TexasCHLforum.com

County commissioner arrested
May 20, 2009 09:40 am

— Galen Scott
gscott@weatherforddemocrat.com

Arlington Police confirmed Precinct 4 Parker County Commissioner Jim Webster, 64, was arrested Saturday and charged with driving while intoxicated and unlawful possession of a weapon.

Authorities are not releasing the identity of a 25-year-old Dallas woman who was riding in Webster’s 2007 Toyota Tundra at the time of his arrest. The woman, who Webster described as a friend, was not taken into police custody.

According to Arlington Police spokesperson Tiara Ellis, officers responded to a call from a motorist in the 2600 block of Six Flags Drive requesting assistance with two flat tires shortly before 1 a.m.

Police at the scene requested a blood sample and Webster consented. He was booked into an Arlington jail at approximately 4 a.m., Ellis said, and released at 11 a.m. Results of the blood sample are not yet available.

Webster was also found to be in possession of a loaded revolver. “Officers did the normal thing, and asked him whether or not he had any weapons in the vehicle, and he said yes, and identified the revolver and turned it over to officers,” Ellis said.

Webster said he called police after his truck collided with a median. He said he consumed three alcoholic beverages earlier in the evening.

“I called the Arlington Police to help me get the truck out of the intersection,” he said. “They got there and asked me if I’d had anything to drink. I said ‘yes.’ And then they looked in my truck and I had a weapon in it. I have a concealed handgun permit. And they asked me if I would consent to a blood test, and I did.”

The Texas Local Government Code lists “intoxication on or off duty caused by drinking an alcoholic beverage” among general grounds for removal from the office of county commissioner.

Webster said he is elected every four years and his future service to Parker County will be determined by, “a vote of the people.”

Weatherford defense attorney Becky Davis said she is representing Webster. She said her client’s blood sample, expected within the next two weeks, could come back showing nothing.

If Webster’s blood-alcohol content at the time is found to below the legal level, Davis said both charges should be dismissed because the unlawful weapon charge is contingent upon Webster’s alleged intoxication.

-geo

Russell wrote:So....... is .08 the legal limit for carrying just as it is for driving or not?

So far, there's been no definition of "intoxicated" as it relates to carrying a concealed handgun while intoxicated.
This case could set a precedent which determines how the law is interpreted for years to come.

IANAL

I always prefer someone else to be the test case in such matters.

mgood wrote:

Russell wrote:So....... is .08 the legal limit for carrying just as it is for driving or not?

So far, there's been no definition of "intoxicated" as it relates to carrying a concealed handgun while intoxicated.
This case could set a precedent which determines how the law is interpreted for years to come.

IANAL

Sure, there is. It's the same as for "public intoxication". DWI is the one that has the BAC, but lots of folks go to jail across Texas everyday for public intoxication, No breath or blood test necessary.
Personally, I think this is mis-reported or someone is giving the commissioner an out. I don't see the gun charge being dependent on his BAC at all. After all, the officer at the scene probably had reason to request the blood test.

this will be an interesting case to follow ... can OP keep us up-to-date?

Possession of a handgun in a vehicle by an intoxicated CHL holder is no different than possession by an intoxicated person without a permit. Neither one has violated any statute by having the gun in their automobile as long as it was concealed from ordinary view from the outside looking in.

There is no way any court in this day and age is going to introduce a two-tiered system of justice for similarly situated persons as is being speculated here.

To do so would set a precedent for a return to the days of segregation and civil discrimination.

A CHL allows the holder to carry a concealed handgun on his person in public while outside a motor vehicle under his control. That right may be lost by intoxication beyond a given legal standard. But the right to keep a handgun concealed in a vehicle while traveling as well as the right to self defense while intoxicated are not diminished in any way by a CHL.

Intoxicated (over the legal limit) or not, don't drink and drive. It's much cheaper to call a cab
or a friend to drive you home or elsewhere. I'm sorry the CHL issue was even part of this story,
as these type of incidents just add fuel to the fire for the anti's.

the police were incorrect by charging him with unlawful possession of a weapon

Yes. I don't read anything in the news story that suggests the gun was somehow an illegal weapon inasmuch as the handgun was concealed inside his vehicle, for which no permit is necessary, nor is sobriety.

casingpoint wrote:

the police were incorrect by charging him with unlawful possession of a weapon

Yes. I don't read anything in the news story that suggests the gun was somehow an illegal weapon inasmuch as the handgun was concealed inside his vehicle, for which no permit is necessary, nor is sobriety.

This was what bothered me about the report was how he was charged with unlawful possession of a weapon. He was not in possession of the weapon he was outside the truck and the LEO asked if he had any weapons in his vehicle, to which he answered yes and then they retrieved the weapon.

