Am I understanding this

[Shady]

What test case can there be when the law is clear.

What rule is leo making up he has the authority to stop you and ask if you have a license to exempt you from the law that makes it illegal to open carry in Texas. After you show him the license to prove you are exempt feel free to tell him to pound sand at that point you are no longer in violation of the law.

Do I wish constitutional carry passed hell ya do I wish the dutton amendment was not removed hell yes, but we have what we have and until we get the legislature to fix it its better than what we had in 2015. And I am not sure I want the legislature to look at it and fix it for if they do we may lose some of what we got.

 

[nonameisgood]

What test case can there be when the law is clear.
...
And I am not sure I want the legislature to look at it and fix it for if they do we may lose some of what we got.

I think you meant to say "I am sure I don't want them to break it even worse."
I am thinking that the single solution to any problem is to simply delete some words from the code. In this case, essentially making knife and gun carry legal by removing certain words from PC 46.

My hypothetical test case might be a case which travels through the state and federal system such that the courts rule on the "ask for ID" aspect or the "licensing a right" aspect. And as one should see from our discussion, the clarity of the law is not certain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[txinvestigator]

I think you meant to say "I am sure I don't want them to break it even worse."
I am thinking that the single solution to any problem is to simply delete some words from the code. In this case, essentially making knife and gun carry legal by removing certain words from PC 46.

My hypothetical test case might be a case which travels through the state and federal system such that the courts rule on the "ask for ID" aspect or the "licensing a right" aspect. And as one should see from our discussion, the clarity of the law is not certain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The clarity is certain to those who don't try to read the law in he way they wish or want it to be.

They way you are presenting it is that right now if a LEO, based on his training and experience (well held tenants of probable cause), notices what appears to be a handgun under your shirt he cannot ask for your license.

Your statements indicate that a security guard carrying a handgun in plain view cannot be asked for his commission card.

 

[Bithabus]

Your failure to comprehend does not mean the law is unclear. In texas carrying handguns is illegal. If you are caught and you can show that you are on the " does not apply" list then you probably won't get arrested. It's simple.

I think you meant to say "I am sure I don't want them to break it even worse."
I am thinking that the single solution to any problem is to simply delete some words from the code. In this case, essentially making knife and gun carry legal by removing certain words from PC 46.

My hypothetical test case might be a case which travels through the state and federal system such that the courts rule on the "ask for ID" aspect or the "licensing a right" aspect. And as one should see from our discussion, the clarity of the law is not certain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Shotgun Jeremy]

Well you are in violation of the law if you are open carrying a modern pistol after the first. So ya when he asks you for your license it is not casual he is determining if you have a permit to let you to bypass the law.

I understand that no matter how its worded you are going to say well I can make my own rules and not tell him.

So it comes down to play stupid games win stupid prizes.

Your failure to comprehend does not mean the law is unclear. In texas carrying handguns is illegal. If you are caught and you can show that you are on the " does not apply" list then you probably won't get arrested. It's simple.

I don't know how many more ways you can put this. It is illegal to carry a pistol on you. Having a license generally exempts you from this law. The officer doesn't know if you're exempt unless you show him your license. We don't all agree with this, but that's the way it is. If you don't like it, you could always leave your gun in your vehicle or at home.

What are you afraid of by showing your license? It might be expired??? It may not be in your wallet?? Then keep on top of that! It's called responsibility. Most adults going places in life have it to some degree.


Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk

 

[locke_n_load]

I agree that instead of continually adding on to Texas Penal Code to get permissions, we need to simply just start removing restrictions by deleting text. Else you get freaking thirty exemptions that aren't mentioned unless you read 2 pages further down...

Things to push for in the future:
-"Constitutional Carry" - Simply remove the language from the penal code making it illegal to carry a pistol.
-If we can't get that, push for HB308 type language - remove off limit areas for license holders - no stupid 51% that is going to pop up at city owned property now that SB273 has gone into effect.
-Remove professional sporting events from being off limits, as well as hospitals and amusement parks on city land from being to able to post 30.06/30.07.
-Give an actual definition to intoxicated (.08 BAC)
-Remove "shoulder or belt holster" with "holster"

 

[txinvestigator]

I agree that instead of continually adding on to Texas Penal Code to get permissions, we need to simply just start removing restrictions by deleting text. Else you get freaking thirty exemptions that aren't mentioned unless you read 2 pages further down...

Things to push for in the future:
-"Constitutional Carry" - Simply remove the language from the penal code making it illegal to carry a pistol.
-If we can't get that, push for HB308 type language - remove off limit areas for license holders - no stupid 51% that is going to pop up at city owned property now that SB273 has gone into effect.
-Remove professional sporting events from being off limits, as well as hospitals and amusement parks on city land from being to able to post 30.06/30.07.
-Give an actual definition to intoxicated (.08 BAC)
-Remove "shoulder or belt holster" with "holster"

I can get behind most of those, but intoxicated already has a definition. You really don't want to limit it to any BAC. Drugs don't show a BAC.

 

[Charlie]

I can get behind most of those, but intoxicated already has a definition. You really don't want to limit it to any BAC. Drugs don't show a BAC.

What is the legal definition? Is it tied to a percentage (.08 or ?).

 

[Mreed911]

What is the legal definition? Is it tied to a percentage (.08 or ?).

(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.

