New Mexico Conceal Carry

[Old Fashioned]

State Senator George Munoz, D-Distric 4, has prefiled Senate Bill 40 that would allow concealed carry in restaurants that sell beer and wine and derive no less that 60% of annual revenue from the sale of food for consumption on premise.

http://www.alamogordonews.com/ci_14146056

[Aguila Blanca]

Good start, but I have to question the 60 percent when most other states with such artificial laws set the bar at 51 percent. To my limited mentality it would make more sense just to set a blood/alcohol level for persons carrying a weapon (or any kind, not just a handgun) and make each individual responsible for his/her own behavior.

[Dial 1911 for Help]

To my limited mentality it would make more sense just to set a blood/alcohol level for persons carrying a weapon...

Or not. Pennsylvania not only allows carry in bars, there isn't even a prohibition against drinking while carrying, and they're not falling in the streets there. So why the BAL limitation?

[Patriotic]

AB, I love the way you think. Have you ever considered running for public office? I agree whole heartedly that responsibility for behavior is the key. We don’t see much of that today, it seems to always be someone else’s fault for bad behavior or presumption of guilt in the case of legal firearm ownership. A responsible citizen doesn’t break the law. I think of Janet Napolitano, head of HLS and her presumption of guilt in the HLS bulletin where returning military veterans, pro-life supporters and political opponents of President Obama are targeted as terrorists. I think of Eric Holder, head of the Justice Department who views every legal owner of a firearm as a potential criminal. I think preemptive laws violate our Constitutional system but can understand how carrying a stick of dynamite on an airliner could be a problem. I think of the airliners involved on 9/11 and how legally armed passengers could have prevented the tragedy.

[tjansen]

I recently re-qualified for my CHL. One of the items instructor emphasized was there was no level for a person carrying a CH. He does not drink while carrying. X cop also.
No wine , no marguerite with Mexican food.
Keep safe

[Rich-D]

I have operated two Liquor Licenced Establishments in Phila PA since 1987. Both of which sell a bare minimum of food. State Law permits firearms in Bars and so do I. In the 23 years of operation, I have not experienced one incident of a person licenced to carry behaving in an inappropriate manner. Both establishments border high crime areas.

[Aguila Blanca]

I recently re-qualified for my CHL. One of the items instructor emphasized was there was no level for a person carrying a CH. He does not drink while carrying. X cop also.
No wine , no marguerite with Mexican food.
Well, my native state has some really good laws, but overall their firearms laws are nowhere nearly as good as many other states, and nowhere nearly as good as many Texans try to tell the rest of the world. The qualifications for a CCW are about the strictest of any state in the country and are more suitable for a police officer's semi-annual requalification. The cost and the time required to obtain (or renew) a concealed carry license in Texas are ridiculous. Compare to Pennsylvania (which requires nothing), or Florida (which accepts a 40-year old DD-214 as proof of having had firearms safety training). No live fire required for either state. And neither state is statistically less safe in terms of CCW accidental or negligent or criminal shootings than Texas.

I thought Texas was one of the 51% states, and that the law requires each establishment to post a sign if they derive 51% or more of their income from liquor sales. If that's the case, what is the law regarding BAL? You say there is "no level" for a person who is carrying. What does that mean? Does that mean that the law states any BAL above zero percent is unlawful if you are carrying? Or does that mean that the law is silent -- in which case you can get as drunk as a skunk legally while carrying as long as you don't do anything stupid with the gun.

The legal principle is, if the law does not SAY it is illegal, it is legal. Statutory silence cannot be construed as statutory prohibition.

[tjansen]

Looks like Texas is not as nice as some other states.
The statement was there is ZERO level of Under the Influence if you want to cary. Don't pack and then have a Wine with dinner. Just passing on what was told the class. I know this X officer and respect him for having a level head and not prone to exaggeration.

Yes Texas is a state that a business which derives 51% or more from Liqueur should post a sign on exterior window. No one with a CHL should enter carrying.

Tom
Dallas County Tx.

[Aguila Blanca]

The statement was there is ZERO level of Under the Influence if you want to cary. Don't pack and then have a Wine with dinner. Just passing on what was told the class. I know this X officer and respect him for having a level head and not prone to exaggeration.
He may not be prone to exaggeration, but he is human. I am human and not prone to exaggeration, and even I have made at least two mistakes in my life.