I don't know, it just sounded strange to me. I will try to get a follow up article with more information.

-geo

UPDATE: 5/23/09

Here is an article from the Ft. Worth Star-telegram...and they wonder why we do not believe the news media.
This is a completely different story from the earlier article.

Parker County commissioner faces drinking, weapons charges

Saturday, May 23, 2009
By MITCH MITCHELL
mitchmitchell@star-telegram.com

Parker County Commission Jim Webster faces driving while intoxicated and unlawfully carrying a weapon charges after an arrest in Arlington early Saturday.

"I called the police for help while I was on the side of the road," said Webster, 64.

Webster called the police for help after his Toyota Tundra pickup became disabled with two flat tires in the 2600 block of Six Flags Drive. Webster would not say how the vehicle was disabled, and referred all questions to his attorney, Rebecca Davis.

Davis would not discuss the details of the arrest.

"We are not going to try this case in the newspapers," Davis said. "He is innocent until proven guilty."

According to police, an officer determined that Webster appeared to be intoxicated and he admitted to officers that he was carrying a weapon.

Webster consented to a blood draw that authorities will use to determine whether his blood-alcohol level was beyond the legal limit of .08. Results of those tests are expected within the next two weeks, police said.

Webster was booked into jail at 4 a.m. and released at 11 a.m., said Tiara Ellis Richard, a spokeswoman with the Arlington police.

A 25-year-old unidentified Dallas woman riding in the truck with Webster was not arrested and was allowed to leave the scene of the incident, Richard said.

-geo

casingpoint wrote:Possession of a handgun in a vehicle by an intoxicated CHL holder is no different than possession by an intoxicated person without a permit. Neither one has violated any statute by having the gun in their automobile as long as it was concealed from ordinary view from the outside looking in.

Drunk driving is a crime "other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic" so if someone is DUI they lose the MPA protection.

I'll beg to differ with casingpoint's interpretation on this one, although we all know IANAL. Here's my reasoning:

Even if we assume that a CHL holder can carry under the Motorist's Protection Act as if he were not a licensee--which I still have yet to see substantiated--PC§46.02 clearly sets limits under which the gun can be in the vehicle, including so long as the person is not "engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic." Public intoxication is a Class C misdemeanor, but it is not "a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic." Minimum penalty upon conviction of driving while intoxicated is a Class B misdemeanor. Either of these conditions--assuming the law enforcement officer had reason to believe the county commissioner was intoxicated--is enough to remove the defense from prosecution under PC§46.02.

And I do believe there is plenty of precedent in state law to have varying rules and requirements for different classes of individuals. You see it peppered all through the codes for police officers, firefighters, licensed security personnel, judges, etc. I don't see any reason why a different "carrying while intoxicated" law couldn't be applied to a separate class, like Concealed Handgun Licensees.

My non-professional opinion is that a DA could make a pretty good case that if you have a CHL and you have a gun on or about your person, then you are carrying under the auspices of Subchapter H, GC§411, not under the lesser provisions stipulated for the general public in PC§46.02. I may be absolutely wrong on this point, but I wouldn't want to be the test case.

And it still doesn't change the fact that if Joe Public is intoxicated, he is no longer protected under the Motorist Protection act and is, ergo, illegally carrying a firearm. The last sentence of the article rings true to me: "If Webster’s blood-alcohol content at the time is found to below the legal level, Davis said both charges should be dismissed because the unlawful weapon charge is contingent upon Webster’s alleged intoxication."


We've hashed through the 0.08 BAC before. And no, it is not a definitive limit for defining intoxication, even for DWI; although it does establish a provable level of impairment under the law. This is all defined in PC§49, and if you check GC§411.171 you'll see that item 6 points to the same definition of "intoxicated" as used for any other purposes, be they charges of public intoxication or DWI.

PC§49.01(2) Reads: "'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."

If the commissioner's BAC was 0.08 or higher, I think his defense attorney will try to play the "not on or about his person" card with respect to the firearm. He was outside the vehicle and the firearm inside it, but since it was his truck and he acknowledged he had hit the median, that's going to be a weak defense, IMHO. It's all gonna come down to whether he did the wrong thing and got behind the wheel while intoxicated.

Well, now. If the good commissioner was concealing a handgun on his person and he was out of the truck, his CHL isn't going to do him any good if he is later found to have been intoxicated at the time of the incident. The element of intoxication probably nullifies the CHL, and he's then just another drunk bozo in illegal possession of a gun to the cops and the DA. Probably not their first rodeo in that arena, but possibly his. He'd have been OK if he's just stashed the gun out of sight inside the truck before the cops arrived. Or stayed home and did his drinking there instead of on-the-town with a twenty-five-year-old-what's-her-name.