pursue false arrest charges, unlawful imprisonment charges, etc. against YOU and the OFFICER. Understand?

Like I said, it's probably a good thing I'm not a lawyer.

He'd need to be compensated for his loss of position at his work damages being potentially future Loss of Earning Capacity (and possibly a loss of earnings if he had a pay cut as a result) and mental anguish. And, as part of the settlement, the city can throw in a bottle of wine for the wife for her loss of consortium due to his mental anguish affecting the home life. I'd be so upset if it were me, I'd develop ulcers ...

RPB wrote:

PUCKER wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Quote from 24hourcampfire website wrote:He knew certain hospitals in the state ban private gun owners, concealed weapons permits or not, from bringing guns inside the facilities. He said he checked the entrances of Metroplex for signs warning against carrying his gun inside, and, finding none, entered.

“There are still no signs,” said Sampson’s attorney Kurt Glass, a retired Army veteran.

The police officer reported smelling alcohol on Sampson’s breath, but Sampson said a test to determine blood-alcohol content was never administered.

Glass said Sampson rejected a plea offer that would have required him to pay a $100 fine and court costs and forfeit his weapon.

On Wednesday, the sides were at an impasse with a trial date set for Monday when Kalafut amended the charge to include a designation that alleges Sampson was intoxicated while in the hospital with his gun, a clear violation of the concealed handgun law.

It sounds like the DA is going to "Plan B".

It's probably a good thing that I'm not a lawyer, but my "counter-plea" (if you will) would be something along the lines of this:

If the arresting office forfeits his gun to my client, you (the DA) forfeit your gun to my client as well, compensate my client for the embarrassment YOU and your OFFICER have caused him, drop the charges, expunge his record, etc...then we will not pursue false arrest charges, unlawful imprisonment charges, etc. against YOU and the OFFICER. Understand?

Like I said, it's probably a good thing I'm not a lawyer.

He'd need to be compensated for his loss of position at his work damages being potentially future Loss of Earning Capacity (and possibly a loss of earnings if he had a pay cut as a result) and mental anguish. And, as part of the settlement, the city can throw in a bottle of wine for the wife for her loss of consortium due to his mental anguish affecting the home life. I'd be so upset if it were me, I'd develop ulcers ...

There was something posted about the soldier in question being reassigned to Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri. I don't know if he had that assignment prior to the charges against him, and this is merely a timing thing, or if he was given that assignment after because the Army wasn't happy about the bad "publicity". Perhaps bronco78 could clarify, but I would understand if he is not able to due to the nature of his military position and/or Army regulations. It's a double-edged sword, his reassignment. On the one hand, he starts with a fairly clean slate...on the other hand, it takes time to work to a level of true trust in a new unit, IMHO.

I got really curious about reading the actual definition of "intoxicated" as to a CHL.

Subchapter H, Chapter 411, under definitions states: (unless my search is out of date)

SUBCHAPTER H. LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUNSec. 411.171. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:(1) "Action" means single action, revolver, or semi-automatic action.(2) "Chemically dependent person" means a person who frequently or repeatedly becomes intoxicated by excessive indulgence in alcohol or uses controlled substances or dangerous drugs so as to acquire a fixed habit and an involuntary tendency to become intoxicated or use those substances as often as the opportunity is presented.(3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.(4) "Convicted" means an adjudication of guilt or, except as provided in Section 411.1711, an order of deferred adjudication entered against a person by a court of competent jurisdiction whether or not the imposition of the sentence is subsequently probated and the person is discharged from community supervision. The term does not include an adjudication of guilt or an order of deferred adjudication that has been subsequently:(A) expunged;(B) pardoned under the authority of a state or federal official; or(C) otherwise vacated, set aside, annulled, invalidated, voided, or sealed under any state or federal law.(4-a) "Federal judge" means:(A) a judge of a United States court of appeals;(B) a judge of a United States district court;(C) a judge of a United States bankruptcy court; or(D) a magistrate judge of a United States district court.(4-b) "State judge" means:(A) the judge of an appellate court, a district court, or a county court at law of this state;(B) an associate judge appointed under Chapter 201, Family Code; or(C) a justice of the peace.(5) "Handgun" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.01,

Penal Code.(6) "Intoxicated" has the meaning assigned by Section 49.01, Penal Code.(7)

"Qualified handgun instructor" means a person who is certified to instruct in the use of handguns by the department.(8) Repealed by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, Sec. 9.02(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1999.

49.01 defines "intoxicated" as:

PENAL CODETITLE 10. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND MORALSCHAPTER 49. INTOXICATION AND ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE OFFENSESSec. 49.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:(1) "Alcohol concentration" means the number of grams of alcohol per:(A) 210 liters of breath;(B) 100 milliliters of blood; or(C) 67 milliliters of urine.

(2) "Intoxicated" means:(A) not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body; or
(B) having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.

Just because the LEO (Wyatt Earp) smelled alcohol is just not enough. What am I missing here in the law? If I'm reading this right, if you are under .08 and have "normal use of mental or physical faculties", you are not intoxicated by DUI or CHL standards.

I'm not advocating carrying or driving while intoxicated at all, but the law says.........

2firfun50 wrote:I got really curious about reading the actual definition of "intoxicated" as to a CHL.

