TexasCHLforum.com

stagalv wrote:So, are we legally allowed to carry pepper spray in Tx? What about an ASP type baton?

and you also cant carry a taser in Dallas.

We need to rewrite the laws, so that we have a concealed WEAPON permit.

drjoker wrote:

dewayneward wrote:

I know shooting the dog would have created all kinds of problems for me and it was the last thing I wanted to do,

I am curious as to why you wrote this part. I may be overanalyzing, but the part of "all kinds of problems", do you think that you would have went to jail/ got sued, etc.???

Just google Harold Fish. Heck, use the search feature on this very forum and search for Harold Fish. Glad everything turned out o.k. for you.

be careful out there,

It all turned out okay for Fish too, just a Bucket load of legal troubles, some time behind bars, and he helped change the States way of Trying people

dicion wrote:

marksiwel wrote: (Response from Mark's wife, a Texas law student, who has spent much time studying the Texas Penal Code)Technically this statute is accurate and verbatim. Unfortunately, it was read incorrectly. The statute only applies to the concealed handgun as it specifically references a person "carrying a concealed handgun." If it applied to all weapons in 46.02, it would say that it didn't apply to anyone carrying an unlawful weapon and licensed to carry concealed. The reference to the gun means that the statute only applies to the gun. I suppose that to be absolutely certain, I could check relevant case law, but if I were you, I really wouldn't take the risk that any judge would deviate from the plain meaning of the statute provided by the specific mention of a concealed handgun.

I don't know.. I would think they would change it to something along the lines of "This section does not apply to a person carrying a handgun who:" But rather, it says it does not apply to the person in general, who meets certain criteria.

The thing is, if you read ALL of 46.15, that is the ONLY statement that would only exempt only a specific item.
All the rest are general "Whole" 46.02 exemptions.. Even every other number under subsection (b).
All the other ones just set criteria to meet in subsections under (b). They do not specify certain weapons.
So, along with everything else in the entire 46.15 exempting the Whole of 46.02, that one doesn't fit with the rest if it only exempts the one item, the handgun.

I am not well versed in the rules of statutory construction, but I once read something from Charles that said that it's required that they be read as to give meaning to every provision. Eg, they all make sense if they all are 'general' exemptions together under (b), however, it does not make sense for them all to be general exemptions... except for one.

Then again, IANAL, and I did not sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night.. So I'll hold off on walking through Wal-Mart with a Katana... for now :)

Other provisions in 46.15 do specifically only apply to certain weapons, but they do actually point that out with better wording. I see what you're saying, but none of the other provisions under subsection (b) reference a specific one of the weapons that must be carried (the others refer only to the "weapon"), which distinguishes the (6) exception from the others. Also, it would seem odd for them to require you to carry the gun in order to carry other weapons, too. I looked at some commentary regarding the legislation that distinguished the applicability to a peace officer and to a CHL holder. It said that the statute in its entirety did not apply to peace officers and that the provision regarding handguns did not apply to CHL holders. I was unable to find any case law that spelled this out. Unfortunately, most of the cases regarding unlawful carrying of a weapon discuss the traveling provision. To me, it sort of seems that the legislature added in the CHL provision sloppily after the rest of the statute was written. I don't have historical evidence to back me up on this, it's just intuition based on the wording. The only way to know what it means for sure is to get it up to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and see how they read it. I think that if you want to test it out, you can probably find an adventurous lawyer willing to take on the fight, but it's not a risk that I would recommend taking.

dicion wrote:

blackdog8200 wrote: Best thing about the flashlight is that it is not a "club" in the illegal weapon sense.....I keep one in the door of my truck for just that reason.

It has always bothered me with a CHL I can carry and use a handgun (Read deadly force here) in my defense yet if I carry the police ASP Baton, I am breaking the law. As a cyclist, dogs and drunks always give me concern. I would like to have the option to use less lethal force if possible.

The Idea of the pitbull going after me or one of my dogs may very well end up with the use of my gun (one of the reasons I carry) but in the case of the OP here, a concealable baton could be the first line of defense and possibly keep from using my gun on a residential street....The dog might also recognize the "stick" and back off as well.

Technically legally carrying a handgun under the authority of a CHL makes the entirety of 42.02 not apply to you. Including the part about Illegal clubs, knives, etc
Don't believe me? read it yourself:

§ 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 Article 4413(29ee), Revised Statutes, to carry
a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person
is carrying;

§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:

blah blah blah

Now, how this would pan out in court? No Clue. No Test cases that I know of... I'm just pointing out the technicality

(Response from Mark's wife, a Texas law student, who has spent much time studying the Texas Penal Code)Technically this statute is accurate and verbatim. Unfortunately, it was read incorrectly. The statute only applies to the concealed handgun as it specifically references a person "carrying a concealed handgun." If it applied to all weapons in 46.02, it would say that it didn't apply to anyone carrying an unlawful weapon and licensed to carry concealed. The reference to the gun means that the statute only applies to the gun. I suppose that to be absolutely certain, I could check relevant case law, but if I were you, I really wouldn't take the risk that any judge would deviate from the plain meaning of the statute provided by the specific mention of a concealed handgun.

I wish we could just legally carry a collapsible baton

Ashlar wrote:

blackdog8200 wrote:It has always bothered me with a CHL I can carry and use a handgun (Read deadly force here) in my defense yet if I carry the police ASP Baton, I am breaking the law.

Agreed. I wish ours were like Florida, where it's a concealed weapons license. Batons, long knives, saps, blackjacks- all are legal there with their analog of our CHL.

I wouldnt mind being able to carry a taser in dallas without breaking the law.

witchdoctor575 wrote:Personally, I would have just shot the dog. you never know if 10 minutes later a kid would have came by and got attacked by the same dog. usually, animal control is short staffed and cannot respond unless it is something serious...by why let it get to that point!

I love dogs, but I would have done the same

Dog are property in the State of Texas, you were walking around at Night right?
Also its a pitbull loose on the streets, all you have to say it is attacked you and your dog.
I doubt the cops would do anything