Do not Support HB 195 if you like beer

[zekester]

This IS how it is written!!....No "IF's" no "AND's" and NO "BUTT"S"

The extent of the definition of possession isn't all that relevant, you misunderstand the bill when you say "Which means a LEO is not allowed to become intoxicated in his or her own home while in "POSSESSION" of a handgun." Possession of the handgun is not the condition. The condition is carrying the handgun on or about your person while in possession of the handgun. As a side note - equal application of the law to law enforcement is a good thing.

Edit: I also understand that this doesn't effect the basis for your objection to hb195

The way it reads now is:


Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS
Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally,
knowingly, or recklessly carries on or ABOUT his or her person a
handgun;
(8) While intoxicated

"ABOUT" is the word..."ABOUT" is possession. "ABOUT " is vicinity..... No matter where you are!!

If you have a "HANDGUN".....in the trunk of your car....and get pulled over for DUI.....Now it is a crime, above the DUI....because you are in possession of a handgun.....it is not carried....it is "about" your person, which mean that you possess....tell me please ...what is the difference?

We may disagree on the definition of "ABOUT"....and "POSSESSION"...but I assure you , if the prosecutor decides to bring a case like this to trial he or she will push it to the limit....it his or her job to get a conviction, or minimum an indictment.

Simple fix....change "OR"....to "AND". Then add something in regards to self defense.

Again, I must say, I do not advocate drinking and driving, and especially drinking and carrying, but no one can tell me that I do not have the right to protect myself, just because I have had a couple of beers.

Ps...sorry about the "BUTTS"...lol

 

[MAC702]

Do you honestly believe it's a good idea to carry a firearm while drinking? ....

Do you honestly believe a nanny government should require us to be disarmed while RESPONSIBLY drinking? You do know it is possible to drink without being drunk, right? How do you feel about a 5" serrated knife in the hands of a man who is having a glass of wine with his steak? A sidearm in the holster is less dangerous, akin to having your car keys in your pocket.

Yes, you can argue your "what ifs" and liabilities all you want, but the fact remains that it is YOUR decision to make, and not the government's.

 

[MAC702]

... As a side note - equal application of the law to law enforcement is a good thing...

Which is laughable because "equal application" and "equal enforcement" are two entirely different things.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Zekester are you drinking now?

Personally I would not want to face a 300 pound hog while intoxicated, it just does not seem to bright to me. But your mileage may vary.

And remember this tidbit~~~Don't talk to the police!

Cop~knock knock

Zekester~Hello what do you want?

Cop~are you intoxicated?

Zekester~Yes, and I have gun in the house.

I am also pretty sure that about your person means within reach.

 

[zekester]

Zekester are you drinking now?

Personally I would not want to face a 300 pound hog while intoxicated, it just does not seem to bright to me. But your mileage may vary.

It was not my choice, but sometimes things happen....

I was just there with a friend....I was not hunting at all....

It was the hog or me.....

What would you do?

1911...two shots....goodbye hog.....and hello ham and bacon

 

[WalkingWolf]

It was not my choice, but sometimes things happen....

I was just there with a friend....I was not hunting at all....

It was the hog or me.....

What would you do?

Use basic good common sense! And drinking and farming or going where there may be dangerous animals is not common sense.

Your situation sounds about as bright as the guy who bought a gun, and then the same day carried unloaded, AT 2 IN THE MORNING. In some cases it is legal to be stupid, but it results in stupid prizes.

 

[zekester]

Use basic good common sense! And drinking and farming or going where there may be dangerous animals is not common sense.

Your situation sounds about as bright as the guy who bought a gun, and then the same day carried unloaded, AT 2 IN THE MORNING. In some cases it is legal to be stupid, but it results in stupid prizes.

Your right...common sense would have told me to not carry that day....

But I did......and thanks to that....

Common sense does not always save your life or someone you love.

Common sense, tells everyone to hide from danger......MY uncle did not do that when he got killed in Vietnam.

All those young kids out there protecting us aren't running.....

Situations dictate what you can and can not do, regardless of your capacity.

I did what I had to do.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Your right...common sense would have told me to not carry that day....

But I did......and thanks to that....

Common sense would have told you not to get plowed and then put yourself in a dangerous situation whether armed or not.

I don't live in Texas, but I understand what the law makers are saying. You can legally get drunk, sloppy falling down drunk. You can legally carry a gun, or drive a car. You just can't do the last two while doing the first.

There is no right to get plowed and endanger others in the constitution.

 

[zekester]

Common sense would have told you not to get plowed and then put yourself in a dangerous situation whether armed or not.

I don't live in Texas, but I understand what the law makers are saying. You can legally get drunk, sloppy falling down drunk. You can legally carry a gun, or drive a car. You just can't do the last two while doing the first.

There is no right to get plowed and endanger others in the constitution.

I never said I was "PLOWED".....but most likely "LEGALLY" intoxicated.......

Go back and read the post.......

I never get "PLOWED" when carrying......unless there is a snow storm......which does not happen very often down here!

