TexasCHLforum.com

Posted: **Thu Mar 26, 2015 4:00 pm**

Craven Moorehead wrote:This is just my opinion on the bar/51%. I've been to many bars, saloons,pubs, taverns, and clubs through my life. Not all but many I've seen people with issues after they have had a few drinks. People that normally wouldn't hurt a flea. But after they get a few drinks under their belts their personalities take a change for the worse. Anyone that goes into bars on a regular basis knows the type. And it happens to both genders. So I guess you can tell where my thoughts are on the subject. It's like an accident waiting to happen. I would leave that part of the current law alone. If I where a bar owner I would have a sign posted not allowing firearms regardless of the law. The liability for serving drunk drivers is bad enough. I wouldn't want to add drunk shooters to the mix. This is a common sense issue as I see it. IMHO I agree that this bill would move faster if that part of the current law was left in and I'm about as pro gun as you can get.

1. It's already to carry while intoxicated, and this bill does not seek to change that.
2. It's not just bars. It's 51% locations, which includes venues other than bars as well (Example: ACL Live/Moody Theater & Long Center for the Performing Arts in Austin), as well as any premises in which a company comes in to temporarily sell alcohol.
3. Not everyone who goes to a 51% location is there to drink. Plenty of comedy shows and bands perform at these locations. You could also be the DD.

I agree alcohol and guns don't mix, but it would still be illegal to drink and carry, just as it's illegal to drink and drive. I would prefer not to be disarmed when I'm the DD, walking to and from these places, especially at night.

Posted: **Thu Mar 26, 2015 4:08 pm**

Craven Moorehead wrote:This is just my opinion on the bar/51%. I've been to many bars, saloons,pubs, taverns, and clubs through my life. Not all but many I've seen people with issues after they have had a few drinks. People that normally wouldn't hurt a flea. But after they get a few drinks under their belts their personalities take a change for the worse. Anyone that goes into bars on a regular basis knows the type. And it happens to both genders. So I guess you can tell where my thoughts are on the subject. It's like an accident waiting to happen. I would leave that part of the current law alone. If I where a bar owner I would have a sign posted not allowing firearms regardless of the law. The liability for serving drunk drivers is bad enough. I wouldn't want to add drunk shooters to the mix. This is a common sense issue as I see it. IMHO I agree that this bill would move faster if that part of the current law was left in and I'm about as pro gun as you can get.

So....you're OK with keeping it illegal for those persons who don't drink and don't act in a criminal, assaultive manner to have an effective means of self-defense from those who DO act in a criminal, assaultive manner, whether drunk or not?

Just because you're with your friends at a bar doesn't mean that you're an irresponsible, drunken frat-boy. Those only exist on college campuses.....so I've been told.

Posted: **Thu Mar 26, 2015 4:42 pm**

Craven Moorehead wrote:This is just my opinion on the bar/51%. I've been to many bars, saloons,pubs, taverns, and clubs through my life. Not all but many I've seen people with issues after they have had a few drinks. People that normally wouldn't hurt a flea. But after they get a few drinks under their belts their personalities take a change for the worse. Anyone that goes into bars on a regular basis knows the type. And it happens to both genders. So I guess you can tell where my thoughts are on the subject. It's like an accident waiting to happen. I would leave that part of the current law alone. If I where a bar owner I would have a sign posted not allowing firearms regardless of the law. The liability for serving drunk drivers is bad enough. I wouldn't want to add drunk shooters to the mix. This is a common sense issue as I see it. IMHO I agree that this bill would move faster if that part of the current law was left in and I'm about as pro gun as you can get.

So bar entry to police and armed security guards as well?

Posted: **Thu Mar 26, 2015 4:51 pm**

Craven Moorehead wrote:This is just my opinion on the bar/51%. I've been to many bars, saloons,pubs, taverns, and clubs through my life. Not all but many I've seen people with issues after they have had a few drinks. People that normally wouldn't hurt a flea. But after they get a few drinks under their belts their personalities take a change for the worse. Anyone that goes into bars on a regular basis knows the type. And it happens to both genders. So I guess you can tell where my thoughts are on the subject. It's like an accident waiting to happen. I would leave that part of the current law alone. If I where a bar owner I would have a sign posted not allowing firearms regardless of the law. The liability for serving drunk drivers is bad enough. I wouldn't want to add drunk shooters to the mix. This is a common sense issue as I see it. IMHO I agree that this bill would move faster if that part of the current law was left in and I'm about as pro gun as you can get.

It's true that guns and alcohol don't mix. And it's also true that some people have an alcohol-induced Mr Hyde on board. But neither of these truisms should be cause to bar the rest of us from carrying responsibly - even in places where more sales of on-premises consumption alcohol is sold more than anything else. Barring everyone from responsibly carrying in 51% locations is akin to outlawing firearms because somebody shoots up a school or movie theater. The prohibition punishes those of us who've never committed the wrong because of the bad acts of a very few (or in this case, the probable acts of an unknown number of bad actors).

Posted: **Thu Mar 26, 2015 7:10 pm**

AJSully421 wrote:
stash wrote:I wonder if this bill would have a better chance if bars were not in the mix?
I seem to remember Charles making a statement that any time anything about 45.035 came up that the biggest question he got was about bars. It appears to be a problem for many.

I bet it would get us 10% more votes if the bars were still prohibited. Who knows, might pass just fine with them included. Try it with them this session. If it doesn't pass, try it without them next session.

My opinion, which is not based on anything but a gut feeling, is that this bill doesn't need more votes as much as it will need help being pushed along through the vacuum of political capital spent on OC and campus carry. I'm not complaining, as I will be glad to get OC and campus carry, but this is politics and things don't come without a cost.

Also, from the testimony I heard on HB308, most of the objection was to not allowing hospitals to post, not to allowing carry in bars (though there was some of that).

And of course the morons squawking about churches even though HB308 doesn't change their status in any way.

Posted: **Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:01 pm**

Posted: **Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:20 pm**

Craven Moorehead wrote:
dedeye wrote:I agree Alcohol and guns do not mix. I however go into a lot of bars everyday to work on video game,jukeboxes, Atms,...etc.
Sometimes the right location can have 1000 dollars or more not counting what ever might be in the Atm. I'm working, not drinking.
I should be able to defend myself in a bar!

Yes, there should be exceptions. That should be left to the owner of the establishment since you are servicing his bar equipment. Someone mentioned Comedy Clubs. I've been to a few and they are some of the worst for belligerent drunks. A scenario would be the comedian rags on one of the drunk obnoxious patrons for shouting out by making a joke about his mother. The drunk gets made and the rest is history. Why do you think they have bouncers? It's because they expect trouble on a regular basis. Have you ever seen a drunk patron take a swing at a bouncer. I have on a couple of occasions. My point which was missed by some is not all gun carrying folks are law abiding, or stable minded, responsible people when drinking. It's the law abiding and stable minded that will be sitting there enjoying their drink and get shot. Everything is diminished while under the influence including your aim. All of our criminal laws came to be because a few bad apples upset the cart. Blame the drunks not me.

So Craven, what you're saying is people shouldn't drink and carry. Well that's still going to be illegal.

I haven't been to a single comedy show where anyone got belligerent. I think your scenario is 100% hypothetical. If this bill were to pass, a person would still be violating the law if they are intoxicated while carrying. It's legal to carry at parties, BBQ's, concerts, breweries, wineries, and a whole lot of other places where alcohol is served. You don't see CHL holders getting sloshed and murdering everyone around.

I think you have very little faith in CHL holders. As I said before, not all 51% locations are bars. Not everyone who goes to a 51% location is there to drink. This is a "blood in the streets" argument, the same one the anti-gunners cried when CCW laws were being passed around the country. I think those who choose to stay sober deserve to defend themselves, especially (usually) downtown at night.

Posted: **Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:28 pm**

mr1337 wrote:
Aggie_engr wrote:I also feel like the whole bar thing is an unnecessary redundancy as its already against the law to be intoxicated while carrying.
Absolutely, but you know lawmakers won't see it that way. They're going to think every 51% location (which is not just bars) will turn into O.K. Corral the day the legislation take effect.

I, however, would like to carry when I'm the DD, or if I'm going to a comedy or band show that's at a 51% location.

What really frustrates me is there is plenty of data from other states with bar carry that show this isn't a problem. Every state that considers any sort of gun law seems to act as though they are the first and only ones to ever do so.

Why with this kind of Republican majority is it so difficult to get laws passed that clearly work just fine in other states.... I think it's great that OC and Campus carry seem to be on the right track, but I had hopes for HB 308. If a Northern State like PA can have virtually no off-limits places and have few problems, why would anyone assume that Texas would have issues...

Posted: **Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:48 pm**

Bad things aren't always going to happen in any of the places that are off limits. Just like with Campus Carry, it could be going to and from our vehicles. Let the bouncers take care of a problem inside the bar. What about after the comedy show is over and you're walking to your car late at night? Same thing with a student going to their car after a late night class. If I can't carry in those places then I am disarmed outside of them when I come and go.

Posted: **Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:56 pm**

mr1337 wrote:So Craven, what you're saying is people shouldn't drink and carry. Well that's still going to be illegal.

It's not illegal to drink and carry now nor will it be under HB308. It's only illegal to carry while intoxicated.

Chas.

Posted: **Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:57 pm**

C-dub wrote:Bad things aren't always going to happen in any of the places that are off limits. Just like with Campus Carry, it could be going to and from our vehicles. Let the bouncers take care of a problem inside the bar. What about after the comedy show is over and you're walking to your car late at night? Same thing with a student going to their car after a late night class. If I can't carry in those places then I am disarmed outside of them when I come and go.

Absolutely. Great points.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
mr1337 wrote:So Craven, what you're saying is people shouldn't drink and carry. Well that's still going to be illegal.
It's not illegal to drink and carry now nor will it be under HB308. It's only illegal to carry while intoxicated.

Chas.

Agreed, I was over-simplifying it for the sake of the discussion. Much in the sense that it's not illegal to drink and drive, it's just illegal to drive while intoxicated. (But drinking and driving is seen as being intoxicated while driving.)

Posted: **Thu Mar 26, 2015 11:30 pm**

So you think someone who is not willing to break the law by drinking to the point of intoxication now is suddenly going to do so just because of this law?! If they are willing to break that law, what makes you think they wouldn't break the 51% law now anyways? Texas CHL holders are less likely to commit a crime than police officers, don't think this law is all of a sudden going to make them criminals. You may need to read up a bit more before making these kind of statements

Posted: **Thu Mar 26, 2015 11:40 pm**

mr1337 wrote: Agreed, I was over-simplifying it for the sake of the discussion. Much in the sense that it's not illegal to drink and drive, it's just illegal to drive while intoxicated. (But drinking and driving is seen as being intoxicated while driving.)

Driving with an open beer in your car is open container. If you are impaired or over .08% BAC, that is DWI. Drinking and driving is not always DWI if you are not impaired or over .08%.
Drinking while carrying is not illegal, unless you are/become intoxicated.

TexasCHLforum.com

HB308

Re: HB308

Re: HB308

Re: HB308

Re: HB308

Re: HB308

Re: HB308

Re: HB308

Re: HB308

Re: HB308

Re: HB308

Re: HB308

Re: HB308

Re: HB308

Re: HB308