30.06 30.07 question

[ScottDLS]

I think your question answers itself. He is exempt.

Well technically the LEO is not exempt from 30.06/7, it just doesn't apply to him, unless he has a license, then he is a license holder, just like a non-LEO. The real answer is it doesn't apply to the LEO or the non-LEO when they are not carrying UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THEIR LTC. If you don't need the authority of your license to carry (which no one does anymore, except in specific locations), then you are not carrying under its authority, therefore the 06/07 doesn't apply. If you want to make "real sure" don't carry the license because then you CAN'T be carrying under it's authority per GC 411.

 

[Renegade]

If a Peace Officer has his LTC on him (or not) when he passes a 06/07 sign from which he is exempt, does he still face prosecution for trespass by a LTC?

There is no exemption for LEOs. Oddly there is limited one for "first responders", but it does not include Peace Officers.

 

[ScottDLS]

There is no exemption for LEOs. Oddly there is limited one for "first responders", but it does not include Peace Officers.

There doesn't need to be an exemption, because it doesn't apply to anyone not carrying under the authority of their LTC. If you really want to keep LTC out you have to post all the 05/06/07.

 

[toddnjoyce]

If you really want to keep LTC out you have to post all the 05/06/07.

But there are defenses to prosecution.

 

[Renegade]

There doesn't need to be an exemption, because it doesn't apply to anyone not carrying under the authority of their LTC. If you really want to keep LTC out you have to post all the 05/06/07.

Without an exemption, an LEO (carrying a handgun and license) is subject to a 30.06/07 offense.

 

[ScottDLS]

Without an exemption, an LEO (carrying a handgun and license) is subject to a 30.06/07 offense.

Will the prosecution, at trial, be able to prove, to a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt that the LEO was carrying "under the authority" of his LTC, just because the license was present on his person? I doubt it.

 

[ScottDLS]

But there are defenses to prosecution.

If you really want to get technical I would argue thus - a LTC cannot be barred even by all three signs.

30.05 there is a defense to prosecution for a license holder BUT IT DOESN'T require that he is carrying UNDER THE AUTHORITY of his license.

30.06 and 07 don't apply to someone not carrying UNDER THE AUTHORITY of their LTC. So therefore they don't apply either. If a cop with a LTC can carry past 06/07...which I argue they can, then so can a LTC who is not a cop. Neither is prohibited by law from carry with or without a license.

 

[Renegade]

Will the prosecution, at trial, be able to prove, to a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt that the LEO was carrying "under the authority" of his LTC, just because the license was present on his person? I doubt it.

Well first of all your question was do they face prosecution, not can a jury be convinced to find them guilty:

If a Peace Officer has his LTC on him (or not) when he passes a 06/07 sign from which he is exempt, does he still face prosecution for trespass by a LTC?

Second, the idea another LEO would make an arrest or that a DA would take the case is preposterous.

Third, I already posted the law that shows you are carrying under authority if you have a handgun and a license on your person.

 

[Renegade]

If you really want to get technical I would argue thus - a LTC cannot be barred even by all three signs.

30.05 there is a defense to prosecution for a license holder BUT IT DOESN'T require that he is carrying UNDER THE AUTHORITY of his license.

30.06 and 07 don't apply to someone not carrying UNDER THE AUTHORITY of their LTC. So therefore they don't apply either. If a cop with a LTC can carry past 06/07...which I argue they can, then so can a LTC who is not a cop. Neither is prohibited by law from carry with or without a license.

Well many of the laws are poorly written. For the longest time I would point out around this time you cannot let a guest carve the Turkey legally. They finally fixed that one.

My favorite though is still MPA:

(B) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control.

You can carry en route to a motor vehicle but not from a motor vehicle.

 

[oldag]

This is making my head ache...

 

[ScottDLS]

Well many of the laws are poorly written. For the longest time I would point out around this time you cannot let a guest carve the Turkey legally. They finally fixed that one.

