Employer parking lots - but not the legislative foreshadowing.

[Renegade]

That's fine, but that doesn't negate the requirement to display. It still exists. Until the legislature changes the language, your requirement to display will continue, regardless of the existence of a penalty.

I agree with that. It is unfortunate the law was done that way.

 

[txinvestigator]

No.

You are not carrying under the auspices of CHL when you are on your own property or property under your control. It can also be argued that you are not carrying under CHL when you are in your vehicle, a vehicle under your control, directly in route, etc. (as specified in Section 46.02) when you are carrying your handgun, but NOT your CHL. The way the statute is written, Section 46.02 does not apply if you are carrying both.

By your logic, then, when I am at my home, carrying my CHL and my handgun I am carrying under the authority of 46.15(b) and NOT 46.02?

That is just not correct. The reason we still have tyo display a CHL when stopped by a cop in our cars is that the law that requires it does not mandate it if yhou are carrying under the authority of a CHL. It simply says "If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license. "

It matters not if you are in a car at the time, or at your house. 30.06 does not read "if a license holder", it reads "a person carrying under the authority".

 

[Bithabus]

You are still required to display. The fact that our legislature repealed the 90 day suspension penalty does not negate your requirement to display.

Let me ask you this: You're sitting in your car in a business parking log and an officer approaches your vehicle. He asks for your ID. You're carrying, but you believe you're not required to display, so I already know your answer to my first question. He notices the butt of your handgun protruding from under a newspaper on the passenger seat.

What do you think the likely outcome will be, and if you're charged with an offense, under what TPC would that fall?

You won't be charged with an offense, because nothing you described above is illegal. Obviously, in some instances, is is prudent to advise LE of the weapon even though it is not required.

 

[Bithabus]

No.

You are not carrying under the auspices of CHL when you are on your own property or property under your control. It can also be argued that you are not carrying under CHL when you are in your vehicle, a vehicle under your control, directly in route, etc. (as specified in Section 46.02) when you are carrying your handgun, but NOT your CHL. The way the statute is written, Section 46.02 does not apply if you are carrying both.

So you believe you are not carrying under auspices of CHL when in your own home (and in possession of your CHL), but you ARE carrying under auspices of CHL when you are in your motor vehicle? What's the difference? Both are listed in 46.02, which doesn't apply to CHL holders when carrying, which is your argument why a CHL holder in a car is bound by 30.06.

I agree while carrying at home you are not carrying under the auspice of your CHL. The same reasoning tells us that while in the motor vehicle you are also not carrying under your CHL. 46.02 doesn't list an affirmative defense or exception to carry in the car, it simply states that carry is illegal when not in your car, home etc... The fact that 46.02 doesn't apply to CHL carriers is irrelevant. You don't need "authority" to do something that is not generally prohibited.

If you want to believe you are still required to notify when there is absolutely no consequence for failing to do so, I have no argument against that. I've been stopped and didn't notify and nobody cares.

 

[Tjammer]

THIS SHOULD CLEAR IT UP.

46.035. Unlawful Carrying of a Handgun by a License Holder
(2) "License holder" means a person licensed to carry a handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code.
(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

So you believe you are not carrying under auspices of CHL when in your own home (and in possession of your CHL), but you ARE carrying under auspices of CHL when you are in your motor vehicle? What's the difference? Both are listed in 46.02, which doesn't apply to CHL holders when carrying, which is your argument why a CHL holder in a car is bound by 30.06.

I agree while carrying at home you are not carrying under the auspice of your CHL. The same reasoning tells us that while in the motor vehicle you are also not carrying under your CHL. 46.02 doesn't list an affirmative defense or exception to carry in the car, it simply states that carry is illegal when not in your car, home etc... The fact that 46.02 doesn't apply to CHL carriers is irrelevant. You don't need "authority" to do something that is not generally prohibited.

If you want to believe you are still required to notify when there is absolutely no consequence for failing to do so, I have no argument against that. I've been stopped and didn't notify and nobody cares.

I believe what the statute says. These sections were poorly written and without much consideration for the obvious conflicts put upon the CHL holder. I think you're pretty safe in your own home, but I believe an aggressive DA may take advantage of these imperfections and prosecute an individual when the possible offense is related to your vehicle.

