Employer parking lots - but not the legislative foreshadowing.

[txinvestigator]

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.



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?

Yep. If it read that a person carrying under the authority of a CHL must display.........then you would not have to show if you were stopped while driving.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

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

Huh? Ebonics much?
This is exactly my point. As I've said over and over again, I agree with you in principle and application. The statutes, on the other hand, are not so clear cut. There are twists, turns, loopholes and conflicts.

In many ways, I'm simply playing devil's advocate, but I do believe that the imperfections can bite us in the ass with the perfect storm of leo, da and judge. No, I cannot reference a particular court case to support this belief. Discussions with other instructors, police officers and an attorney or two indicates that are there broadly differing opinions on these statutes.

The Texas legislature convened today. In my wildest dreams, they might simplify the code and open many of the restrictions on concealed carry.

 

[Renegade]

Huh? Ebonics much?

here you go - [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva]Yes, dere iz nahh requirement ya be carrying under authority peep this shit

Da Ebonics Site - Ebonics Translator - Translate English into Ebonics (joke funny)
[/FONT]

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

Yep. If it read that a person carrying under the authority of a CHL must display.........then you would not have to show if you were stopped while driving.

Valid point. Doesn't the phrase "under the authority of Subchapter H, Section 411" suggest that this section applies, or is inapplicable, in its entirety based on whether or not the actor is "carrying" in a manner that we'll define as "under the authority of..."? It seems to me that we could make the argument that when my mode of carry does not constitute "under the authority of," mandates contained within that section would be inapplicable.

 

[txinvestigator]

Valid point. Doesn't the phrase "under the authority of Subchapter H, Section 411" suggest that this section applies, or is inapplicable, in its entirety based on whether or not the actor is "carrying" in a manner that we'll define as "under the authority of..."? It seems to me that we could make the argument that when my mode of carry does not constitute "under the authority of," mandates contained within that section would be inapplicable.

I see your point, but I don't think so.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

I see your point, but I don't think so.

I obviously don't know, either. These are questions and arguments I've heard, however, and this is why I say these statutes are not quite straightforward. Maybe they are to someone with a law degree and deep, intimate knowledge of these statutes, but not to me, and certainly not to the average CHL holder.

This is why we have these discussions and I appreciate your input.

 

[Bithabus]

I'd still like an answer to my question.

Originally Posted by DoubleActionCHL
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)?​

 

[Bithabus]

Valid point. Doesn't the phrase "under the authority of Subchapter H, Section 411" suggest that this section applies, or is inapplicable, in its entirety based on whether or not the actor is "carrying" in a manner that we'll define as "under the authority of..."? It seems to me that we could make the argument that when my mode of carry does not constitute "under the authority of," mandates contained within that section would be inapplicable.

That's precisely why 30.06 does not apply to carry in a motor vehicle owned or under your control.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

I'd still like an answer to my question.

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)?​

I never said he wasn't. (Correction: Apparently I did. My apologies.)

We can make the argument in both cases that he is carrying under the authority of Subchapter H, Section 411 when he has both his handgun and license on him because Section 46.02 is inapplicable.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

That's precisely why 30.06 does not apply to carry in a motor vehicle owned or under your control.

Care to explain?

 

[Bithabus]

I never said he wasn't. You did. We can make the argument in both cases that he is carrying under the authority of Subchapter H, Section 411 when he has both his handgun and license on him because Section 46.02 is inapplicable.

46.02 is already inapplicable because the actor is in his home or driving his car. The driver with no CHL is carrying under what authority, then? You said that a CHL holder is not carrying under the auspices of CHL in his own home. Here is the quote:

Originally Posted by DoubleActionCHL
No.

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

You also profess to believe a person operating a vehicle with a CHL and carrying a concealed handgun is carrying under the auspices of CHL, even though the two exceptions are listed one after another and joined with an "or". This belief is inconsistent. You can have both or neither.

 

[Bithabus]

Care to explain?

Because driving a motor vehicle or operating a vehicle, or being on one's premises, is an exception to 46.02. 46.02 does not apply to people engaging in these activities. Because 46.02 does not apply possession of a valid CHL is irrelevant and the actor is not "carrying under the authority of chapter 411..." You are only "carrying under authority of chapter 411..." when your CHL gives you the right to legally carry. In other words, the CHL does not exempt you from 46.02 because you are already exempt. This is also the reason Commissioned Peace Officers with CHLs do not carry "under the authority of chapter 411..." They are already exempt. If you are not "carrying under the authority of chapter 411..." then anything following in that line of statute does not apply to you.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

46.02 is already inapplicable because the actor is in his home or driving his car. The driver with no CHL is carrying under what authority, then? You said that a CHL holder is not carrying under the auspices of CHL in his own home. Here is the quote:

Yes, thank you. I caught that and had already corrected my statement. I originally posted that in September of last year. Forgive me for forgetting and apparently being too lazy to go back and read. TPC 46.15 says 46.02 is inapplicable if either condition exists: the actor on his own property or property under his control, or is in possession of both his concealed handgun and license. I know of no order of operations for the sequence of "ORs", which is why I said "the argument can be made."