I don't doubt that he made the statement, nor do I doubt that he believes that to be the case. However, unless he has a statute to back him up on that, I sincerely hope (for his sake and that of his department) that he never arrests someone on that charge.

As I posted earlier, the underlying legal principle is that anything/everything is legal unless there is a specific law saying it is NOT legal. (And by "law" I am including administrative regulations adopted pursuant to laws.)

The direct analogy would be driving. The BAL in most states is .08 percent. The way that gets to be the standard is that each state adopts a law (or a regulation pursuant to a law) that says, in effect, "It is unlawful to operate a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding .08 percent."

So for what your instructor said to be correct/true, there must be in Texas a statute or a regulation that specifically says something to the effect of, "It shall be unlawful to carry a firearm with a blood alcohol level exceeding 0 (zero) percent." There may, in fact, be such a statute or regulation ... but I've never heard of it. What's the citation? (Meaning where's the law that says this?)

[tjansen]

Bet I have been wrong a few times, check with the Wife. Texas is a good state but not perfect by any means. Sounds like Pa. Fl. are where they should be. Texas is closer to Ca. ya know. It cost me $75 to renew and 2 1/2 months.

[Rich-D]

Texas Law specifically states "intoxicated" in their Firearms Laws. Note Paragraphs 4 & 5 on page two. Here. (http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/TXSL.pdf)

The Texas Department of Public Safety Website lists these Q & A.

Q: Where can I not take my handgun?
A: Handguns and other weapons can not be carried at schools or on school buses, at polling places, in courts and court offices, at racetracks and at secured airport areas. The law also specifically prohibits handguns from businesses where alcohol is sold if more than half of their revenue is from the sale of alcohol for on-premises consumption, and from locations where high school, college or professional sporting events are taking place. You may not carry handguns in hospitals or nursing homes, amusement parks, places of worship or at government meetings if signs are posted prohibiting them. Businesses also may post signs prohibiting handguns on their premises based on criminal trespass laws.

Q: Can I carry a handgun when I am drinking?
A: Under the concealed handgun law, it is illegal to carry a handgun if you are intoxicated. The best idea is to leave your weapon at home if you intend to consume any alcoholic beverages.

IMHO One is not breaking the law by having an alcoholic beverage while armed. However, one may not drink to intoxication.

[Aguila Blanca]

Thanks, Rich-D. That makes a lot more sense. Then you just have to find out what Texas considers to be intoxicated. Probably it is .08 percent, like most states.

[pdangeruss]

It's more complicated than that: notice the "or" 's physical, OR mental OR .08

PENAL CODE



TITLE 10. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND MORALS



CHAPTER 49. INTOXICATION AND ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE OFFENSES




Sec. 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.

[Rich-D]

The various methods of weighing alcohol content:

(A) 210 liters of breath;

(B) 100 milliliters of blood; or

(C) 67 milliliters of urine.

Must produce a result that equals or exceeds .08 in Texas, in order to be considered intoxicated.

[kenhwind]

I'm not to sure what the FL statues are, but I'm under the impression that concealed carry is legal in a restaurant, even if it sells alcohol, but not a bar, or the bar. Seems in how I would probably be sitting at the bar any way I don't carry inside. I have but I usually don't. When my brother and I go for chicken wings, my guns stays in the truck.

Yes in FL if you provide a certificate from a certified firearm safety course you do not need anything else. My sister in law used the FL Hunters Safety Course she took I used my DD214.

If you take a firearms training course for the CCW I believe live fire is required.

[Aguila Blanca]

It's more complicated than that: notice the "or" 's physical, OR mental OR .08

...

(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.

I assume you are referring to the 'A' part above. But, while this part does not cite a specific blood-alcohol concentration, it DOES provide a criterion. The simple fact of having imbibed a small quantity of alcoholic beverage does not, of itself, equate to "intoxication" under this statute. Note the it begins by stating "not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties ..."

This means, in summary, "coordination." There would have to be a demonstration that the person does not exhibit normal use of physical or mental faculties. There are tests for this ... such as walking a straight line, being asked to touch your toes (without falling over) [I would fail this one even stone sober -- I have never in my life been able to touch my toes -- I'm just not that flexible], being asked to recite a string of numbers, or count backwards from 100 ... An officer can't just say "You sniffed the cork, you're drunk because I say so."