TexasCHLforum.com

KaiserB wrote:Hmmm Texas is a community property state so technically any gun purchased from a joint account could NOT be considered a single owner asset (i.e. owned by the husband only) thus the firearm would most likely not be in the husbands name only. :)

I am now running for cover.

I think I will use that next year when I buy my wife that new Wilson Combat 1911 for our anniversary. 'But honey, it is for BOTH of us!!'

You have to read intent into the law. In your scenario, I contend that once the passenger had to move the car, then they would be in control of the vehicle (still legal unless they can't posess a firearm), but until that time, the driver/owner would still be in control of it per the MPA statute.


And, in the OP's case, I can bet you that any DPS trooper KNOWS that someone heading to a deer lease will have one or more firearms on them or in the vehicle. Unless they perceive a threat from the driver or other occupant, they should really care less about a firearm in the car. In this incident, that seems to be the case with this trooper and I applaud the fact she was good with us exercising our 2A rights.

barres wrote:

(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.

My reading of the section in red is that this section of the penal code doesn't apply to the passenger, because he doesn't own or control the vehicle, therefore, he doesn't get the protections in the MPA. (a1) is a protection from UCW by excluding carrying in a vehicle you own or control (like a rental car) from UCW unless you are in violation of (1) and/or (2) or any subsection thereof. The passenger would be guilty of UCW, because this section doesn't apply. IMHO, IANAL, etc.

BTW, thanks for quoting the law, I didn't have the opportunity to look it up for the exact wording.

I don't believe the passenger was illegal being around the gun, unless they were a felon. But, my interpretation (I'm not a lawyer and didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night) is that the gun being in the car is covered still under the owner of the vehicle, even if he is away form it due to the OR in the blue lettering above. A good example would be that I own a car and have my wife with me. If her name is not on the title, but I leave a gun in there and go inside a store while she waits in the car, it is still covered under MPA because I own the car. And, she is not prohibited from being around the gun, so if it stays put and concealed, it is legal. It doesn't have to stay in my control in the car. Just like the new parking lot law, you can leave the gun in the car and out of your control and just because someone else is near it, if they are not in control of it by messing around, then it is all OK.

barres wrote:

Excaliber wrote:

barres wrote:Funny, I thought the MPA only protected the owner or controller of a vehicle. This passenger was obviously neither.

The owner / controller in this case was the driver who was still present at the scene although not inside the car the entire time.

I'm not trying to be obstinate, and I'm not a legal-beagle, but how does the driver being 25-ish feet away (at the back of the trailer) keep him in control of the weapon? And how would the passenger not have a firearm in the console be on or about his person without the protection of a CHL or (in my admittedly limited understanding) the MPA.

I'm not trying to be argumentative; I only want to understand.

It doesn't state the owner of the vehicle has to be in control of the firearm once it is in the owner's car. They just can't do 1 or 2A-2C. Here is the snippet:

(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.

1. Excuses for why you were speeding unfortunately do not get you off most of the time unless the officer witnesses the actual reason (i.e. impeding traffic.) All they know is they caught you 12 over in a 70.

2. It is not uncommon to catch up to a vehicle before activating the emergency lights, as long as they can safely maneuver traffic. This keeps other vehicles that are not being stopped rolling and not trying to pull off the side of the road which could cause a worse event.

3. As others have said, no problem with passenger and gun if they can posses one. Who owns the gun is not important.

So, sounds to me like it was not a bad stop other than you got a ticket. Officer may just not be a real personable individual, so not real talkative. Apparently they had no issue with CHL and that you had a gun, so that is a plus.

If it were me I would just chalk it up to getting caught speeding and I would pay my fine and move on.