Search found 2 matches

by kg5ie
Fri Jul 18, 2014 7:10 am
Forum: Instructors' Corner
Topic: Penal Code 46.15 Nonapplicability
Replies: 18
Views: 6456

Re: Penal Code 46.15 Nonapplicability

hillfighter wrote:
kg5ie wrote:I agree with your interpretation of the wording using a literal reading, and I also agree that what we have is "unintentional consequences" of a poorly worded law. In addition, if indeed 46.02 does not apply, one can argue that "a-1" is out and that a CHL owner can lay their weapon on the dash or seat "in plain view". Agreed?
You absolutely can do that when you're hunting etc. But you're not covered by MPA if it's in plain view and you're violating 46.035 by intentionally displaying it in a public place while carrying under the authority of your CHL.


Ah, but PC 1.07 (40) defines a "public place":

(40) "Public place" means any place to which the
public or a substantial group of the public has access and includes,
but is not limited to, streets, highways, and the common areas of
schools, hospitals, apartment houses, office buildings, transport
facilities, and shops.

Your car is certainly not a public place. The general public does not have access to your car.

IANAL......your mileage may vary.

By the way.....I would NEVER mention any portion of this discussion in a class I was conducting.
by kg5ie
Sun Jul 13, 2014 3:37 pm
Forum: Instructors' Corner
Topic: Penal Code 46.15 Nonapplicability
Replies: 18
Views: 6456

Re: Penal Code 46.15 Nonapplicability

jbarn wrote:You are referring to 46.15(b) that states penal code section 46.02 does not apply to a person who is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun

Since 46.02 proscribes the carry of handguns, illegal knives and clubs, if a person meets that section of 46.15(b) then the law allows the carry of handguns, illegal knives and clubs.

I have seen a debate on nearly every gun forum about this law. Some argue it only makes the part in 46.02 about handguns not apply. Others argue it makes all of 46.02 not apply, meaning a person who is carrying his concealed handgun and license can also carry an illegal knife or club.

A literal reading shows that the second argument is correct. And if you think about it, if the state lets me to carry a handgun, a weapon that can deliver lethal force at far distances, why would I not be allowed to carry one that can only be lethal at arms length?

I know one man who decided to put the argument to the test. He carried into the state Capitol his concealed handgun. He also carried a knife in a scabbord in plain view. The knfe had a blade longer than 5 and a quarter inches. He was not given a second look as he showed his CHL to enter. Once inside for a while he was approached by a DPS trooper about the knife. Short story is he showed the law and made his argument. Several troopers were called over to discuss. Finally a suoervisor was called over. The man was arrestee and booked for UCW, a violation of 46.02 for carrying an illegal knife.

He met with the DA after posting bail. The DA dropped the charges in writing. While the form used to drop the case did not state that carrying an illegal knife while carrying a CHL and concealed handgun was notma violation, the DA said it to him, the man reported.

Personally I think the law allows it. Look at the structure of the code. Further in 46.15 there is a section that states "The provision of Section 46.02 prohibiting the carrying of a club does not apply to a noncommissioned security guard .............."

Had the legislators wanted to prevent a CHL holder from carry illegal knive or clubs, 46.15(b) (6) could have read "- the provision of Section 46.02 prohibiting the carry of handguns does not apply to a person carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license........."

They didn't do that. The wording makes 46.02, all of it, non applicable to a person with a license and concealed handgun.

All of that said, I dont carry illegal knives or clubs. I advise my students of all of the above and tell them that ultimately, the decision is theirs......
I agree with your interpretation of the wording using a literal reading, and I also agree that what we have is "unintentional consequences" of a poorly worded law. In addition, if indeed 46.02 does not apply, one can argue that "a-1" is out and that a CHL owner can lay their weapon on the dash or seat "in plain view". Agreed?

:tiphat: Love legal debates of poorly worded laws! :rules:

Return to “Penal Code 46.15 Nonapplicability”