Question about carrying in car concealed...

[iAmSam]

If everything comes back clear and you are nice and courteous I will let you off with a written warning. This is just me though as I rarely write a citation unless the person fails the attitude test or is a scumbag criminal.

I remember your academy thread. Congrats. How long are you out now?

[nightmare69]

If everything comes back clear and you are nice and courteous I will let you off with a written warning. This is just me though as I rarely write a citation unless the person fails the attitude test or is a scumbag criminal.

I remember your academy thread. Congrats. How long are you out now?

I got sworn in the day I took my test the first of this month. Been learning a lot and love it so far

[hillfighter]

Thanks for the replies, guys. Very informative. So...I shouldn't wave my gun out the window, Yosemite Sam style, and yell "I have a gun!"?

Okay, I know what the law says but does anyone besides me find it odd that CHL holders need to go through this little routine when just anyone can carry in the car anyway? For what purpose does the officer need to see your CHL when he doesn't need to see one from Joe Public? Doesn't sound very well thought out to me.

It was to pacify the OMG! BLOOD IN THE STREETS! idiots and never got repealed. TPC 46.035 is the same.

[Jim88]

I know several cops who say that certain parts of the law pertaining to carrying in your vehicle (with or without a CHL) say "on OR ABOUT your person". They have been instructed that "about your person" means if it's within reach. They say it mostly comes up on a DWI stop where the driver tries to claim that he wasn't carrying under the CHL laws but under the extension of the Castle Doctrine. The driver tries to make the argument that carrying while intoxicated is no different that being drunk in your own home where firearms are kept.

So ... regardless of your opinion that the gun isn't on your person because it's in the console, well, good luck with that if you aren't carrying legally anyway.

[nightmare]

Some people are embarrassingly clueless about the Castle Doctrine.

[srothstein]

Nightmare, I agree.

Jim88, the problem is that there is nothing in the law that makes the car an extension of the home for carrying. This is where people confuse the castle doctrine witht he MPA and do not understand the difference. The castle doctrine is a policy that justifies the use of force in certain situations. It basically says that you may defend yourself without retreating first if you are in your own home. The extensions allow you to defend yourself anyplace you have the legal right to be, and specifically include your car IF someone tries to use force to enter it.

But the laws allowing carry have nothing to do with the use of the weapons. You may carry in your car under the motorist's protection act (MPA). This was the law that modified the definition of unlawfully carrying to say it was legal in your car.

But the problem with your friend's logic overall is the way the MPA modified unlawfully carrying. It is only legal to have the gun in the car if you are not committing any crimes other than a class C traffic offense. If the driver is legally intoxicated, then he is not carrying under the MPA since the exception no longer applies. If the driver did not have a CHL, he would also be committing the offense of unlawfully carrying. But, since he does have a CHL, he is exempt from the unlawfully carrying charge. But he is now carrying under the authority of his CHL and he is intoxicated. That makes him guilty of the violation of 46.035.

Of course, all of this depends on the legal definition of "on or about his person" as was stated. The courts have generally interpreted this phrase to mean if the item is within lunging distance and accessible (sorry, I do not have cites on this accessible right now). So, a pistol in the passenger compartment of a vehicle is on or about your person if it is not in a locked container. if it is in the glove box or console and it is locked, it would not be on or about his person. Same if it is int he trunk of the vehicle. But if it is just under the seat or something, this is still "about his person."

[sammeow]

Per GC §411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE.
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.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The duty to display your CHL when asked for ID was required in order to pass SB60 in 1995. At that time there was at least some justification for it because LEOs didn't have MDTs and your status as a CHL wasn't presented when dispatch ran your driver's license. Also, CHL was new and the doomsday folks were still predicting slaughter of everyone including COPs.

Much has changed and virtually every officer has your CHL status available either on an MDT when they run your driver's license, or from dispatch when they run it. We also have an excellent 18 year track record for CHLs. We wanted to repeal the duty to display in 2009, but we didn't have the votes. So we did the next best thing and put language in the DPS sunset bill removing the penalty.

As others have noted, the duty to display exists whenever you are armed, not merely when you are carrying under the authority of your CHL. This is different from other Code provisions such as TPC §30.06 since that section applies only when carrying under the authority of your CHL.

Chas.