 

[WalkingWolf]

I never said I was "PLOWED".....but most likely "LEGALLY" intoxicated.......

Go back and read the post.......

IMO going past the limit is plowed, but you can call it what you wish. You were still acting in a manner lacking responsibility. As I said the lawmakers are saying you can get drunk, you can carry, you just cannot do both at the same time. If you put yourself in a situation where you will likely need a gun, whether you have one or not, does not change the lack of common sense of it.

 

[zekester]

IMO going past the limit is plowed, but you can call it what you wish. You were still acting in a manner lacking responsibility. As I said the lawmakers are saying you can get drunk, you can carry, you just cannot do both at the same time. If you put yourself in a situation where you will likely need a gun, whether you have one or not, does not change the lack of common sense of it.

Again you are wrong.....

It Cleary states that you can not even be in possession of a HANDGUN while intoxicated....it does not distinguish whether you are in you home...on private property, or a LEO.....by being in possessing of a handgun with this bill...it is illegal

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Who have you contacted about making these changes to the bill?

 

[KBCraig]

"ABOUT" is the word..."ABOUT" is possession. "ABOUT " is vicinity..... No matter where you are!!

If you have a "HANDGUN".....in the trunk of your car....and get pulled over for DUI.....Now it is a crime, above the DUI....because you are in possession of a handgun.....it is not carried....it is "about" your person, which mean that you possess....tell me please ...what is the difference?

The difference is, you're wrong. A handgun in the trunk is not "about your person", and never has been. If that weren't true, handguns would have been effectively banned in Texas until 1996, because there was no legal way to carry until issuance of the first CHL licenses. Anyone buying a handgun and then taking it home in the trunk of his car would have been "unlawfully carrying a weapon".

 

[WalkingWolf]

Again you are wrong.....

It Cleary states that you can not even be in possession of a HANDGUN while intoxicated....it does not distinguish whether you are in you home...on private property, or a LEO.....by being in possessing of a handgun with this bill...it is illegal

On or about your person is within reach. If it is not within reach it is not on or about your person.

 

[WalkingWolf]

The difference is, you're wrong. A handgun in the trunk is not "about your person", and never has been. If that weren't true, handguns would have been effectively banned in Texas until 1996, because there was no legal way to carry until issuance of the first CHL licenses. Anyone buying a handgun and then taking it home in the trunk of his car would have been "unlawfully carrying a weapon".

That is why I asked him if he is drinking now...

 

[()pen(arry]

On or about your person is within reach. If it is not within reach it is not on or about your person.

What if it's an autobiographical handgun?

 

[RU serious]

Use basic good common sense! And drinking and farming or going where there may be dangerous animals is not common sense.

Your situation sounds about as bright as the guy who bought a gun, and then the same day carried unloaded, AT 2 IN THE MORNING. In some cases it is legal to be stupid, but it results in stupid prizes.

Common sense would have told you not to get plowed and then put yourself in a dangerous situation whether armed or not.

I don't live in Texas, but I understand what the law makers are saying. You can legally get drunk, sloppy falling down drunk. You can legally carry a gun, or drive a car. You just can't do the last two while doing the first.

There is no right to get plowed and endanger others in the constitution.

Be default you are saying one should not go where there could be dangers, even if stone cold sober. With the occasional rabid critter and all the snakes, bobcats, pigs, and alligators, I could never leave the house. You've made better arguments.

Disclaimer: I could not find where zekester talks of killing a pig with a handgun (which would be totally awesome!) and assume it bled over from another thread.

 

[zekester]

Possesion

If you "own" a "handgun".....you are in "Possession" of said "handgun".....if you are not in "Possession" of said "Handgun"...then you are just as irresponsible of carrying a "handgun" while intoxicated....

In a safe
In your car
In your home
At your work

You "POSSESS" a handgun....

I will say this one more time......this law does not distinguish any difference between owning and possessing.... especially on your own property...read what it says....!!!!

I have sent an email to the congressman about changing the language, I have not heard back.

Note to RU....I have shot a hog with a handgun....

 

[WalkingWolf]

If you "own" a "handgun".....you are in "Possession" of said "handgun".....if you are not in "Possession" of said "Handgun"...then you are just as irresponsible of carrying a "handgun" while intoxicated....

In a safe
In your car
In your home
At your work

You "POSSESS" a handgun....

I have sent an email to the congressman about changing the language, I have not heard back.

Note to RU....I have shot a hog with a handgun....

(a) A person in possession of a handgun
commits an offense if they intentionally,
knowingly, or recklessly carry a handgun on or about their person:


if they intentionally,
knowingly, or recklessly carry a handgun on or about their person:


if they intentionally,
knowingly, or recklessly carry a handgun on or about their person:


Try reading it sober...

 

[zekester]

Fine

On or about your person is within reach. If it is not within reach it is not on or about your person.

I am in my home minding my own business and the police knock down my door,,,,,wrong house, wrong warrant....I have a handgun on my table "within" reach...

Now assuming I do not get shot, I am still breaking the law according to this bill..if if I am having a few beers and have a handgun......