Concealed Carry in Car without Permit?

[JKTex]

Time out!

LHB1 and HK_Fiend are both right in regards to what I said. I wasn't getting specific and detailed, but I should have clarified, because it's important since I took it out beyond the topic the OP intended.

As you posted LHB1, you are correct, if ARE carrying, meaning, as it says, on or about your person.

If I'm driving down the road and do NOT have a hand gun on me or in my car, I am NOT required to produce the CHL if I'm stopped and asked for ID. However, back to my point, if they run your DL, they're gonna find out you're and CHL holder, so you might as well present it anyway and avoid any further questions and have to back-peddle trying to repair some broken trust. It make their job a little less stressful and could build more trust in the CHL and holders.

 

[RDM]

In Texas it doesn't matter anymore if you have a CHL or not, you can leave/carry a handgun in the vehicle legally due to legal changes that went into effect last September. If you don't have a CHL you are not required to inform the officer that you have a handgun in the vehicle.

Unless the cop asks, I wouldn't say anything about it. It's none of his business what's in your vehicle..provided you aren't engaged in some unlawful activity.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/chlsindex.htm

That page has the 2007 law changes listed.

Page 71/72 is what your looking for just to add to this

 

[Owens]

Castle Doctrine

First: IANAL!

As I understand: Castle Doctrine does not give us the right to use self defense. We have always had that. What C/D DOES do is provide a protection to someone that uses S/D. It keeps the civil suit lawyers at bay!

Example: A CHL holder shoots a crook in the CHL's home. Crook's survivors could file a civil suit. Now, with C/D, they (crook's survivors) can still file, but it's a guaranteed loss for them. The law doesn't remove their ability to sue, it just make it fruitless.

C/D does extend to your vehicle though.


Like I said, not a lawyer, but that is my understanding of C/D.

 

[SIG_Fiend]

Yep, you are correct sir. That is a misconception many people seem to have regarding the Constitution as well. The Constitution does not "give" any rights to any citizens. It simply acknowledges the basic human rights everyone should have and offers protection to all citizens against usurpation of those rights. Because it doesn't give us those rights, no one can TAKE them away from us because our Constitution acknowledges those rights as basic human rights in our civilized society that everyone has. If more people understood this misconception, they might better understand why so many of us feel so strongly about our rights, being able to protect ourselves, loved ones, etc. Trying to "ban" guns, for example, is no different from trying to take away free speech, and or to take away women's rights etc. It's pretty obvious to most people why it's wrong if you take the "gun" part of the equation out of it and insert one of our other acknowledged basic human rights.

 

[Texas1911]

It's more than women's rights. If you look at the Constitution, following Free Speech and the practice of religion, comes the right to bear arms. This is the 2nd thing that the forefathers wanted in the Bill of Rights. It ironically comes before Due Process, Trial by Jury, and others such as the Quartering of Troops, Search and Seizure, and even the Power of States. That speaks VOLUMES for how important the forefathers held our 2nd Amendment rights. It was held above everything but Free Speech.

And as if they needed a reminder, you have only to read the Ninth Amendment.

 

[JKTex]

A couple of points to clarify since SB 378 was pulled into this although it's not in the same topic as simply carrying a hand gun in your car. SB 378, or as it's being referred to here and what most call it, the "Castle Doctrine" has nothing to do with CHL's, nothing to do with whether you can carry a handgun and really has nothing to do with weapons.

The Castle Doctrine simply does this: it extends our right to use deadly force as a means of self-defense and removes the previous requirment to retreat when faced with a criminal attack. Deadly force is NOT defined as shooting someone with a hang-gun if you have a license. It can be a shovel, an umbrella a spoon you're using to eat your Chicken Noodle Soup.

Also, the Castle Doctrine is not limited to your home, but to your car and place of work. You must be in the building or car and not engaged in criminal activity or provoking the bad guy.

The 2nd thing it does is give us civil immunity from using deadly force. That's where we're protected by the bad guys family and lawyers from being sued.

We've always had the right but we were required to retreat under certain circumstances and then could be sued by the criminal or on behalf of the criminal. Now, we can do the natural thing, defend, and be protected, if we are "defending" and not provoking or otherwise involved in a criminal act.

This and the topic of the thread are really 2 very different things and should not be confused.

 

[Robbzilla]

i dont have my chl yet... but if im traveling across counties. what should i do if im pulled over?

