TexasCHLforum.com

srothstein wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2019 2:43 pm

AJSully421 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2019 1:29 pmAbove all. 46.15(b)(6) make anything that 46.02 says non applicable to an LTC holder, so it does not matter what one word of it says.

I disagree. In general, this is the rule and you would be correct. But there is two narrow cases where 46.02 does apply to to an LTC. I do not know if either is applicable to this case or not though.

The law says:

(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
(6) is carrying:
(A) a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a handgun; and
(B) a handgun:
(i) in a concealed manner; or
(ii) in a shoulder or belt holster;

The first case is if the weapon was carried openly in some manner other than a belt or shoulder holster. For example, if he was carrying with the weapon shoved into his pocket, but the grip was sticking out and could be clearly seen then 46.02 would apply.

I disagree Steve. If the handgun is "in plain view" and is not in a belt or shoulder holster, then the LTC would have violated TPC §46.035(a), but TPC §46.02, including subparts §46.02(a-1)(1) and §46.02(a-1)(2)(C), do not apply to the LTC.

Chas.

I just read the article and the quote from Ch. 6's "legal expert." Her statement, while correct in very limited circumstances, is totally false as it applies to this particular case. "Legislative intent" is applicable only when 1) a statute is ambiguous; or 2) when two statutes are in conflict and they cannot be reconciled. Neither of those situations apply in this case.

The law could not be more clear; TPC §46.02 does not apply to LTCs. Thus, the Criminal Street Gang (TPC Chp. 71) provision of TPC §46.02(a-1)(2)(C) does not apply to the defendant in this case. The prosecutor was wrong to try to exclude this evidence and the judge was wrong to grant the request. Both should be disbarred. Unnecessarily and vexatiously increasing defense costs to a defendant must not be tolerated.

Chas.