Castle Doctrine in vehicle ???

[txinvestigator]

Who trumps who in this case?

Neither. The notion that laws "trump" other laws is not correct. Federal and State laws are seperate. They are enforced seperately and tried in seperate jurisdictions.

In this case, a person carrying in a motor home over 5 years after conviction could be prosecuted in federal court, but not in Texas courts. A federal LEO would have to arrest and charge.

 

[nalioth]

By federal law he cannot possess a firearm.

By state law he may possess firearm, and he cannot possess it outside of his residence.

Texas Gun Laws - Our Texas Gun Laws made Simple!

Who trumps who in this case?

It doesn't matter - breaking the law is breaking the law.

On a theoretical note, consider California and pot.

 

[Poink88]

So whoever is more stringent should be followed to be safe. Thanks guys!

 

[TheDan]

So whoever is more stringent should be followed to be safe. Thanks guys!

yes, but there are many insances where fedral laws are ignored because enforcment is impractical. Take for instance the federal gun free school zone act. Federal law says you cannot have a gun within 1000ft of a school unless its in your home, you have a license to carry it (CHL), or it is unloaded and in a locked container. TX law says you can have a handgun in your car as long as its concealed, and there's no restrictions on rifles or wether either or loaded or not.

As you've noticed, everyone has said "sure thing it's legal to carry in your car!", but can you manage to avoid comming within 1000ft of a school at all times when you're out driving? In the city or the suburbs that's not really practical to avoid all the schools dotted around. Also, its extremely unlikey you're going to be pulled over by federal law enforcement and unless you're actively comitting a crime even less likely they'll search your vehicle and find the gun. So because of the impractical nature and unlikely enforcement people generally ignore the federal law and just follow state law. Your lawyer would not adivse you to ignore any law of course...


I had a suspicion on the motorhome thing, but didn't know if there was any case law on that. TR, do you remember where you heard that, and is the motorhome considered a residance even when its being driven?

 

[TexasRedneck]

No....and a quick search didn't turn up anything, either. I *do* know that back when we'd take an RV on vacation, I spoke with every stated between here and Florida, and was told that each state specifically considered an RV to be a home w/regards to having a gun in it.

 

[Texan2]

Wanna hear some BS about that Federal Law?

"Although the Federal GFSZA does provide an exception for an individual licensed to carry a firearm, this exception only applies in the State that physically issued the permit. Forty-eight (48) States have provisions to issue concealed carry permits to citizens. Most of these States also enter into reciprocity agreements with other States where each State agrees to recognize the other's concealed carry permits, just as they recognize an out-of-state driver's license. Because the Federal GFSZA requires the permit be issued by the State in which the school zone is in, it is effectively impossible for a permit holder to travel outside their State of issuance to a reciprocating State without violating the Federal GFSZA.

"The Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act (LEOSA) which was intended to give qualified law enforcement officers the protection of carrying nation-wide does not provide any exceptions to Federal Law. Although the GFSZA of 1995 does provide an exception for a law-enforcement officer performing their official duties, it does not provide any protection for an off-duty officer. An off-duty officer is unable to legally travel within one-thousand (1000) feet of any K-12 school while armed."

"Although the Federal GFSZA has an exception for firearms possessed in privately owned homes, it is possible for someone to be convicted under GFSZA for having a firearm in their home in certain circumstances. For example, if a person's home is also part of property owned by a public entity. This occurred in United States v Nieves-Castaño (2007)"

I would expect that if an off duty officer were arrested for carrying...it would never stick. But if you carry on a Utah or Florida lilcense...watch out!

 

[Bithabus]

I had a suspicion on the motorhome thing, but didn't know if there was any case law on that. TR, do you remember where you heard that, and is the motorhome considered a residance even when its being driven?

Not a residence when being driven, or even while parked in many cases. See California v. Carney.

 

[Bithabus]

"Although the Federal GFSZA has an exception for firearms possessed in privately owned homes, it is possible for someone to be convicted under GFSZA for having a firearm in their home in certain circumstances. For example, if a person's home is also part of property owned by a public entity. This occurred in United States v Nieves-Castaño (2007)"

I think that quote is misleading. The defendant slid her golf bag (containing an Ak-47) off her balcony and onto public ground when the Police arrived to serve a search warrant. Also, on the appeal , her lawyers did not claim the "firearm in the home" exception.

 

[London]

Not a residence when being driven, or even while parked in many cases. See California v. Carney.

Yep. The Supreme Court has ruled that if the RV looks like it is being used for travel rather than a stationary residence, it may be treated like any other vehicle. Many states have more stringent regulations which prohibit officers from treating them this way, however. Not sure what Texas' laws are regarding this, but as far as the feds are concerned RVs are usually a pretty easy search.

Even if one does get searched unlawfully the officers will probably say they were acting in "Good faith" and get away with it.

 

[Texan2]

Even if one does get searched unlawfully the officers will probably say they were acting in "Good faith" and get away with it.

That is because in the vast majority of cases they were acting in good faith.

 

[London]

Yes, but the fact that otherwise inadmissible evidence can be used in court as long as an LEO can convince the judge he had the best intentions is a bit frightening.

 

[Texan2]

Yes, but the fact that otherwise inadmissible evidence can be used in court as long as an LEO can convince the judge he had the best intentions is a bit frightening.

It usually has nothing to do with "convincing" a judge. They look at the totality of the circumstances. Bad searches account for a miniscule amount of cases that get tossed out.