I had a run in with the Euless Police on just such an occurance. I was travelling home from work, and by the new wording of the law, was well within my rights. I had let a ticket lapse, and they were looking for jsut that. When they found out I had a gun in the car, they didn't like it. WHen I quoted the pertinent law, they said "That can't be right, because then you could carry a gun in your car all the time!"

Well duh!

Anyway, after going back and forth, they decided to let me off with a verbal warning for having the pistol, but told me they'd arrest me if it ever happened again, and to get a CHL.

I'm pretty sure they didn't want to test the new law, but weren't going to tell me that.

I really don't want to be the test case for that new law. Not my idea of a fun way to spend $10,000 or so.

My point? HB1815 might be in action, but the police departments don't necessarily feel that they have to act like it is. They're still going to arrest you, and you'll have to go through the hassle of defending yourself in court. It's really frustrating to me, and I hope SOMEONE doesn't mind being that test case that slaps the hands of the departments who don't feel like they should comply.

Oh, and there are several DAs in several cities who also feel they don't have to follow the law...
http://waxahachiedaily.blogspot.com/2007/02/texas-state-rifle-association-on-hb1815.html

 

[DrBart2]

If I'm driving down the road and do NOT have a hand gun on me or in my car, I am NOT required to produce the CHL if I'm stopped and asked for ID. However, back to my point, if they run your DL, they're gonna find out you're and CHL holder, so you might as well present it anyway and avoid any further questions and have to back-peddle trying to repair some broken trust. It make their job a little less stressful and could build more trust in the CHL and holders.

Good point.

 

[JKTex]

I had a run in with the Euless Police on just such an occurance. I was travelling home from work, and by the new wording of the law, was well within my rights. I had let a ticket lapse, and they were looking for jsut that. When they found out I had a gun in the car, they didn't like it. WHen I quoted the pertinent law, they said "That can't be right, because then you could carry a gun in your car all the time!"

Well duh!

Anyway, after going back and forth, they decided to let me off with a verbal warning for having the pistol, but told me they'd arrest me if it ever happened again, and to get a CHL.

I'm pretty sure they didn't want to test the new law, but weren't going to tell me that.

I really don't want to be the test case for that new law. Not my idea of a fun way to spend $10,000 or so.

My point? HB1815 might be in action, but the police departments don't necessarily feel that they have to act like it is. They're still going to arrest you, and you'll have to go through the hassle of defending yourself in court. It's really frustrating to me, and I hope SOMEONE doesn't mind being that test case that slaps the hands of the departments who don't feel like they should comply.

Oh, and there are several DAs in several cities who also feel they don't have to follow the law...
http://waxahachiedaily.blogspot.com/2007/02/texas-state-rifle-association-on-hb1815.html

They let it go because they knew you were right. It was their way of making a point without going to the extreme and processing you for unlawful carry knowing it wouldn't fly and could cause issues with the department.

But this is a perfect example of how many departments are handling it, which is better than the few that vowed to process you anyway. Of course the reality is that it'll be a big case of heartburn for them so I'm guessing a lot of the DA's and departments vowing to ignore the change to the law, did so to use fear to keep people from carrying. I agree, not everyone should carry, that includes many CHL holders.

 

[chevydeerhunter]

I think the information in this thread is the perfect example as to why people should get a CHL regardless of the Castle Doctrine and the new 'traveling' law. It tells a LEO a couple of things. First, that you went through a 10 hour course to obtain the license and that you're fairly proficient in the use of a handgun. Second, it tells them that you are serious about your safety and don't take it lightly. Third, that you're responsible enough to own a handgun and recognize that though you have the right to own a gun, it's a privilege to have a CHL.

 

[JKTex]

I think the information in this thread is the perfect example as to why people should get a CHL regardless of the Castle Doctrine and the new 'traveling' law. It tells a LEO a couple of things.

A couple of points. We need to make sure, again, that people aren't speaking about the "Castle Doctrine" and CHL as if there is some connection. There IS NOT. CD simply further protects our rights to defend our selves regardless of how that's done. And in any of the 3 locations where the CD extends those rights, a CHL is not required. And there is not "traveling" law. The changes eliminated all that.

Enough of the serious stuff. I wanted to reply with some funny banter.

First, that you went through a 10 hour course to obtain the license and that you're fairly proficient in the use of a handgun.

