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

[toddnjoyce]

READ THE LAW!!!

QFT. Then ask questions about the specific section or provide a link to it.

I know I don’t always get it right due to the various state codes that incorporate sundry provisions and I appreciate when that’s pointed out. But there’s no excuse foe not googling TPC + subject.

 

[kenboyles72]

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

OK, can you provide any other verbage from the penal code that says otherwise? Not being snarky, just want to know, cause I can't find anything. In any case, if one was carrying in public, would it be a justifiable cause to have it slung just like one would have a pistol worn in a holster?

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.

Ok, so a lawyer specializing in gun law does not need to offer answers to questions when asked. LTC class or not, gun law is gun law and folk have the right to know what the law is.

Either which way, whether it's in the penal code or not, would it not be a common sense and proper firearm handling to sling your rifle while out in public? When I was in the Army, if your rifle was not being used, it was slung over the shoulder, which was the safest way of carrying your rifle when not in use. The same while carrying a pistol, if you're not using it, it's in your holster, that is the safest way of carrying it.

 

[cycleguy2300]

OK, can you provide any other verbage from the penal code that says otherwise? Not being snarky, just want to know, cause I can't find anything. In any case, if one was carrying in public, would it be a justifiable cause to have it slung just like one would have a pistol worn in a holster?



Ok, so a lawyer specializing in gun law does not need to offer answers to questions when asked. LTC class or not, gun law is gun law and folk have the right to know what the law is.

Either which way, whether it's in the penal code or not, would it not be a common sense and proper firearm handling to sling your rifle while out in public? When I was in the Army, if your rifle was not being used, it was slung over the shoulder, which was the safest way of carrying your rifle when not in use. The same while carrying a pistol, if you're not using it, it's in your holster, that is the safest way of carrying it.

There is nothing about a sling being required to carry a rifle, because carrying a rifle is legal.

Texas's Penal Code defines illegal behavior and exceptions to those laws (like an LTC being an exception to the otherwise illegal carry of a handgun).

Carrying a long gun isn't illegal, so a sling exception doesn't need to exist.

Does that make sense?

As far as what you choose to do, sure a sling is great leaves a hand free, but as long as you aren't pointing it at folks (or enough the notice) you should be fine. I carry my AR on my personal motorcycle from time to time, front slung with a 2-point and doubt anyone ever has noticed.


Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[toddnjoyce]

OK, can you provide any other verbage from the penal code that says otherwise? Not being snarky, just want to know, cause I can't find anything. In any case, if one was carrying in public, would it be a justifiable cause to have it slung just like one would have a pistol worn in a holster?



Ok, so a lawyer specializing in gun law does not need to offer answers to questions when asked. LTC class or not, gun law is gun law and folk have the right to know what the law is.

Either which way, whether it's in the penal code or not, would it not be a common sense and proper firearm handling to sling your rifle while out in public? When I was in the Army, if your rifle was not being used, it was slung over the shoulder, which was the safest way of carrying your rifle when not in use. The same while carrying a pistol, if you're not using it, it's in your holster, that is the safest way of carrying it.

Take a deep breath, there’s a lot going on there.

As for method of carry for a rifle or shotgun, I’m not aware of a state prohibited (or specifically adopted) means of carry. There may be restrictions on transport (in a case), location, amount of ammunition (remember TPWD game laws), etc., but state law is generally permissive towards a rifle or shotgun.

Now lets go back to the Army. I’m a recently retired combat arms officer, DoD or service specific regs don’t mean shit outside of military members in a military jurisdiction.

FrEX, it’s perfectly authorized, with DoD orders to travel commercially worldwide with all sorts of military weapons on or about a military member’s person.
Those orders didn’t mean jack shît in a lot of the jurisdictions I travelled through or operated in. Specifically, I had a series of missions across five countries in Europe that required me to be armed 24/7 and travel commercially. We chartered aircraft to non-commercial airports to bypass a lot of the scrutiny associated with firearms. We did this without dip passports and had we been stopped, we would have been subject to the laws of the jurisdiction we were in, the majority of which did not have a SoFA with the US. There’s wasn’t a single gôddamn time my M4 got slung when operational. It was either stored, concealed, or in a ready or fire position. Though DoD authorized that, it was illegal as hell in the jurisdictions we operated in.

Look at DA vs USAF sidearms. Army doesn’t like a loaded magazine, much less a de-cocked M9 with one in the pipe. As a USAF dude, I carried on Army installations according to USAF rules, not Army even though Army regs were without a doubt safer than USAF.

 

[Mike_from_Texas]

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

Ok great I only posted one off of the intoxication statute. I wasn’t quoting verbatim. I simply said there was a measurable standard. Was what I said wrong?

Geesh some of you are uptight.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[billtool]

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

OK - so it can be a subjective analysis. I'm a data driven guy. Don't like it - but as I read the words I wonder how a cop can test for drug levels in the field. Since I don't do drugs, my brain equaled intoxication to alcohol. Which apparently can be subjective as well.

 

[cycleguy2300]

OK - so it can be a subjective analysis. I'm a data driven guy. Don't like it - but as I read the words I wonder how a cop can test for drug levels in the field. Since I don't do drugs, my brain equaled intoxication to alcohol. Which apparently can be subjective as well.

SFTSs have been validated to show when a person is at .08 BAC.

Absent SFSTs, an officer must use the totality of the circumstances (nature of the crash, slurring, odor, swaying, pissed in pants, fighting, volume of speech etc to develop probable cause (PC is a lesser standard than even a preponderance which is 51%, and MUCH less than PBRD) to believe that a person is intoxicated.

