TexasCHLforum.com

doolyd wrote:Let me tell you from experience, you try to pull that stuff above and you are really going to make cops mad.

I agree.

I've never had a negative encounter with a Texas peace officer. Maybe they are more respectful of citizens' rights than in Illinois, where I spent my stupider years (I hope).

- Jim

I don't know of any Texas law that resticts possessing a firearm based on age (except the CHL law).

It is illegal to allow a minor to come into a possession of a firearm under some circumstances, but it's not an offense for the minor to possess it.

There was a modification of the education code in the 2007 session that didn't make anything illegal that was not already illegal (and I'm too lazy to look it up). That's basically displaying a weapon in a manner calculated to alarm.

- Jim

Late addition: I just realized, while discussing this law in another thread, that it applies to all licensed drivers -- 16 year olds.

- Jim

MAFWG wrote:Since this new law would allow us to carry in a car WITHOUT a CHL, then does that mean that I no longer have an obligation to notify LEO that I am armed (when car carrying) as I can carry under the new law (which doesn't require notification) instead of under my CHL?

Read and ponder:

GC §411.205. DISPLAYING LICENSE; PENALTY. (a) If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license. A person who fails or refuses to display the license and identification as required by this subsection is subject to suspension of the person's license as provided by Section 411.187.

I don't see the words "under the authority" there.

- Jim

txinvestigator wrote:UCW makes no mention of the loaded condition of the weapon, or whether it is cased or not. That means a gun in unloaded condition or cased would still be chargeble under UCW, if it meets the other elements.

We've discussed this quite a while back, and you more or less convinced me of the opposite.

If someone who is not a CHL holder goes to a gun store and buys a pistol, how does he legally get from the counter to his vehicle? What if he takes the bus or walks home?

Obviously this is not a problem in practical terms. Police officers do not sit in front of gun stores and arrest buyers.

- Jim

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The effect is exactly as you describe, but being an element of a crime, rather than an exception, is significant.

Thanks.

I'm not ashamed to admit, not having attended law school, my understanding of the distinction between various concepts like exception, presumption, and affirmative defense to prosecution sometimes elude me. I've read explanations, but I don't understand them on a fundamental level, the way I understand Newton's laws.

- Jim

I don't quite understand "Terry stops" (not for lack of trying). That's a situation where a police officer has reasonable suspicion (not probable cause) to check a person for weapons. Terry stops quite often result in arrest and prosecution for weapons or drug offenses.

Under this law, if the police find a concealed weapon in a vehicle, and the driver is not a prohibited person or otherwise engaged in a crime, having a weapon will not be an offence.

I wonder how many actual criminals are charged with UCW only. I mean criminals who have committed crimes like assault and robbery but not been charged with those crimes for lack of evidence.

I'm interested in what the police officers here will have to say.

- Jim

frankie_the_yankee wrote:...harassing law-abiding gun owners just got a lot tougher.

I agree.

Now, has arresting actual criminals also become more difficult?

- Jim

The engrossed version of the bill is here. This version has the new text underlined and the old text struck out (which I don't think is possible in this format).

Let's look at what has changed.

Section 46.02, Penal Code, is amended by
amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (a-1) and (a-2) to
read as follows:
(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.
(a-2) For purposes of this section, "premises" includes
real property and a recreational vehicle that is being used as
living quarters, regardless of whether that use is temporary or
permanent. In this subsection, "recreational vehicle" means a motor
vehicle primarily designed as temporary living quarters or a
vehicle that contains temporary living quarters and is designed to
be towed by a motor vehicle. The term includes a travel trailer,
camping trailer, truck camper, motor home, and horse trailer with
living quarters.

For starters, it remains illegal generally to have on or about one's person a handgun, etc.

This bill puts the exceptions of "the person's own premises or premises under the person's control" and motor homes, etc., directly into 46.02.

It also makes carrying in "a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control" an exception unless " the handgun is in plain view; or the person is engaged in criminal activity..."

The bottom line, as I see it, is that anyone who can legally possess a handgun will be able to have it at home, in any premises under his control, in his motor home, or vehicle.

As carrying in a vehicle is an exception, rather than a defense to prosecution, the police will not be able to arrest people for carrying in their cars unless the handgun is in plain view or the person is engaged in criminal activity other than a traffic violation.

The new law also allows having a handgun "directly en route to a motor vehicle..." This is a little strange. As I read it, someone can carry a handgun from premises where it is allowed, to a vehicle where it is allowed, but not in the other direction.

It seems that non-CHL holders who have a handgun in their car are not obligated to tell the police, whether they are asked or not.

A non-CHL holder still has to get the handgun from the car to another place in a legal fashion. I would guess unloaded and cased would do. This is a concern for anyone who wants to car carry without a CHL: They need to be prepared for the car breaking down.

The old traveling exception is unchanged.

I've left out a bunch of minor changes. Anyone else see anything worth discussing?

- Jim