TexasCHLforum.com

SpikeTX wrote:Reading this post I have a scenario to see how it works out.

Say I have been drinking and the weapon is locked in the back of the vehicle ( I know but play along please). Now I am not driving but the woman is (she don't drink) and is involved in an accident or stopped for speeding. As I have been reading if asked for ID I should supply my CHL also. Now if asked If there is a weapon I'm not going to lie.

How could this scenario work out?

If you are not intoxicated then you could be carrying and not have to lock it up in the trunk...but anyway let's go with your scenario.

Since you are not carrying a CHL on or about your person (assume it's locked up in the trunk), then you do not have to display your CHL when asked for ID. In fact, depending on the circumstances, you probably don't have to show your ID at all.

shootthesheet wrote:If a person has a CHL then they are carrying under a CHL the way I see it. MPA is for non-CHLs. That doesn't mean a LEO or court might see it different but I wouldn't bet on it. It isn't really a matter of opinion but what the court says so, I'll leave that to them.

I think if a person is carrying and driving while drunk they should lose their drivers license and CHL for 10 years. I think if they are caught again they should never get to exercise either privilege again. There are no rights under CHL or to drive so the State can do as it wishes to control both.

OK so what about cops (who happen to have a CHL) open carrying on duty?
- Guilty of 46.035(a) Failure to Conceal?

What about (CHL) homeowner open carrying in his house?
- Guilty of 46.035(a) Failure to Conceal?

Revolver only (NSA) CHL is never allowed to carry a semi-auto at the range or in a sporting activity?
- Guilty of 46.02 UCW since they are only using the CHL 46.15(b)(6) Defense to 46.02, or can they use the Sporting Activity 46.15(b)(1) ?

MoJo wrote:Makes sense. Another reason to not drink and drive and shoots a hole in the argument "I'm carrying under MPA not my CHL."

Actually it tends to a support the argument of carrying under MPA and not CHL, since a UCW (46.02) charge wouldn't stick if you were carrying under CHL, though they'd probably just turn around and charge you with 46.035(d).

SQLGeek wrote:Yet another reason I'm glad I live where I do. All of my drinking is done (not that it is all that much) at home or at a neighbor's house.

At a neighbors house you would be subject to arrest if carrying (under CHL) while intoxicated... Just sayin'