DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
Summary:
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Maybe where YOU are. Have you ever been to a sports bar? Oh, and just because one is at a bar does NOT mean one has to drive home drunk, where the hell did that shit piece of logic come from?

Just saying’.

No way to know if TN’s Johnny’s Sports Bar would fall under Texas’s 51% regulation, though (any establishment whose sales are derived 51% or greater by alcohol sales is legally a bar and not a restaurant, and CHLs are prohibited from carrying).

Still have mixed feelings about our 51% rule. Freedom should include the freedom to fuck up, take risks, and make mistakes and bad decisions, so long as one is held accountable for them and doesn’t (in theory) endanger others in doing so. The criminal element is going to carry regardless of the law, drunk or sober. American bars are more often than not somewhat seedy, inherently dangerous locales. Enter at your own risk, y’know?

A lot of CHL revocations in Texas are due to DWI’s. Permit holder leaves gun in car (or not), goes out drinking, drives home drunk, gets busted, cops find gun in car (or worse, on his person), CHL gets revoked. Aside from health reasons, yet another reason I gave up drinking and am keeping sober, because I don’t want to lose my CHL like that, or because of a public intoxication offense.

I can say I find existing TN law far too restrictive of CCW rights; I don’t know if the Texas 51% rule is necessarily the *best* solution, but it does seem marginally better than the current state of affairs in TN, and better than the curfew restrictions being proposed.

Part of me wants to say, if you insist on hanging out in bars and consuming large quantities of alcohol and feel you have a right to carry in those establishments, please don’t bother obtaining a CHL, just carry anyway, and adopt the SNBI mindset; That way if you get busted it won’t blow back on the rest of us who have CHLs and don’t frequent bars.
If you’re willing to risk a DWI, what’s a weapons charge or two thrown in? It’s a win-win; You stay armed against potential mal hombres will ill intent in your favorite watering holes, while the rest of us keep our CHLs and it won’t give the antis any rhetorical ammo to try and curtail or eliminate the issuance of CHLs.