TexasCHLforum.com

To those of you that have followed the laws surrounding CHL for awhile, I'm curious about a few things.
Where did they arrive at some of the off-limits locations?
Since I work at a school, I know their reasoning, even if I don't agree with it.

But what's the deal with professional sporting events? Why is it illegal for a CHL holder to attend a ball game while armed?

And bars. I can understand why people that are drinking shouldn't be carrying, but unfortunately, their designated driver isn't permitted to carry either.

What is the thinking behind these exclusions?

I think it has to do with the alcohol sales/consumption at professional sporting events. Also the fans can get quite worked up. Did you ever see one of those soccer games in England?

I've always thought that the reason about bars was because of a scene out of the old westerns. Some guy is drinking and playing cards and he gets accused of cheating. The next thing you know there's a gunfight.

I think the professional sporting events came from rich sporting event owners saying that they don't want them and then "lobbied" with their checkbooks.

Then there's always the issue of going to a gunfight and a hockey game breaks out!

I think the bar is is just as Bill said. I have seen lots of folks get '10 ft tall and bullet proof' even with a couple of drinks. I have been in a few honky tonks when I played music that needed chicken wire over the bandstand. There was usually one or two fights a night including flying glasses or bottles. The absense of a gun might save a life if someone decided it warrented drawing and shooting. A little alcohol can impair the judgement just enough in some folks and they may make the wrong choice.

Venus Pax wrote:What is the thinking behind these exclusions?

Other than a very few restrictions [1] the "thinking" was, in reality, irrational hysteria and prejudice. (I'm completely serious.)

1. An easy litmus test is whether the restriction also applies to a peace officer who is not engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty.

cbr600 wrote:

Venus Pax wrote:What is the thinking behind these exclusions?

Other than a very few restrictions [1] the "thinking" was, in reality, irrational hysteria and prejudice. (I'm completely serious.)

1. An easy litmus test is whether the restriction also applies to a peace officer who is not engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty.

I think you nailed it.

The sporting event restriction was one of those things we had to accept to get it passed. It literally came from a statement by someone (I can't recall who now) that said something to the effect that an umpire's bad call is going to get someone shot. Can you believe that? Well, that was 1995 when we were hearing the "blood in the streets" garbage.

Bars -- In 1995 the designated driver was the guy whose name appears on the car title. If you go to a bar, you're going to get drunk, or if not, some drunk is going to start mouthing off and you're going to shoot him. Yeah I know, but again, it was 1995 and we were about to change 120+ years of legal history.

I like the suggested litmus test.

Chas.

An easy litmus test is whether the restriction also applies to a peace officer who is not engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty.

As you are probably already aware - a LEO can legally carry off-duty into a bar, exceed the .08 limit, and violate no laws. A CHL holder can't legally carry in the bar even if they are not drinking.

CHL/LEO wrote:

An easy litmus test is whether the restriction also applies to a peace officer who is not engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty.

As you are probably already aware - a LEO can legally carry off-duty into a bar, exceed the .08 limit, and violate no laws. A CHL holder can't legally carry in the bar even if they are not drinking.

Except PC49.02