HB 1815 bill analysis

[txinvestigator]

I read an article in the TSRA magazine a while back that said you don't have to tell a LEO anything other than your name. The article said don't answer any questions about having a weapon or where you are going or comming from. This was for non CHL holders. They even gave a sample statement to make. It was something like: On the advice of an attorney all the information you need is on my drivers license.
Also, a while back some guy in MT or WO got arrested for failing to give his name when asked by a LEO. In the end the court said you are required to give your name but nothing else.
So..., it looks to me that if you don't have a CHL you don't have to answer any questions about weapons in your car and you don't have to consent to a search.
Have I got this right?

We have covered that here before, and in Texas you don't have to tell a cop your name or anything else unless he has arrested you, unless you are engaged in a licensed activity like operating a motor vehicle, hunting, carrying a handgun under a CHL or an armed guard, etc.

In those cases, you have to present the applicable license upon request.

Unless you have a CHL and are carrying under the authority of that CHL, you do not have to tell a cop you are armed. You NEVER have to consent to a search, but a cop can legally disarm a CHLer temporarily.

[Mike1951]

I think it odd that when they 'fixed' it this time, that the fix includes illegal knives and clubs.

But I think I'll wait awhile before I start keeping my Kabar in the truck.

[KBCraig]

It is clear that the person must be able to get the weapon from store car to home, etc.

Yes, that's clear. But under a strict reading of Texas law, there is no legal way for a non-CHL to even touch a handgun in a gun store ("have on or about his person"), much less purchase it and carry it to his car.

Unintended consequences. I really don't like laws that have an element of "but that's not what we meant!"

[MAFWG]

Unless you have a CHL and are carrying under the authority of that CHL, you do not have to tell a cop you are armed. You NEVER have to consent to a search, but a cop can legally disarm a CHLer temporarily.

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?

Hunter

[seamusTX]

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

[GrillKing]

Look at the picture of the '30.06' sign on the HP property in Houston (link below). It has language that basically says 'weapons prohibited at HP', probably making carrying a handgun under HB1815 tresspassing (PC 30.05) and then it goes into the 30.06 language on the same sign, covering a CHL holder. In this case, I don't think the new law helps, I think this sign covers both.

However, the Richardson HP sign (same thread) is 30.06 language only, so you may have a shot there (no pun intended) using HB1815 to carry in your vehicle, but I would guess not. I have a hunch that a CHL holder will end up being bound by 30.06 it that case, but that remains to be seen. Even if not, a simple ghostbusters on a compliant 30.06 sign would make any carry tresspass (except, LEO, etc.).

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... php?t=7804

This is my view at the moment and, of course IANAL.....

[seamusTX]

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

- Jim

[stevie_d_64]

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

- Jim

Interesting!

But other provisions in the law are supposed to handle that issue, right???

[seamusTX]

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

[doolyd]

I read an article in the TSRA magazine a while back that said you don't have to tell a LEO anything other than your name. The article said don't answer any questions about having a weapon or where you are going or comming from. This was for non CHL holders. They even gave a sample statement to make. It was something like: On the advice of an attorney all the information you need is on my drivers license.
Also, a while back some guy in MT or WO got arrested for failing to give his name when asked by a LEO. In the end the court said you are required to give your name but nothing else.
So..., it looks to me that if you don't have a CHL you don't have to answer any questions about weapons in your car and you don't have to consent to a search.
Have I got this right?

Let me tell you from experience, you try to pull that stuff above and you are really going to make cops mad. They will then do everything they can to pry, search and harrass. A lot of cops love nothing more than a person citing the law to them, after all, they are the law

[seamusTX]

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

[srothstein]

I read an article in the TSRA magazine a while back that said you don't have to tell a LEO anything other than your name. The article said don't answer any questions about having a weapon or where you are going or comming from. This was for non CHL holders. They even gave a sample statement to make. It was something like: On the advice of an attorney all the information you need is on my drivers license.
Also, a while back some guy in MT or WO got arrested for failing to give his name when asked by a LEO. In the end the court said you are required to give your name but nothing else.
So..., it looks to me that if you don't have a CHL you don't have to answer any questions about weapons in your car and you don't have to consent to a search.
Have I got this right?

As has been pointed out, this is not correct. Texas law says you have to give your name, date of birth, and correct home address if under arrest. If a witness or suspect to a crime or legally detained for any other reason, you cannot give false information but you do not need to answer at all. The SCOTUS decision that you refer to said that if there is a state law requiring you to identify when detained (which our law does not do), then the law is Constitutional. It was based on a Nevada case with a disturbance in a truck on the side of the road.

Let me tell you from experience, you try to pull that stuff above and you are really going to make cops mad. They will then do everything they can to pry, search and harrass. A lot of cops love nothing more than a person citing the law to them, after all, they are the law

Unfortunately, I must agree. Too many cops will take it personally and as a sign of defiance if a person does know and understand their rights. I would like to see officers handle it better, but I am forced to admit that there are way too many who do not and will get mad. It is a great way to talk yourself into a ticket instead of a warning with a lot of officers.

The good news is that any evidence against you will probably get thrown out of court. The bad news is you will still end up fighting the charge. Sometimes, being polite and a little friendly is easier in the long run, though I, personally, admire anyone willing to stand up for their rights this way.

[Greybeard]

I'm quite familiar with the above referenced article in TSRA magazine. It was by their/our attorney Albert Ross. It did conclude with the fact that you will most likely get the traffic citation, but that is better than the alternative - a charge of UCW (followed by getting car towed, etc.) Hopefully, after August 31, that will diminish appreciably ...

[govnor]

The new law also allows having a handgun "directly en route to a motor vehicle..." This is a little strange.

Well, think about it this way. If I live in an apartment, and I need to carry my gun to my truck which is across the parking lot... someone accosts me and I pull my weapon and fire. That law covers me.

If no one accosted me, then I would take my gun to my vehicle with no problem, as usual. That's the only reason I see for this particular law. In route to your vehicle from your home. If you were walking out of the local Chili's though and had your gun and were accosted...good luck without a CHL.

[govnor]

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

Oh I've had negative encounters with Texas LEOs. Some of them just have a chip on their shoulder. It was never in a situation where I was pulled over though...even in Garland! I've been pulled over a few times and usually the police are very courteous. I've also had many other experiences talking to LEOs and they were very cool. Maybe they can sense that I like the police.

My negative experiences happened when no criminal activity was going on and they were just unhappy to be where they were. Probably were forced to work overtime at the Irish festival or something. Oh, did I mention the Irish festival? Yeah, there was a real JERK sheriff's deputy there... I see him every year...