The requirement to notify still exists. A mandate is a mandate, regardless of the penalty. I know many officers who are still unclear on the changes in 2009. Many erroneously believe that a CHL holder is ALWAYS required to display, regardless of whether or not he is carrying. If you don't display and have had no problems, more power to you.

Repeating what we already know clears nothing up, by the way.

 

[Bithabus]

I believe what the statute says. These sections were poorly written and without much consideration for the obvious conflicts put upon the CHL holder. I think you're pretty safe in your own home, but I believe an aggressive DA may take advantage of these imperfections and prosecute an individual when the possible offense is related to your vehicle.

The requirement to notify still exists. A mandate is a mandate, regardless of the penalty. I know many officers who are still unclear on the changes in 2009. Many erroneously believe that a CHL holder is ALWAYS required to display, regardless of whether or not he is carrying. If you don't display and have had no problems, more power to you.

Repeating what we already know clears nothing up, by the way.

My post that you are responding to here is 3 months old, btw.

I'll say only this: you are free to believe that a CHL holder carrying a handgun in the car is doing so under authority of 411 GC, but you are mistaken.

 

[txinvestigator]

THIS SHOULD CLEAR IT UP.

46.035. Unlawful Carrying of a Handgun by a License Holder
(2) "License holder" means a person licensed to carry a handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code.
(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

What, exactly, is that supposed to clear up?

 

[txinvestigator]

I believe what the statute says. These sections were poorly written and without much consideration for the obvious conflicts put upon the CHL holder. I think you're pretty safe in your own home, but I believe an aggressive DA may take advantage of these imperfections and prosecute an individual when the possible offense is related to your vehicle.

The requirement to notify still exists. A mandate is a mandate, regardless of the penalty. I know many officers who are still unclear on the changes in 2009. Many erroneously believe that a CHL holder is ALWAYS required to display, regardless of whether or not he is carrying. If you don't display and have had no problems, more power to you.

Repeating what we already know clears nothing up, by the way.

What do you imagine will happen if you fail to display?

 

[txinvestigator]

My post that you are responding to here is 3 months old, btw.

I'll say only this: you are free to believe that a CHL holder carrying a handgun in the car is doing so under authority of 411 GC, but you are mistaken.

Don't you mean PC 46.15(b) rather GC 411? The authority to carry under a CHL is in the Penal Code.

 

[Bithabus]

Don't you mean PC 46.15(b) rather GC 411? The authority to carry under a CHL is in the Penal Code.

Correct, but I believe (and it's hazy because this was 3 months ago) we were discussing whether 30.06 signs apply to car carry by CHL holders, and of course the 30.06 sign reads

carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code

 

[txinvestigator]

Correct, but I believe (and it's hazy because this was 3 months ago) we were discussing whether 30.06 signs apply to car carry by CHL holders, and of course the 30.06 sign reads

I see. I think. I am cross-eyed from this thread. lol

And if the noobie was referring to parking lots and 30.06 in his posting of the definition of premises, that definition ONLY applies to places statutorily off limts under 46.03 and 46.035. 30.06 uses the term PROPERTY, and it CAN include parking lots.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

My post that you are responding to here is 3 months old, btw.

I'll say only this: you are free to believe that a CHL holder carrying a handgun in the car is doing so under authority of 411 GC, but you are mistaken.

Yeah, I missed your original response. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The statutes are clear. TPC 46.15 says TPC 46.02 does not apply when you have both your handgun and license. I'm not saying you can't carry, because as you've stated and I've never disagreed with you, 46.02 is a restriction.

In a courtroom you may actually be correct, because these statutes were written without respect to exceptions or conflicting restrictions in other statutes, and I'm sure these would be applied differently. The literal reading of the statutes would tell us that certain "illegal" weapons are not restricted as long as you are carrying your handgun and license, due to the inapplicability referenced in TPC 46.15. On the other hand, this creates a disturbing scenario where law enforcement and courts are enforcing what the law was supposed to say, rather than what it actually says.

 

[Bithabus]

No.

You are not carrying under the auspices of CHL when you are on your own property or property under your control.

Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or
(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control.

Would you like to explain why a person carrying a CHL and a concealed handgun is not doing so under the authority of CHL in situation (1) but he is in situation (2)?

