TexasCHLforum.com

stevie_d_64 wrote:

Renegade wrote:30.06 is not enforceable at a gun show, because you are not carrying under CHL law, but under non-applicability of 46.15, just LIKE YOU WERE BEFORE you had a CHL.

Got that right...Thats why there was only one (1) charge of "deadly conduct" levied...

I don't know how they decided on the charges, but PC 46.15 had nothing to do with it.

PC 46.15 (the "non-applicability" of 46.02 and 46.03 "unlawfully carrying a weapon" sections) does not give an exemption for gun shows.

Like gun shop employees openly carrying, it is technically illegal -- although never enforced -- for a non-CHL to carry a handgun at a gun show, or for a CHL to carry one openly. (For that matter, it's technically illegal to carry it from a gun store to your car.)

Regardless, 46.15 doesn't negate 30.06. Even if 46.15 covered gun shows so that UCW wouldn't apply, the entirely different charge of "Trespass by Holder of License to Carry Concealed Handgun" would still apply. (If proper notice was given in a non-government venue, of course.)

Taz65TX wrote:I can understand your feeling on this if he intentionally brought a loaded gun into G.R.B.
But, what if he didn’t, what if he had 2 guns that are similar? And one of them gun that he brought to G.R.B. to have worked done? What if? From what I’ve heard from the attorney Don Philips & Tom Nixon, there were 2 Glock 23 that he had with him. He had forgotten about the other one and things happen from there. There’s still allot of unknown. I don’t think anyone who wants to shoot themselves in the hand intentionally.

I've received a PM about the incident from someone who knows a lot of the inside information. The background facts really don't change the seriousness of what happened.

Whether he knew he had two pistols (one loaded, the other unloaded), or if he completely forgot and grabbed the wrong pistol, he still failed to follow basic safety procedures by not clearing the pistol before trying to disassemble it.

The injury, the embarrassment, and the legal bills are what I called the "tax on stupid". I don't think there needs to be any further legal action, because you can guarantee he'll never forget the lesson he learned.

Venus Pax wrote:As goofy as this guy's actions were, I don't think he meant any harm. I'm glad he's getting off.

I think he paid the tax on stupid. I'm just glad he paid it personally, instead of someone else paying it.