Have you payed attention to the people in the classes? I think 75% of my class should have had their gun taken away. A 2' pattern at 3 yards is NOT proficient in my opinion. That test is not much of a test.

Second, it tells them that you are serious about your safety and don't take it lightly. Third, that you're responsible enough to own a handgun and recognize that though you have the right to own a gun, it's a privilege to have a CHL.

Well crap. I had more funny stuff and can't come up with it now. And what I did come up with, well, isn't very funny. But the thought was there.

I'll add though, I think the main thing that LEO's get from a CHL holder is that we were not afraid, or trying to hide anything and got the license and all the personal records that were created that goes along with it. We're much better known now, even my the FBI.

Bad guys don't go get licenses to do bad things.

 

[Army 1911]

In Texas, unless you have a CHL, you do not have to tell a cop you have a gun in the car. If he asks, I would tell him.

A couple years ago, I was stopped for not using my turn signal and the cop wanted to search my car. I had just come from the range and the cop knew that as I was stopped about 500 feet from the entrance.

I told him no he could not search without a warrant. He said he would get one. I said fine but the passenger in the car is not just my shooting buddy but an officer of the court.

I got a warning and a lesson. Lesson-- Get the CHL.

 

[JKTex]

If an LEO stops a car for not using a turn signal and immediately wants to search the car, there's more to the story.

Maybe the driver doesn't know it, but the LEO does.

 

[Robbzilla]

I think the information in this thread is the perfect example as to why people should get a CHL regardless of the Castle Doctrine and the new 'traveling' law. It tells a LEO a couple of things. First, that you went through a 10 hour course to obtain the license and that you're fairly proficient in the use of a handgun. Second, it tells them that you are serious about your safety and don't take it lightly. Third, that you're responsible enough to own a handgun and recognize that though you have the right to own a gun, it's a privilege to have a CHL.

On a theoretical level, I have to disagree.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Of course, from a practical standpoint, that's not flying... yet. Unless you're in Vermont, who has the most sensible gun laws in the nation.

 

[Army 1911]

If an LEO stops a car for not using a turn signal and immediately wants to search the car, there's more to the story.

Maybe the driver doesn't know it, but the LEO does.

Doesn't matter... I was within my rights to require a warrant. He had no reason to suspect anything as far as I knew and I have this tendency to be pretty firm about exercisng my rights. Especially since i had plenty of time an a lawyer in the car. The cop wouldn't give a reason so as far as I was concerned it was unreasonalbe!

 

[JKTex]

Doesn't matter... I was within my rights to require a warrant. He had no reason to suspect anything as far as I knew and I have this tendency to be pretty firm about exercisng my rights. Especially since i had plenty of time an a lawyer in the car. The cop wouldn't give a reason so as far as I was concerned it was unreasonalbe!

I don't disagree at all.

My point was that they don't usually do that just for kicks. Was there anything that might have attracted his attention? Something caught his eye, but if he didn't/wouldn't continue to pursue it, it must not have been that big of a deal.

 

[bikerbill]

My understanding of the law in Texas is that you can carry a gun in your glovebox without a CHL ... if you have a CHL, you HAVE to tell the officer, and tell him if you are armed or not ... never been stopped (guess I'm driving too slow) so I've never had RT experience ..

 

[Madhouse]

If I'm driving down the road and do NOT have a hand gun on me or in my car, I am NOT required to produce the CHL if I'm stopped and asked for ID.

I still think this is not correct. Iwas told in my CHL class that whenever you were asked to produce your ID you must produce your CHL regardless of whether you're carrying. I was told by an officer who stopped me and asked for ID this, when he saw my CHL in my wallet as I pulled out my DL.



Sorry to get off the original topic...

 

[Micro.Foosa.Cub]

I just called the THP. According to the patrolman there today, you are not required to produce your CHL when asked for identification, whether or not you actually have a firearm in the vehicle. It is, of course, preferred. When carrying with or without a permit, (a la Castle Doctrine) you are not required to announce the presence of a firearm inside your vehicle.

 

[SIG_Fiend]

Even if you aren't legally required to produce your CHL if stopped, honestly I think it's the smart thing to take the initiative and give the officer your CHL in addition, if he asks for your license. In the state of Texas, if they run your license it will show that you are a CHL holder so they are going to find out anyways.