If OC passes.
- Thread starter KAK
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
In regard to 30.06 - I have 2 girls at the age where they want to go to the mall. I'm the type of parent that will permit it but I'm in proximity (ie food court) and I stay on contact with them. Should something happen and the fuckwit that owned the property whose rights we are so concerned about has prevented me from taking advantage of my lawfully obtained CHL then I'm going to first sue his ass into bancrupy and then I"m going to.....nevermind. polite company and all. I would suggest anyperson in an establishment showing a 30.06 sign whose life is actually placed in danger,whether or not they are actually injured, should do the exact same. It is a stupid thing the 30.06. As I said: A fucking sign is not going to stop some piece of scum from walking through the door with whatever weapon he might have on his person. What it will do is disarm the very people who likely would protect your customers and property from that scumbag. Net result is that I avoid places with 30.06 signs. And truth be told - I avoid going in to office buildings with 30.06 signs too.
Good work, here is relevant opinion:
2. Except where there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 440 U. S. 653-663.
I think the sashes are more stylishJust issue CHL badges to be worn next to OC.
HOW COOL WOULD THAT BE
Why?
I'd prefer we rewrote the laws to allow LEOs to be able to stop more criminals.
Cant stop something that hasnt happened yet. LEO's cant be in the right spot at the right time, all the time.
Im working with a Sheriff to make that happen.
Mexican_Hippie
TGT Addict
I think the sashes are more stylish
Nice.
A badge will cause confusion. Maybe one of these with your license in it....
I guess if you have your weapon out in the open then you're already saying, "I have a gun." You might as well get your license out there too in order to avoid alarm and questions. I like the idea of having the option, but will probably stayed concealed >90% of the time.
You're going to have to show me the text of both laws and point out the differences, because the above just looks too much like opinion. You've made the assertion, now show me.
Ok, never mind showing me. Let me show you.
46.02 makes it illegal to carry a handgun. However, it does not apply to those with a CHL, per section 46.15(b)(6). The short version reads:
If it was an affirmative offense, like for NFA stuff, I could understand. But it is not an affirmative defense (for those who don't know, that means you have to prove you're innocent, by the way).
How is the above functionally different from this?
How is "unless" not an exemption?
46.02 makes it illegal to carry a handgun. However, it does not apply to those with a CHL, per section 46.15(b)(6). The short version reads:
If it was an affirmative offense, like for NFA stuff, I could understand. But it is not an affirmative defense (for those who don't know, that means you have to prove you're innocent, by the way).
How is the above functionally different from this?
How is "unless" not an exemption?
Not sure where the attitude is coming from but I'll play along. Here's the difference:
46.02 makes carry of a handgun outside of (1) or (2) illegal. Later, in 46.15, a number of exceptions are listed. As you know possession of a valid CHL is one of the exceptions. It is important to note the difference between an exception and conduct which is simply not illegal. Carrying a handgun in your home or car is simply not illegal. You don't need an exception because you are not engaging in activity that is generally prohibited. Outside of those locations you are engaging in activity that is generally prohibited and you will need an exception. From the point of view of a CPO a person carrying a handgun outside of (1) and (2) is illegal activity, and the mere observation will give the Officer justification to stop and investigate. However, when that person makes it known that he has an exception (by presenting CHL or LE ID or whatever) then the Officer must either overcome the apparent exception (eg fake CHL) or let the person on his way.
Here's the driving law:
This law makes it illegal for anyone other than "exempted persons" or persons holding a driver's license to operate a motor vehicle "on a highway in this State". Having a valid DL is not an exception in the same way carrying a handgun in your home is not an exception. In either case the activity is simply not prohibited. In order to stop a person to investigate for 521.021 the Officer needs reasonable suspicion that the person is operating a motor vehicle on a highway in Texas and that the person is not exempted from the law and does not possess a valid DL.
Similarly, to stop someone for 46.02 an Officer needs reasonable suspicion that the person is carrying a handgun, and is not "on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control". Later, if it turns out the person has an exception, the stop will be terminated, but until then in the Officer's mind justification for the stop will exist.
46.15 is not 'exceptions'. It is NONAPPLICABILITY.
Sec.46.15.NONAPPLICABILITY. (a)Sections 46.02 and 46.03 do not apply to:
"do not apply" is not the same thing as "exception to the application"
46.15 says 46.02 do not apply. I think that is a self-explnatory term.
As I wrote earlier, all of the N/A stuff was in 46.02 and 46.03 in the 90s making those sections unbearably lengthy, and when they re-wrote the statutes they created 46.15 to put it all in one place.