You also profess to believe a person operating a vehicle with a CHL and carrying a concealed handgun is carrying under the auspices of CHL, even though the two exceptions are listed one after another and joined with an "or". This belief is inconsistent. You can have both or neither.

TPC 46.15 does not say 46.02 is inapplicable if you are in your motor vehicle (with the exception of hunting/fishing). The inapplicability exists when you are in possession of both your handgun and license, or you meet one of the other qualifications of 46.15. Otherwise, 46.02 applies and the actor is excepted under what we refer to as MPA.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

Because driving a motor vehicle or operating a vehicle, or being on one's premises, is an exception to 46.02.

Premises, yes. Motor vehicle, no.

More specifically, "on your own property or property under your control" makes all of 46.02 inapplicable. "In your motor vehicle" is an exception found in the application of 46.02.

 

[Bithabus]

TPC 46.15 says 46.02 is inapplicable if either condition exists: the actor on his own property or property under his control, or is in possession of both his concealed handgun and license.

It doesn't say that at all. I don't know where you are getting this. This is what 46.02 says:

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.
(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:
(1) the handgun is in plain view; or
(2) the person is:
(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic;
(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or
(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.

46.15 does not exempt a person on his premises, because 46.02 states that it does not apply to such a person.

TPC 46.15 does not say 46.02 is inapplicable if you are in your motor vehicle (with the exception of hunting/fishing). The inapplicability exists when you are in possession of both your handgun and license, or you meet one of the other qualifications of 46.15. Otherwise, 46.02 applies and the actor is excepted under what we refer to as MPA.

46.02 states that it only applies to individuals NOT listed in (1) or (2). If you fall under the definition of (1) or (2) (such as sitting in your living room or driving your truck), then you do not need a 46.15 exception. In other words, an exception to 46.02 (such as CHL) does not apply because you are not violating 46.02.

MPA was the name given to the bill which amended 46.02 so that is does not apply to carry in the car.

 

[Bithabus]

Premises, yes. Motor vehicle, no.

More specifically, "on your own property or property under your control" makes all of 46.02 inapplicable. "In your motor vehicle" is an exception found in the application of 46.02.

This is wrong.

(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control.(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:
(1) the handgun is in plain view; or
(2) the person is:
(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic;
(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or
(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.

also means 46.02 is not applicable.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

It doesn't say that at all. I don't know where you are getting this. This is what it says:

Yes, I know what 46.02 says. I'm not talking about 46.02, I'm talking about 46.15, and you're right about the premises/property. I'm trying to work and do this at the same time and it's running all running together

46.02 states that it only applies to individuals NOT listed in (1) or (2). If you fall under the definition of (1) or (2) (such as sitting in your living room or driving your truck), then you do not need a 46.15 exception. In other words, an exception to 46.02 (such as CHL) does not apply because you are not violating 46.02.

MPA was the name given to the bill which amended 46.02 so that is does not apply to carry in the car.

I understand that as well. That's basically what I was saying, except for your comment about not needing 46.15. It doesn't matter that you're not violating 46.02, because there is no 46.02 to violate when you are carrying your handgun and license.

PC §46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
(6) is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued
under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a
concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person
is carrying;

That's what 46.15 does by making 46.02 inapplicable. There are no motor vehicle provisions because there's no section 46.02 to apply or violate. The point that I think is getting lost here is I am NOT saying you're committing an offense; quite the contrary. I'm simply saying we can argue that you are carrying under CHL because the possession of both your handgun and license is exactly why 46.02 does not apply.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

This is wrong."

You are correct

also means 46.02 is not applicable.

No. This does not mean 46.02 is inapplicable. It says where and how an actor may possess and handgun, then defines the exceptions which constitute offenses.

 

[Bithabus]

There are no motor vehicle provisions because there's no section 46.02 to apply or violate. The point that I think is getting lost here is I am NOT saying you're committing an offense; quite the contrary. I'm simply saying we can argue that you are carrying under CHL because the possession of both your handgun and license is exactly why 46.02 does not apply.

I disagree. CHL is an exception, and you only need an exception to get away with something that would otherwise be illegal. That's how exceptions work. Carrying a handgun in your home or concealed in your car (and not committing crimes etc..) is not illegal. You are mistaken that "you are carrying under CHL because the possession of both your handgun and license is exactly why 46.02 does not apply" because 46.02 does not prohibit activity conducted under (1) or (2). If you meet (1) or (2) all the 46.02 exceptions are irrelevant because you are not violating 46.02.

 

[45K20E4]

OK, I am new here and this thread is exactly what I was looking for.

Per my employee guide: "Employees are precluded from possessing dangerous weapons, including handguns, while on duty or in company facilities."
This is the only reference I can find. Also, there is no reference to 30.06 anywhere on the grounds or in the books.

I am not looking at it from CHL perspective (I do have my CHL). I just want to be able to keep my handgun secured in my vehicle so that I can attend a nearby shooting match after work. It looks like I got the answer, although it's not the one I want. Our parking is on the property, so I assume that would be included in "company facilities".

As an aside, due to the total lack of signage, I see nothing restricting other people (vendors, contractors, visitor) from CC'ing at our business.