Being intoxicated isn't an offense in its own right, but only in conjunction with operating a motor vehicle in a public place (DWI)
OR
being a danger to yourself or others due to the intoxication. How dangerous do you need to be? THAT is the question that makes lawyers their money. I will only saw each individual on each moment of each night has a unique set of circumstances that must be taken into account as the intent of the law is simply to prevent the inxoxicated person oran innocent other from becoming a victim, not to create criminals, which is why it is a Class-C and the person can be released to a responsible party without charges.

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[cycleguy2300]

Ok great I only posted one off of the intoxication statute. I wasn’t quoting verbatim. I simply said there was a measurable standard. Was what I said wrong?

Geesh some of you are uptight.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

It's nothing personal Mike as I am sure you were just trying to be helpful, but you didn't simply say there was a standard, you incorrectly said the legislature had cleared it up and made .08 the only standard. I wasnt trying to slam you or come down hard. I just wanted to make sure whoever read it left with a clear understanding of what the law actually said.

Here the law is specific and the details matter BIG TIME, especially when it comes to being intoxicated while carrying a firearm and risking a UCW charge which could severely and negatively alter life's path.


Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[rotor]

I think the idea of a sling comes from all the YouTube videos (C J Grisham?) where people walk around with AR's slinged and on their backs. All to entice the police to try to arrest them and make a video. And it is amazing how many cops fall for it. Obviously a guy walking around with a loaded AR in both hands would probably elicit a more dangerous response. I personally would not take that kind of a chance that the cop knew the laws and was not going to make me drop my rifle (ouch) or temporarily detain me or even shoot me. There is legal and there is stupid.
I have no idea why the word sling has an Amazon referral.

 

[Hoji]

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.

Another glaring example of getting the shittiest LTC “training” in the state.
Not a knock on you @kenboyles72 but unfortunately you, like many on here, got a drooling retard for an instructor.

 

[Renegade]

Ok, so a lawyer specializing in gun law does not need to offer answers to questions when asked. LTC class or not, gun law is gun law and folk have the right to know what the law is.

he gave you advice you misinterpreted that could have caused you to be arrested and imprisoned.

then you repeated it here. Fortunately It was pointed out it was false.

what you are missing here, is the gun lawyer was not there to answer your questions, he was there to sell his USCCA product. The Q&A was just the bait.

 

[Hoji]

he gave you advice you misinterpreted that could have caused you to be arrested and imprisoned.

then you repeated it here. Fortunately It was pointed out it was false.

what you are missing here, is the gun lawyer was not there to answer your questions, he was there to sell his USCCA product. The Q&A was just the bait.

If it was actually an attorney. Usually the folks at LTC classes are not the attorneys that are associated with the different carry “insurance” but sales people for the provider.

 

[cycleguy2300]

After I got my LTC I woke up to the tremendous responsibility of carrying. I will never even think of having even a beer while out and well below the limit, why have that option of testing if pulled over or if some illegal runs a red light and alcohol is smelled? If that precaution can't be met at least remove the rounds from the magazine and place in different place than the firearm. If they split hairs I want the long hair on my side

A beer and you should be OK, but no beers isn't a bad rule. I don't want to give the laws or lawyers anything extra if I happened to be involved in a deadly force incident after having that one beer. Thankfully I don't hardly drink enough to matter so it isnt a big loss. I have 2 beers out of a 6 pack I bought in September, still in my fridge...

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[Wiliamr]

Signed in the House. Waiting on Lt. Gov to sign for the Senate. Then off to the Governors office

 

[lightflyer1]

Just got another form letter from my efforts with Cornyn. Nothing even relevant to the letter/email I sent. Just regurgitating his virtues with the 2nd Amendment.

 

[GMA8877]

Just got another form letter from my efforts with Cornyn. Nothing even relevant to the letter/email I sent. Just regurgitating his virtues with the 2nd Amendment.

Yep I have had exact same thing happen with him. I think it is just a computer auto response when someone emails him. Very irritating to say the least! Could be wrong but seems he can’t be bothered with emails especially if controversial

 

[rotor]

Yep I have had exact same thing happen with him. I think it is just a computer auto response when someone emails him. Very irritating to say the least! Could be wrong but seems he can’t be bothered with emails especially if controversial

Do you really expect personal replies when thousand come in a day?

 

[lightflyer1]

Semi personal from someone at least. Other wise might as well send me an empty page as the empty fluff he now sends out. Or just not reply at all.

 

[rotor]

Semi personal from someone at least. Other wise might as well send me an empty page as the empty fluff he now sends out. Or just not reply at all.

The sheer volume makes it impossible to answer all letters personally. I have had great luck dealing with my congressman, calling his local office, describing the problem and have gotten action. Congressman has much smaller number to deal with. Cornyn has the entire population of Texas. The numbers do add up though and if there are 100 pro 2A and 500,000 no 2A it will make a difference. Just be realistic. Keep the emails, calls and faxes coming as the other side is doing the same thing. As long as you don't think Beto is a better choice than Cornyn. I would definitely go for West though.

 

[rotor]

rotor,

Did you READ & UNDERSTAND what I said?? = INTERNS are NOT paid AND they are supposed to be the "cream of the crop" among college students.
(At least the ones in the office where I worked, long ago, WERE VERY BRIGHT even though they were ALL beauty queens from NETX.).

I presume that you know what JOE WILSON said about teaching "new hires" to type, do you not??

yours, satx

How many emails can one person go through a day? Thank you for yelling. I can read. Even if a senator had 50 interns, going through 1000 emails a day each and giving a "personal" reply would be a challenge. You think someone reads all those posts to ATF that we write? They just mark it as for or against and move on. Reality is reality. You are certainly able to ask for a personal meeting with the senator. If Floyds family gets into the president's office perhaps satx can make it into Cornyn's office.