SlowDave wrote:ScottDLS wrote:SlowDave wrote:ScottDLS wrote:
A licensee carrying a gun in his car is not carrying "under the authority" of his LTC, therefore 30.06 does not apply, as it does not apply to a non-licensee. The 30.06 statute is very specific that offense occurs while carrying "under the authority" of LTC. And even 30.05 has a defense for a person who HAS a LTC and is being excluded for carrying a handgun.
How do you know that the CHL is not carrying under the authority of his license? Is it a settled issue that the carrier can "decide" under which authority he is carrying? I always thought this was a gray area.
If it wasn't... then cops carrying on-duty who happened to have a LTC could be charged under 46.035 for carrying at sporting events, in bars, and before Jan 1...open carrying. If you had a CHL before Jan. 1, you could have been charged with open carrying on your own property under 46.035...etc.
If you don't NEED the authority of your LTC to carry legally, then you are not carrying under its authority. I suppose if you really wanted to make sure, you could lock your LTC in your trunk while carrying under MPA, then you couldn't be carrying under its authority because you don't have it on you...
I respectfully disagree. Well, maybe not disagree, but don't believe you've answered the question. When either the CHL/LTC or MPA would cover your actions, I don't see how it is prescribed which authority you're carrying under. I can *hope* that I'm carrying under the MPA rather than CHL/LTC, but I don't know how that would come down in a court of law. And the location of your card is irrelevant, other than if an authority decides that HE/SHE believes you were carrying under the CHL/LTC rather than the MPA and you don't have your card on you, you might get introduced to our legal system.
The policeman situation is different. Since the CHL/LTC would not cover his actions, it is very clear that he is not carrying under it's authority.
At the risk of
, how is the policeman situation different? In both cases, you are looking at multiple sources of authority for the carry of a weapon, one which allows a specific means of carry and one which does not. Unless there is something in the law that specifically invalidates the on duty LEOs right to carry at a sporting event, and says that if they have a CHL, then they are always presumed to be carrying under the authority of their CHL, then they are OK to also carry under other authority, even if there is a conflict between the two. The same would hold true if there is a conflict in authority granted under CHL and MPA provisions and someone has both authorities for carry.