 

[txinvestigator]

In a courtroom you may actually be correct, because these statutes were written without respect to exceptions or conflicting restrictions in other statutes, and I'm sure these would be applied differently. The literal reading of the statutes would tell us that certain "illegal" weapons are not restricted as long as you are carrying your handgun and license, due to the inapplicability referenced in TPC 46.15. On the other hand, this creates a disturbing scenario where law enforcement and courts are enforcing what the law was supposed to say, rather than what it actually says.

Can you provide evidence of that, or is it simply your belief?

Your belief that a CHL holder carrying in a car is somehow different than a non-CHL holder in a car is INCORRECT, and the language and intent is CLEAR.,

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

Can you provide evidence of that, or is it simply your belief?

Your belief that a CHL holder carrying in a car is somehow different than a non-CHL holder in a car is INCORRECT, and the language and intent is CLEAR.,

The intent may be clear, but the language is not, and that is exactly my point. I don't disagree with either of you in principle, but the statutes do. The CHL holder carrying in his car is not restricted based on the application of 411h, where the non-CHL holder is not restricted based on the application of 46.02. I'm not saying that CHL holder is restricted more or less than the non-CHL holder, but that any restrictions are derived from different areas of the Penal Code.

If a CHL isn't carrying under the auspices of the CHL statutes while in his motor vehicle, how could a penalty be legally applied to a CHL holder for not displaying on officer request after September 1, 2007 and prior to September 1, 2009?

 

[txinvestigator]

The intent may be clear, but the language is not, and that is exactly my point. I don't disagree with either of you in principle, but the statutes do.

No, the statutes do not.

The CHL holder carrying in his car is not restricted based on the application of 411h, where the non-CHL holder is not restricted based on the application of 46.02. I'm not saying that CHL holder is restricted more or less than the non-CHL holder, but that any restrictions are derived from different areas of the Penal Code.

None of that makes any sense.

46.02 says that a person committs an offene if he carries a handgun on our about his person. Then it lists WHEN that is not the case. Regardless of my haiving a CHL, there is no violation of 46.02 when I carry in my car.

My CHL is irrelevant

If a CHL isn't carrying under the auspices of the CHL statutes while in his motor vehicle, how could a penalty be legally applied to a CHL holder for not displaying on officer request after September 1, 2007 and prior to September 1, 2009?

Fair question, but one I have already answered for you.

The law requiring you to display says nothing about carrying under the authority of a CHL. It says that a person LICENSED must display. That means if you are at home and carrying and you are a CHL holder, and a cop asks for your ID you must display your CHL. This law has nothing to do with under what authority your carry. It is anytime, anywhere.

 

[Renegade]

The law requiring you to display says nothing about carrying under the authority of a CHL. It says that a person LICENSED must display. That means if you are at home and carrying and you are a CHL holder, and a cop asks for your ID you must display your CHL. This law has nothing to do with under what authority your carry. It is anytime, anywhere.

+1

And anyone, including Peace Officers.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

46.02 says that a person committs an offene if he carries a handgun on our about his person. Then it lists WHEN that is not the case. Regardless of my haiving a CHL, there is no violation of 46.02 when I carry in my car.

Do you even read my words? I never said there was a violation. Of course there isn't a violation, because 46.02 describes the violation and it DOESN'T apply if you're carrying your handgun and license.

The law requiring you to display says nothing about carrying under the authority of a CHL. It says that a person LICENSED must display. That means if you are at home and carrying and you are a CHL holder, and a cop asks for your ID you must display your CHL. This law has nothing to do with under what authority your carry. It is anytime, anywhere.

You're picking nits at this point. The requirement to display exists in Section 411, which establishes and deals with Concealed Handgun Licenses. You're telling me that a requirement to display that exists in Subchapter H, Section 411, applies even though the actor is not carrying under the authority of that chapter?

 

[Renegade]

The requirement to display exists in Section 411, which establishes and deals with Concealed Handgun Licenses. You're telling me that a requirement to display that exists in Subchapter H, Section 411, applies even though the actor is not carrying under the authority of that chapter?

Yes, there is no requirement you be carrying under authority:

Sec. 411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license.

ETA:

It gets even wierder since a Peace Officer has no legal authority to demand one display identification. Though it is moot now since there is no penalty.