Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick says Senate currently lacks the votes to pass permitless carry

[gdr_11]

Regarding the legalese, would it be too much to ask for Paxton’s office to issue some guidance that is reinforced by the Governor so that the pinko DA’s don’t look for the first opportunity to push prosecution for their personal Leftist interpretation of the statute? I have no doubt that the Soros funded DAs are frothing at the mouth to make examples of anyone that steps on the line come September. The best way to avoid that is to cut them off at the pass.

 

[Renegade]

Just gonna keep/renew my LTC and abide by the signs/rules as they apply.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes this definitely NO substitute for LTC

 

[Renegade]

Yes. You can't discriminate against a federally (or state) protected class on private property open to the public. Gun owners are not a protected class, so legally I think it's perfectly ok to exclude and discriminate.

RKBA is constitutionally protected and has not been given the protections it deserves. so say not just me but several SCOTUS judges.

 

[Cob]

There are quit a few to workout

 

[Army 1911]

Once again, I highly suggest waiting to read the final language and get some legal input before jumping to conclusions...

If I don't jump to conclusions I don't get any exercise.

 

[Cob]

reading the msm on this bill you would think that it was going to be gun fights at high noon Texas n town square

 

[glenbo]

"Carry while intoxicated will be prohibited except on your property, in your vehicle,..." From the GOA article posted. So now it's OK to drive drunk as long as you are carrying?

 

[Sasquatch]

"Carry while intoxicated will be prohibited except on your property, in your vehicle,..." From the GOA article posted. So now it's OK to drive drunk as long as you are carrying?

Nah, you're okay to be drunk while Jeeves drives you home though.

What about being intoxicated in the back of an Uber while carrying though? What if your spouse is your Uber driver?

 

[satx78247]

"Carry while intoxicated will be prohibited except on your property, in your vehicle,..." From the GOA article posted. So now it's OK to drive drunk as long as you are carrying?

glenbo,

AGREED that that is WEIRD but IF the drunk is NOT driving (for example are only a passenger), what crime has been committed except possibly: DRUNK IN PUBLIC??

yours, satx

 

[TexasRedneck]

Well aren't we snarky? How do you know I don't have a JD?
I was attempting to pass along the fact it has been posted here.

Snarky? Son, when I decide to get snarky, you WILL know about it. I was pointing out that the law is complex, and it's going to take an attorney to sort through all the nuances...but go ahead and feel slighted if it makes you feel better! You obviously missed the "LOL" at the end of my comment...

 

[TexasRedneck]

Bowling alleys have those signs but prolly a good thing as I can see some one becoming slightly intoxicated and decideing to tak out a 7 10 split with a 9mm

<shrug> Wouldn't matter. Now, if they whupped out their .45.......

 

[Shady]

Well Sep 1st is going to lead to a mass reduction in Tx population and rivers of blood flowing in the streets.

Just like when they voted in concealed carry.

We are doomed. Doomed I tell ya.

 

[TexasRedneck]

Well Sep 1st is going to lead to a mass reduction in Tx population and rivers of blood flowing in the streets.

Just like when they voted in concealed carry.

We are doomed. Doomed I tell ya.

The Wild West Pimping starts Sep 1st - get your gats ready NOW!!!

 

[TexasRedneck]

No it is complex because of all the prohibitions they added and all the new penalties, new signs, etc.

They could have just repealed the portions 46.02 that relate to handguns and we would have had CC. Instead we have this. Of course that would not have passed so we get all these special interest prohibitions.

and then there is the practical. If places start putting up 30.05/06/07 signs we will have lost a lot of ground. So it a big unknown at this time

You hit the nail on the head - our snowflakes wanted certain provisions in the bill. Trust me when I tell you that these were the mildest ones proposed. These can be exorcised in future sessions once folks realize that their fears were unfounded, just as we did with CHL/LTC.

Think about the massive amount of real estate these signs are going to occupy. That same space can be used to advertise sales, hours of operation, etc.. I think the long-term result is that many are going to relax some of their prohibitions. If not, there IS some new legislation being discussed for the next session that may make many of these places rethink their "no gun" policies. We'll see.

 

[kenboyles72]

Where did you see this in the Penal Code?

Not sure, but it could be implied. When I took my LTC course, there was a USCCA lawyer there to answer questions. What was said, that there was no law in Texas prohibting the carrying of a rifle in public, but must be worn with a sling. Maybe this was just precautionary, as if one was carrying in public, with the rifle in one's hand, that would indicate they were about to use it. Just like if one was to walk around with a pistol in their hand, this would be seen as intent to do a criminal act. If you aren't intending on using your firearm, have it slung or in your holster.

 

[cycleguy2300]

Not sure, but it could be implied. When I took my LTC course, there was a USCCA lawyer there to answer questions. What was said, that there was no law in Texas prohibting the carrying of a rifle in public, but must be worn with a sling. Maybe this was just precautionary, as if one was carrying in public, with the rifle in one's hand, that would indicate they were about to use it. Just like if one was to walk around with a pistol in their hand, this would be seen as intent to do a criminal act. If you aren't intending on using your firearm, have it slung or in your holster.

Nothing in TX Penal Code about a sling being required to carry a long gun in public. As all too common with instructions given during LTC courses, this seems to advise based on opinion and not fact. People have been doing that since Eve decided God had told her not to eat or to touch...

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[Renegade]

When I took my LTC course, there was a USCCA lawyer there to answer questions. What was said, that there was no law in Texas prohibting the carrying of a rifle in public, but must be worn with a sling.

1) you misinterpreted the reason for the sling.
2) USCCA Lawyer should have declined to answer as carrying rifles has nothing to do with LTC and can lead to students misinterpreting answers.

 

[billtool]

This was cleared up a few sessions back when they tied it to being intoxicated which does have an objective measurement of .08 BAC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Oh wow - I didn't know that. That's great news to me. I appreciate you clearing that up.

 

[cycleguy2300]

This was cleared up a few sessions back when they tied it to being intoxicated which does have an objective measurement of .08 BAC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

READ THE LAW!!! Please stop speaking as an expert when you have no clue about the law, it will get some poor sucker who trusted you in trouble.

Here is the law as it stands today. Intoxicated DOES NOT require a .08 BAC and can be articulated through observations of the loss of bodily control such as slurring, stumbling, needing support, glassy eyes, etc, etc to meet (A)'s "loss of normal use due to the introduction of any substance"

Many DWI's dont have or need a breathe or blood sample to establish the .08 BAC, a brief description of the driving and clues observed are more than enough to establish probable cause for the aresst.

TEXAS PENAL CODE CH49

49.01 DEFINITIONS

(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.


Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[cycleguy2300]

Oh wow - I didn't know that. That's great news to me. I appreciate you clearing that up.

Again, so others dont get the wrong idea about the law, the above is completely wrong.

Copied and pasted from:

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 49. INTOXICATION AND ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE OFFENSES

(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.


Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk