TexasCHLforum.com

I hunt on private property, do I need to carry my LTC while I'm carrying a pistol when hunting on private property? I have to assume not but wanted to double check.

rexmitchell wrote:I hunt on private property, do I need to carry my LTC while I'm carrying a pistol when hunting on private property? I have to assume not but wanted to double check.

You actually don't even need an LTC to carry a handgun while hunting.

(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
(1) is in the actual discharge of official duties as a member of the armed forces or state military forces as defined by Section 431.001, Government Code, or as a guard employed by a penal institution;
(2) is traveling;
(3) is engaging in lawful hunting, fishing, or other sporting activity on the immediate premises where the activity is conducted, or is en route between the premises and the actor’s residence, motor vehicle, or watercraft, if the weapon is a type commonly used in the activity;

In an ideal world, no. If it was me, and it wasn't MY private property, I'd take my LTC along, just because......

ScottDLS wrote:

rexmitchell wrote:I hunt on private property, do I need to carry my LTC while I'm carrying a pistol when hunting on private property? I have to assume not but wanted to double check.

You actually don't even need an LTC to carry a handgun while hunting.

(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
(1) is in the actual discharge of official duties as a member of the armed forces or state military forces as defined by Section 431.001, Government Code, or as a guard employed by a penal institution;
(2) is traveling;
(3) is engaging in lawful hunting, fishing, or other sporting activity on the immediate premises where the activity is conducted, or is en route between the premises and the actor’s residence, motor vehicle, or watercraft, if the weapon is a type commonly used in the activity;

The catch, though, is that carrying a 1911 while dove hunting wouldn't be "a type commonly used in the activity."

Pawpaw wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

rexmitchell wrote:I hunt on private property, do I need to carry my LTC while I'm carrying a pistol when hunting on private property? I have to assume not but wanted to double check.

You actually don't even need an LTC to carry a handgun while hunting.

(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
(1) is in the actual discharge of official duties as a member of the armed forces or state military forces as defined by Section 431.001, Government Code, or as a guard employed by a penal institution;
(2) is traveling;
(3) is engaging in lawful hunting, fishing, or other sporting activity on the immediate premises where the activity is conducted, or is en route between the premises and the actor’s residence, motor vehicle, or watercraft, if the weapon is a type commonly used in the activity;

The catch, though, is that carrying a 1911 while dove hunting wouldn't be "a type commonly used in the activity."

So what type of handgun is typically used for fishing? In the Navy they use grenades...



Edit to Add: Actually for fishing you could probably carry an "illegal knife", but not a handgun.

JustSomeOldGuy wrote:In an ideal world, no. If it was me, and it wasn't MY private property, I'd take my LTC along, just because......

That is what I planned on doing but now have a follow up question. Do all the rules that apply to LTC holders still apply? For instance, if we are having a beer and target shooting, this is no crime as a non-LTC holder. For that matter someone could have 20 beers and still be legal to shoot. Does that now change on private property? Don't worry, I don't get hammered and play with guns but I'll drink a beer before the day is over and still have my pistol on my hip.

rexmitchell wrote:

JustSomeOldGuy wrote:In an ideal world, no. If it was me, and it wasn't MY private property, I'd take my LTC along, just because......

That is what I planned on doing but now have a follow up question. Do all the rules that apply to LTC holders still apply? For instance, if we are having a beer and target shooting, this is no crime as a non-LTC holder. For that matter someone could have 20 beers and still be legal to shoot. Does that now change on private property? Don't worry, I don't get hammered and play with guns but I'll drink a beer before the day is over and still have my pistol on my hip.

You can open carry to the local Chili's with your LTC and have a shot of whiskey and be legal, as long as you don't become INTOXICATED, which has a quite specific definition in the Penal Code, which is not the "cop's opinion" as some would suggest. That stated it's probably not a good idea.

You could handgun hunt while absolutely blitzed and it would not technically be illegal, whether on private or public land, though one could argue that "public intoxication" might apply. Again, not a good idea, but legal.

ScottDLS wrote:

rexmitchell wrote:

JustSomeOldGuy wrote:In an ideal world, no. If it was me, and it wasn't MY private property, I'd take my LTC along, just because......

That is what I planned on doing but now have a follow up question. Do all the rules that apply to LTC holders still apply? For instance, if we are having a beer and target shooting, this is no crime as a non-LTC holder. For that matter someone could have 20 beers and still be legal to shoot. Does that now change on private property? Don't worry, I don't get hammered and play with guns but I'll drink a beer before the day is over and still have my pistol on my hip.

You can open carry to the local Chili's with your LTC and have a shot of whiskey and be legal, as long as you don't become INTOXICATED, which has a quite specific definition in the Penal Code, which is not the "cop's opinion" as some would suggest. That stated it's probably not a good idea.

You could handgun hunt while absolutely blitzed and it would not technically be illegal, whether on private or public land, though one could argue that "public intoxication" might apply. Again, not a good idea, but legal.

That is my question, since we are hunting or shooting on private land, the LTC regs regarding intoxication shouldn't apply then? I'm extremely diligent and won't carry if I'm planning on having anything to drink just to be on the safe side. I just don't want to run into any issues if the game warden shows up unannounced and we are target shooting or something. Again, no one gets hammered, but I don't want to risk a Class A just because I'm a LTC holder now.

The crime in 46.035 applies to carrying "under the authority" of your LTC. If you don't need that authority, then one can assume it doesn't apply. Otherwise an LTC could be charged for displaying a handgun at a public range, or a cop with an LTC could be charged for carrying on duty in a schol, etc, etc.

ScottDLS wrote:

rexmitchell wrote:

JustSomeOldGuy wrote:In an ideal world, no. If it was me, and it wasn't MY private property, I'd take my LTC along, just because......

That is what I planned on doing but now have a follow up question. Do all the rules that apply to LTC holders still apply? For instance, if we are having a beer and target shooting, this is no crime as a non-LTC holder. For that matter someone could have 20 beers and still be legal to shoot. Does that now change on private property? Don't worry, I don't get hammered and play with guns but I'll drink a beer before the day is over and still have my pistol on my hip.

You can open carry to the local Chili's with your LTC and have a shot of whiskey and be legal, as long as you don't become INTOXICATED, which has a quite specific definition in the Penal Code, which is not the "cop's opinion" as some would suggest. That stated it's probably not a good idea.

You could handgun hunt while absolutely blitzed and it would not technically be illegal, whether on private or public land, though one could argue that "public intoxication" might apply. Again, not a good idea, but legal.

HUH read again

PC §49.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter: (1) “Alcohol concentration” means the number of grams of alcohol per: (A) 210 liters of breath; (B) 100 milliliters of blood; or (C) 67 milliliters of urine. (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.

(B) .08 just means there is absolutely no doubt as to being intoxicated by state definition

(A) means it IS the LE's judgement and you don't have to be .08 or higher.

twomillenium wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

rexmitchell wrote:

JustSomeOldGuy wrote:In an ideal world, no. If it was me, and it wasn't MY private property, I'd take my LTC along, just because......

That is what I planned on doing but now have a follow up question. Do all the rules that apply to LTC holders still apply? For instance, if we are having a beer and target shooting, this is no crime as a non-LTC holder. For that matter someone could have 20 beers and still be legal to shoot. Does that now change on private property? Don't worry, I don't get hammered and play with guns but I'll drink a beer before the day is over and still have my pistol on my hip.

You can open carry to the local Chili's with your LTC and have a shot of whiskey and be legal, as long as you don't become INTOXICATED, which has a quite specific definition in the Penal Code, which is not the "cop's opinion" as some would suggest. That stated it's probably not a good idea.

You could handgun hunt while absolutely blitzed and it would not technically be illegal, whether on private or public land, though one could argue that "public intoxication" might apply. Again, not a good idea, but legal.

HUH read again

PC §49.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter: (1) “Alcohol concentration” means the number of grams of alcohol per: (A) 210 liters of breath; (B) 100 milliliters of blood; or (C) 67 milliliters of urine. (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.

(B) .08 just means there is absolutely no doubt as to being intoxicated by state definition

(A) means it IS the LE's judgement and you don't have to be .08 or higher.

To me, that's the difference between "taking the ride", and actually being charged. Either way, best not to go there.

twomillenium wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

rexmitchell wrote:

JustSomeOldGuy wrote:In an ideal world, no. If it was me, and it wasn't MY private property, I'd take my LTC along, just because......

That is what I planned on doing but now have a follow up question. Do all the rules that apply to LTC holders still apply? For instance, if we are having a beer and target shooting, this is no crime as a non-LTC holder. For that matter someone could have 20 beers and still be legal to shoot. Does that now change on private property? Don't worry, I don't get hammered and play with guns but I'll drink a beer before the day is over and still have my pistol on my hip.

You can open carry to the local Chili's with your LTC and have a shot of whiskey and be legal, as long as you don't become INTOXICATED, which has a quite specific definition in the Penal Code, which is not the "cop's opinion" as some would suggest. That stated it's probably not a good idea.

You could handgun hunt while absolutely blitzed and it would not technically be illegal, whether on private or public land, though one could argue that "public intoxication" might apply. Again, not a good idea, but legal.

HUH read again

PC §49.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter: (1) “Alcohol concentration” means the number of grams of alcohol per: (A) 210 liters of breath; (B) 100 milliliters of blood; or (C) 67 milliliters of urine. (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.

(B) .08 just means there is absolutely no doubt as to being intoxicated by state definition

(A) means it IS the LE's judgement and you don't have to be .08 or higher.

So the LE's "judgement" renders you guilty at trial? I always thought the prosecution had to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" the facts at trial.

It's exactly the same standard for DWI, so why do the cops bother with the field sobriety tests, and try to get a rubber stamp judge to force a blood test. Why don't they just stand up at trial and say in their judgement you were intoxicated with no other supporting evidence?

The presumptive levels of intoxication .08 applies to motor vehicles (DWI)on public property or public access, watercraft (BWI)on public waterways and amusement park ride operators. Commercial motor vehicle drivers have a presumptive level .04 BAC. Minors can have zero BAC in the above scenerios. And yes Flying while intoxicated. You can be arrested for less than the presumptive level- and all elements have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in court.

Public intoxication only requires you to be a hazard to yourself or others "in public". There is no presumptive level BAC for pedestrians in public. That arrest is based on the totality of the circumstances --probable cause and must be articulated. Sitting at a bar with taxi to and from all night drunk bothering no one not a hazard to himself or anyone versus same guy who decides to walk home staggering down the middle of sixth street in traffic. "Saw drunk arrested same" is not good enough (in most courts)

Anymore though you have the penal code, occupation code, AG Opinions, Texas Administrative rules- civil liability etc etc as nauseum.

IMHO which isn't worth .25c your question is a private versus public property. If you do decide to drink- hunt drink target shoot etc and someone gets hurt- that sounds expensive.

Caveat- this is my understanding of "the way it was". Time flies and laws change. As they say in Montana "consult an attorney"

ScottDLS wrote:

twomillenium wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

rexmitchell wrote:

JustSomeOldGuy wrote:In an ideal world, no. If it was me, and it wasn't MY private property, I'd take my LTC along, just because......

That is what I planned on doing but now have a follow up question. Do all the rules that apply to LTC holders still apply? For instance, if we are having a beer and target shooting, this is no crime as a non-LTC holder. For that matter someone could have 20 beers and still be legal to shoot. Does that now change on private property? Don't worry, I don't get hammered and play with guns but I'll drink a beer before the day is over and still have my pistol on my hip.

You can open carry to the local Chili's with your LTC and have a shot of whiskey and be legal, as long as you don't become INTOXICATED, which has a quite specific definition in the Penal Code, which is not the "cop's opinion" as some would suggest. That stated it's probably not a good idea.

You could handgun hunt while absolutely blitzed and it would not technically be illegal, whether on private or public land, though one could argue that "public intoxication" might apply. Again, not a good idea, but legal.

HUH read again

PC §49.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter: (1) “Alcohol concentration” means the number of grams of alcohol per: (A) 210 liters of breath; (B) 100 milliliters of blood; or (C) 67 milliliters of urine. (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.

(B) .08 just means there is absolutely no doubt as to being intoxicated by state definition

(A) means it IS the LE's judgement and you don't have to be .08 or higher.

So the LE's "judgement" renders you guilty at trial? I always thought the prosecution had to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" the facts at trial.

It's exactly the same standard for DWI, so why do the cops bother with the field sobriety tests, and try to get a rubber stamp judge to force a blood test. Why don't they just stand up at trial and say in their judgement you were intoxicated with no other supporting evidence?

Seriously, are you really going there?? We should already know the answer to your "red herring" statement.

I am not arguing or debating, just showing facts as written. If you really think that I or anyone here has said that LE or anyone for that matter can render you guilty before trial, then I have to be disappointed in the comprehension level exhibited.

I am stating and showing what is in the law not an opinion. I have to show my students what the law says when it comes to drinking as related to carry of a firearm. (I better be extra clear and say I am talking about alcoholic beverages.) If charged, you have a chance to defend yourself and the amount of proof against you decides how difficult or easy your defense will be. This is fact not opinion. I am not going to argue what is in writing, whether are not I agree, it is still the law and still it is in writing for everyone to be on the same page.

I apologize to the OP, if this thread has been hijacked.

You stated that a police officer's opinion is what determines whether you are intoxicated or not. (Or refuted my statement that it was not). Do you tell your LTC students that the police officer's opinion will determine whether you are intoxicated?

That is not what the law says. The law defines intoxicated the same for DWI and carrying. So what you should tell students is that if they feel that having a certain amount of alcohol makes them uncomfortable carrying due to the possibility of getting arrested. Then they also should not drive either, since the likelihood is much higher of getting arrested for that. To get convicted of a crime the prosecution has to establish the facts at trial. 0.08 BAC is de facto intoxication. Otherwise it must be established that:

(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;

Many people have been cleared at trial when they had consumed alcohol, the cops opinion was that they were intoxicated (hence they were arrested), and they were under BAC 0.08 or BAC was not established.

And finally to get to the OP question. You can drink and carry while hunting and you are not subject to 46.035 if the handgun is typically used during the type of hunting that you are doing (pig hunting).