Subchapter H, Chapter 411, under definitions states: (unless my search is out of date)

SUBCHAPTER H. LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUNSec. 411.171. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:(1) "Action" means single action, revolver, or semi-automatic action.(2) "Chemically dependent person" means a person who frequently or repeatedly becomes intoxicated by excessive indulgence in alcohol or uses controlled substances or dangerous drugs so as to acquire a fixed habit and an involuntary tendency to become intoxicated or use those substances as often as the opportunity is presented.(3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.(4) "Convicted" means an adjudication of guilt or, except as provided in Section 411.1711, an order of deferred adjudication entered against a person by a court of competent jurisdiction whether or not the imposition of the sentence is subsequently probated and the person is discharged from community supervision. The term does not include an adjudication of guilt or an order of deferred adjudication that has been subsequently:(A) expunged;(B) pardoned under the authority of a state or federal official; or(C) otherwise vacated, set aside, annulled, invalidated, voided, or sealed under any state or federal law.(4-a) "Federal judge" means:(A) a judge of a United States court of appeals;(B) a judge of a United States district court;(C) a judge of a United States bankruptcy court; or(D) a magistrate judge of a United States district court.(4-b) "State judge" means:(A) the judge of an appellate court, a district court, or a county court at law of this state;(B) an associate judge appointed under Chapter 201, Family Code; or(C) a justice of the peace.(5) "Handgun" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.01,

Penal Code.(6) "Intoxicated" has the meaning assigned by Section 49.01, Penal Code.(7)

"Qualified handgun instructor" means a person who is certified to instruct in the use of handguns by the department.(8) Repealed by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, Sec. 9.02(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1999.

49.01 defines "intoxicated" as:

PENAL CODETITLE 10. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND MORALSCHAPTER 49. INTOXICATION AND ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE OFFENSESSec. 49.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:(1) "Alcohol concentration" means the number of grams of alcohol per:(A) 210 liters of breath;(B) 100 milliliters of blood; or(C) 67 milliliters of urine.

(2) "Intoxicated" means:(A) not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body; or
(B) having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.

Just because the LEO (Wyatt Earp) smelled alcohol is just not enough. What am I missing here in the law? If I'm reading this right, if you are under .08 and have "normal use of mental or physical faculties", you are not intoxicated by DUI or CHL standards.

I'm not advocating carrying or driving while intoxicated at all, but the law says.........

THAT is what I was getting at by asking what their proof was that he was intoxicated. The penal code is giving a standard...so what did the officer see that fit in the behavior of the soldier in regards to this standard?

the soldier didn't do exactly what the civilian LEO told him to do, nothing more nothing less. this is really a case of Lese Police Officer and is being prosucuted by grabbing at the straws that broke the camels back.

Heartland Patriot wrote: THAT is what I was getting at by asking what their proof was that he was intoxicated. The penal code is giving a standard...so what did the officer see that fit in the behavior of the soldier in regards to this standard?

He didnt see anyting apparently, because he wasnt arrested for being intoxicated. That particular charge was added several weeks later.

[quote="Heartland PatriotThere was something posted about the soldier in question being reassigned to Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri. I don't know if he had that assignment prior to the charges against him, and this is merely a timing thing, or if he was given that assignment after because the Army wasn't happy about the bad "publicity". Perhaps bronco78 could clarify, but I would understand if he is not able to due to the nature of his military position and/or Army regulations. It's a double-edged sword, his reassignment. On the one hand, he starts with a fairly clean slate...on the other hand, it takes time to work to a level of true trust in a new unit, IMHO.[/quote]

1: Have not heard back from the Soldier via an email I sent Friday.. So still waiting.

2: This while on our radar is a very minor thing in the general view of army leadership.. barely a blip at the battalion level, and nothing close to what would be required to get the attention of the senior folks it would take to force an unscheduled PCS move.
That said anything is possible… but most things are not likely

JP171 wrote:the soldier didn't do exactly what the civilian LEO told him to do, nothing more nothing less. this is really a case of Lese Police Officer and is being prosucuted by grabbing at the straws that broke the camels back.

Where did read that allowed you to form that opinion?

What report qoutes what a LEO orderd him to do, thet the Soldier failed to do?

Is that something that was in the restricted electronic version of the story>?

Thanks

bronco78 wrote:

JP171 wrote:the soldier didn't do exactly what the civilian LEO told him to do, nothing more nothing less. this is really a case of Lese Police Officer and is being prosucuted by grabbing at the straws that broke the camels back.

Where did read that allowed you to form that opinion?

What report qoutes what a LEO orderd him to do, thet the Soldier failed to do?

Is that something that was in the restricted electronic version of the story>

Thanks

There is a link to another forum on the first page of this topic that has the entire article posted. In the article, the prosecutor states that the officer warned the soldier that if he went to the hospital he should leave his guns at home. I'm sure that the officer wasn't happy when the soldier decided not to listen to the officer's advice and instead exercised his right to carry in that hospital.

tazz0018 wrote:This soldier went to war for us three times and now has to deal with this over a simple exposed GUN at a hospital with no 30.06 sign and (may) have been drinking a little and did no harm to no one. And yes they haul him to jail, but after checking his service to this county to protect the ones that's going to ruining his life from this time forward. Something just wrong with this. But if there is more to this story, I might just my change my opinion.

Actually there was nothing even to say that he exposed his GUN.