 

[Charlie]

Is the 0.08 % level used in DWI issues or does that hold up for any other offences? I thought I had been made aware (can't remember the source) that the 0.08% was used only for DWIs not necessarily for other offences. Not arguing, just curious.

 

[bones_708]

Is the 0.08 % level used in DWI issues or does that hold up for any other offences? I thought I had been made aware (can't remember the source) that the 0.08% was used only for DWIs not necessarily for other offences. Not arguing, just curious.

What other offences? Here's my understanding, they don't need a percentage if the officer can state why you were impaired and make people believe him. The problem is that without a blood alcohol level if you hire a good lawyer and they don't have dead bang solid proof, like video of you falling over, then you walk. Heck even if you are falling over it might be because of some medical condition and you still walk. So it's not that you can't be arrested it's that it is very hard to convict without a percentage and if your percentage is under .08 then it's almost impossible. To the point that most DA's wouldn't touch a case like that because they dislike losing.

 

[Charlie]

Thanks, that's kinda' what I've heard also. That's why I was asking.

 

[locke_n_load]

Per Texas Penal Code 46.03 (weapons):

(1) "Intoxicated" means substantial impairment of mental or physical capacity resulting from introduction of any substance into the body.

I don't know where Mike got his definition (somewhere else in Texas PC I think)


What is "substantial"? What happens if I had a beer with dinner and then use my weapon in a defensive shooting, and I'm a little emotional afterwards? Can the officer say I was impaired? That's why I'd like it to state .08 BAC and nothing more. Take out the officer discretion.

 

[Mreed911]

Per Texas Penal Code 46.03 (weapons):


I don't know where Mike got his definition (somewhere else in Texas PC I think)


What is "substantial"? What happens if I had a beer with dinner and then use my weapon in a defensive shooting, and I'm a little emotional afterwards? Can the officer say I was impaired? That's why I'd like it to state .08 BAC and nothing more. Take out the officer discretion.

I did - I didn't realize there were different definitions.

How would .08 BAC account for intoxication on non-alcoholic substances?

How would it account for the person significantly impaired at .06, .04, etc.?

 

[nonameisgood]

As far as it being illegal to carry (openly after Jan 1), this does not mean that an officer is obliged to verify every (or even any) open carrier s/he may encounter. This is the crux of the issue, not the actual illegality of something, but the quest to intervene in the peaceful exercise of the privilege.
I see officers often overlook obvious, dangerous infractions like illegal U-turns, speeding, and jaywalking. Carrying a holstered handgun is not dangerous, yet it seems to be a "serious" issue. Hopefully, LE will find that doing this little dance is a waste of time and put an end to it quickly (assuming John Law adopts a policy of checking OCers.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[locke_n_load]

I did - I didn't realize there were different definitions.

How would .08 BAC account for intoxication on non-alcoholic substances?

How would it account for the person significantly impaired at .06, .04, etc.?

That's a good question Mike, don't really have a good answer, I just don't like how everyone says "you can't have a drink while carrying because you'll meet the definition of intoxicated, you've introduced alcohol into your system and even a tiny amount can effect how you think." I hate to hear people giving up some freedom because of that thought process.

I don't know enough about the correlation to BAC and behavior to give you an answer for the people significantly impaired at .04 or .06. What percentage of people are messed up at .06 and lower? Just wondering.

 

[nonameisgood]

Research tend to show some measurable impairment at 0.05 in most subjects. Intuitively, I would think mental impairment might precede physical impairment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bones_708]

That's a good question Mike, don't really have a good answer, I just don't like how everyone says "you can't have a drink while carrying because you'll meet the definition of intoxicated, you've introduced alcohol into your system and even a tiny amount can effect how you think." I hate to hear people giving up some freedom because of that thought process.

I don't know enough about the correlation to BAC and behavior to give you an answer for the people significantly impaired at .04 or .06. What percentage of people are messed up at .06 and lower? Just wondering.

The issue isn't if the officer "Thinks" you are intoxicated but rather if he can "prove" it. The easiest way to do so is to get your BA% and it being .08 or higher. If it isn't, or he doesn't check, and there isn't some reason that he can articulate to a jury, how likely is it that a jury would convict. Really if you are under .08 I'd bet you would really have to work to get convicted of being intoxicated anything if you had any kind of lawyer. The bar would be the same as a DWI or DUI and a whole lot of lawyers have made money for a lot of years getting people off of charges.

 

[Mreed911]

This is why you NEVER submit to field sobriety tests and DO NOT have a conversation with an officer investigating your sobriety. EVERYTHING is evidence, including your nervousness causing you to use the wrong word, which gets interpreted as impairment.

I don't support driving while intoxicated, nor do I support the use of firearm while intoxicated. I also don't support providing anything that can be misconstrued as evidence when being questioned about a potential criminal act.

 

[BRD@66]

Research tend to show some measurable impairment at 0.05 in most subjects. Intuitively, I would think mental impairment might precede physical impairment.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The first faculty to be affected is judgment & that can happen well below 0.08. 0.08 is/was the goto percentage for DWI only (Natl Safety Council is now pushing for 0.05). But TABC for example, ramrodded it into their fileable rules to also be the per se definition of intoxicated for too intoxicated to be served. Others may have fine-tuned their definition of intox to be 0.08 also. As previously stated though, it is (or should be) a Penal Code thing.