My favorite though is still MPA:

(B) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control.

You can carry en route to a motor vehicle but not from a motor vehicle.

Yeah I liked that one too, though I guess with permitless carry MPA is moot.

 

[toddnjoyce]

Yeah I liked that one too, though I guess with permitless carry MPA is moot.

The wording is still there in 46.02 though.

Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(3) is not:

(B) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control.

 

[ScottDLS]

The wording is still there in 46.02 though.

Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(3) is not:

(B) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control.

Yeah actually MPA still applies to 18-20 year olds who don't have LTC.

 

[cycleguy2300]

That's a good question. I'm going to say yes. If you leave your driver's license at home, you are still a licensed driver.

My thought is a license or permit should denote or provide privileges, not remove them.

I believe a person could be in possession of their LTC but carry their handgun under the authority of CC, just as if there are two roads to a destination. If one is closed it does not preclude the other route being used to arrive at your desired location.

A license or permit should not infringe on rights and abilities you would have without such a permit.



Надіслано з дому вашої мами за допомогою Tapatalk

 

[ldaniel]

In Texas, State and County and City Law Enforcement Officers are Peace Officers-24/7. When I was with the HCSO, the only time I utilized my LTC was to purchase a firearm. The LTC sped up the process.

 

[ScottDLS]

In Texas, State and County and City Law Enforcement Officers are Peace Officers-24/7. When I was with the HCSO, the only time I utilized my LTC was to purchase a firearm. The LTC sped up the process.

If they also have a LTC, are they subject to 30.06/7, which have no exception for Peace Officers...?

 

[toddnjoyce]

Yeah actually MPA still applies to 18-20 year olds who don't have LTC.

Based on a northern district of Texas ruling, permitless carry applies to U21, too. The statute hasn’t been changed to reflect it yet though.

At least that’s my understanding.

Federal judge says Texas can’t ban 18- to 20-year-olds from carrying handguns

U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman, who cited the Second Amendment in his decision, stayed the ruling pending appeal.

www.texastribune.org

In essence, what a lot of us know as MPA protections were absorbed into permitless carry.

 

[ldaniel]

If they also have a LTC, are they subject to 30.06/7, which have no exception for Peace Officers...?

No. When I was a sworn P.O., I was carrying under the authority of State law as a Peace Officer, 30.06/07 is for those who are carrying under the authority of the LTC law. Texas penal code 46.02 - Unlawful carry of a handgun and 46.03- PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED did not apply to me as a Peace Officer.

 

[Renegade]

No. When I was a sworn P.O., I was carrying under the authority of State law as a Peace Officer, 30.06/07 is for those who are carrying under the authority of the LTC law. Texas penal code 46.02 - Unlawful carry of a handgun and 46.03- PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED did not apply to me as a Peace Officer.

30.06/07 is about trespassing not UCW. 46.15 exemption only covers UCW, not trespassing. As stated already there is no LE exemption (Yet there is a First Responder one as I I stated) in 30.06/07 like there is in 30.05.

The laws are a mess also as already stated. Many states have max protection law in the code, or at least Case Law to cover situations where one has multiple authorities, but AFAIK Texas does not.

Texas is very delinquent in this regard, many laws that SCOTUS has struck down are still on the books.

 

[cycleguy2300]

30.06/07 is about trespassing not UCW. 46.15 exemption only covers UCW, not trespassing. As stated already there is no LE exemption (Yet there is a First Responder one as I I stated) in 30.06/07 like there is in 30.05.

The laws are a mess also as already stated. Many states have max protection law in the code, or at least Case Law to cover situations where one has multiple authorities, but AFAIK Texas does not.

Texas is very delinquent in this regard, many laws that SCOTUS has struck down are still on the books.

The trespass of a PO for weapons is prohibited and punishable by fine. Its a CCP rule iirc...

Надіслано з дому вашої мами за допомогою Tapatalk