51% and the TABC

[A.Texas.Yankee]

30.06/07 are fine because they are private businesses. A private business should be able to restrict their customer base however they see fit. I don't have to agree with it, but I don't have to shop there, either.

Sent from some where out there.

 

[majormadmax]

I'm sure TXI will respond shortly, but Texas law does state that it is .08% or the lose of bodily function/cognitive abilities, something along those lines. It is defined, although somewhat vaguely.

The Penal Code (49.01, 'Definitions') states...

(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.

Emphasis mine. (B) is clearly defined and provable, but (A) is subject to interpretation...

 

[Mreed911]

The Penal Code (49.01, 'Definitions') states...

Emphasis mine. (B) is clearly defined and provable, but (A) is subject to interpretation...

Which is great for chapter 49. Elsewhere in Chapter 46, for a specific section, it says (and ONLY says):

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

 

[txinvestigator]

Maybe require the signage to be 35x as big as it is now, done in 4 color press. Make it so expensive to have legal signage that they would just opt to go to giving verbal notice if they see your gun.

Or change it to be that all 06 signage would prohibit anyone who is licensed by the state and has passed a criminal background check from entering.

Imagine if that sign prohibited HVAC technicians from entering a business to repair an AC ( and yes, I am being sarcastic, but you would never see a sign that said "no gays,blacks, asians, ) why should a gun buster sign have any weight)

You can leave your gun elsewhere, not so much your skin color.

 

[Hoji]

You can leave your gun elsewhere, not so much your skin color.

Yeah, I actually do get it. I just don't think a gun buster sign should have any more weight legally than a "we reserve the right to refuse service" sign does. If a business refused to serve someone because they were lisping flamers in mini skirts and thongs( not that's there's anything wrong with that)......well, everyone knows how well that would work out for a business.

30.05 covers criminal trespass. That is all that is needed. If an owner/manager/ owners represent does not want you on a property, he/she/ transgender can tell you to leave.

There is no need for 06/07.

As to 51%, that should go away as well. There are already laws for carrying while intoxicated. If I am the designated driver, or I get a call from a friend to come get him/her because they have had too much to drink and can't drive, I should not be made a felon because I walk into a bar and pick up someone who needs a ride home.

 

[majormadmax]

Which is great for chapter 49. Elsewhere in Chapter 46, for a specific section, it says (and ONLY says):

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

First and foremost, that definition only applies to Sec. 46.06. UNLAWFUL TRANSFER OF CERTAIN WEAPONS.

Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER only states "A license holder commits an offense if, while intoxicated, the license holder carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed or carried in a shoulder or belt holster."

Secondly, define "substantial" for me.

 

[Wiliamr]

I did not have sex with that guy!

 

[A.Texas.Yankee]

I did not have sex with that guy!

So it was the other guy, then?

Sent from some where out there.

 

[TheMailMan]

There's very little I miss about Oregon. But the whole .06 and .07 and 51% silliness makes me long for the simplicity of Oregon CHL Law.

Signs have no force of law AND it's perfectly legal to carry a concealed firearm into any establishment you wish. They can make 100% of their money selling alcohol or the Devil's Lettuce and you can still carry there.

Funny thing about it is this creates NO problems. Seems that those responsible enough to obtain a CHL are also responsible enough to handle being around alcohol.

I guess the same doesn't apply to Texas LTC holders.

 

[AtomicLabRat]

30.06/07 are fine because they are private businesses. A private business should be able to restrict their customer base however they see fit. I don't have to agree with it, but I don't have to shop there, either.

Sent from some where out there.

I disagree. They are not fine.

If the owner doesn't want them in there he can approach and give verbal notice.

Then the ltc holder much leave or face criminal trespass.

Not more magic line at which carry is automatically criminal.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[casp625]

I disagree. They are not fine.

If the owner doesn't want them in there he can approach and give verbal notice.

Then the ltc holder much leave or face criminal trespass.

Not more magic line at which carry is automatically criminal.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

I think 30.07 signs are fine while 30.06 should be done away with.

 

[AtomicLabRat]

Of its that important to them they can ask you to leave or not.

No more magic signs

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[A.Texas.Yankee]

I disagree. They are not fine.

If the owner doesn't want them in there he can approach and give verbal notice.

Then the ltc holder much leave or face criminal trespass.

Not more magic line at which carry is automatically criminal.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

That doesn't make sense to me. As a business owner, why would I waste my time to go out of my way to walk over to you, possibly make a scene, and verbally ask you to leave when I can just put signs up either asking you to keep your gun hidden or keep it in the car?

As a patron why would I want to have my time wasted, possibly standing in line for sometime, only to have an employee walk up to me and ask me to leave, possibly causing a scene, when I can just walk up to the entrance see the sign and choose to conceal, leave gun in car or not do business with that establishment?

It's my business, private property. Your convenience is none of my concern. Same thing that goes for my house. Why does a LTC holder have to be verbally told to leave when he can just read it before entering and save everyone the hassle?

Sent from some where out there.

 

[SC-Texas]

My thoughts are that a store owner, you have the right to ask people to leave. Shoes, shirt, guns.

You don't get to post a magic sign that makes it a criminal offense to walk across your threshold.

Simple. Very simple. I have been finding signs that are essentially hidden. Enough already.

If you don't want guns. Then ask them to leave or suck it up.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[txinvestigator]

My thoughts are that a store owner, you have the right to ask people to leave. Shoes, shirt, guns.

You don't get to post a magic sign that makes it a criminal offense to walk across your threshold.

Simple. Very simple. I have been finding signs that are essentially hidden. Enough already.

If you don't want guns. Then ask them to leave or suck it up.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

30.05 allows signs for notice of no entry. That is WHY we have 30.06 and .07.

 

[SidewaysTA]

I agree with Sean. I think that is the best for both sides.

You as a business owner are not denied your rights to do business as you see fit. You can still ask ltc'ers to leave and trespass them if they don't.

I don't have to be concerned with breaking a law simply because I stepped across a threshold whilst engaged in a legal activity.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk

 

[SC-Texas]

Then that needs to be changed. No more automatic criminal trespass

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[SC-Texas]

Looking at 30.05. Amend it to add signs are not legal notice regarding LTC holders

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[SidewaysTA]

Help me out here but where does signs and 30.05 come into play here?

If a business owner puts up a sign invoking 30.05 wouldn't they essentially be telling all patrons to stay out not just ltc holders? How would that work out good for them?

I'm probably missing something but if you just remove .06 and.07 then business owners would have to trespass people on an individual basis, right? I would think invoking .05 with a sign on the door essentially means everyone has to stay out unless given permission to enter?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk

 

[busykngt]

But the whole .06 and .07 and 51% silliness makes me long for the simplicity of Oregon CHL Law.

Funny thing about it is this creates NO problems.

Of course it doesn't. You've hit the nail on the head!

However, the source of the problem doesn't have so much to do with Texas LTC holders as it does with the propaganda and mindset of {mostly} Texas Democratic legislative office holders (and their supporters). IMO, it all goes back to their fundamental mistrust of John Q. Public. They just can't bring themselves to support a measure that allows such a high degree of liberty without *some sort* of restrictive government control (operative word there being, "control").