TexasCHLforum.com

Longshot38 wrote:Charles I have provided more then enough real world examples of how the scope of TPC can be and is limited. Yet you refuse to accept it. You might be a fine attorney who wrote TPC 46 but there is more to the Penal Code then that. And I can promise you that in real world practical application of the law you are dead wrong, I know this because I live it everyday. And I will stand behind what I have said to the point being the first test case. I am confident in this because no officer would charge me, no TX DA would accept the charges, and no jury would convict me. In the world outside the pages of the TPC your argument has no merit.

No, you have provided absolutely nothing other than your unfounded opinions. You haven't answered one of my questions, nor have you provided the statutory or case law to support your "private property rights trumps state law" contention. There's a good reason why you haven't; there isn't any such proof. Everyone including you knows it, but for some reason you simply cannot bring yourself to admit the truth.

Chas.

Longshot38 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Longshot38 wrote:

Longshot38 wrote: Attorney or not Charles is off course with his post. It is a legally accepted principal that any right I have on my property I can extend to my guest at my discretion.

Once again, site the code, statute or case law that supports this sweeping statement. .

By following this standard then the only person who can have a pistol on any property is the person named on the deed. And we know both in practical application this is not the case. Go in the standard that you suggest then if a family were living as a family unit in a home then only the head of house hold (or whomever is named on the deed) would have a right to own a pistol. So why can anyone in family living under one roof be able to own a pistol? Because the property owner has extended his right to his family. Hints I don't need a statue, I only need to look at the practical application of the law. So yes I can extend my property rights to others.

Wow, you do like to carry something to a ridiculous extreme. Once again, you cannot "extend [your] property rights to others." In a family's home, "control" is not an issue because TPC 46.02(a)(1) expressly applies to one's property. The Code doesn't state "record title holder," it says "person's own premises" and that applies to everyone living in the home. There are plenty of cases holding that any family member not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms can have a handgun in their home. It's also significant that the Code goes on to state "or premises under the person's control" to distinguish it from a place of abode.

You keep talking about having to authority to "extend [your] property rights to others" but you have yet to respond to my call for you to cite such authority. Why is that?

Chas.

TPC §46.02 wrote:Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:

(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control or premises under the person's control;

Longshot38 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Longshot38 wrote:Charles your entire argument is bases on the CHL statute being all encompassing, which it is not. Like many other parts of the Penal code it has limited scope and in this case it does not over-ride my rights as a property owner. Case in point, I live a private road, which means if I want to take my truck and drive it up and down said road with an open container of beer I can do that. Why can I do this, the Penal Code make DUI and open container a criminal offense. Because said road is private property, thus LEO have no jurisdiction concerning the conduct of drivers on said road. Now if I were to enter a public roadway then it is a different story. The same applies to the application of the CHL statute. Its application does not apply to my property, if I wish for a firearm to openly displayed while in my home, it is my right.

Does TPC §46.02 make it illegal for a non-CHL holder to carry a handgun into your home?

Chas.

Again it is situational.

No it is not. Texas law applies to every square of inch in this State, unless the law itself states otherwise.

Longshot38 wrote:The last little bit of 46.02 is that kills your argument, "premises under the person's control", via verbal agreement my friends have been told in no unclear terms that they have an open invitation anytime and if they need a place to reside or live then my couch is always available. Hints why it doesn't apply here. As far as I am concerned when my friends show up then the premises is under their control. They can do what they please and have run of the place.

That's not the legal standard for "control" so your generosity is not a factor.

Longshot38 wrote:So sure if you want to pretend that TPC 46 is all encompassing and applies equally to every place and situation then you might have half a leg to stand on. But from the stance of property right there is nothing in the law that prohibits me from allowing legal weapon on my property in any fashion I deem appropriate.

Show us statutory or case law that gives you veto authority over the Texas Legislature. I'll save you some time, it doesn't exist. People use the phrase "property rights" to argue that they can do anything and everything they wish "on my own land." This hasn't been the case for over 150 years.

Can you:
Dump toxic substances in your backyard in violation of Texas and federal law? No.
Can you open a retail business at a location zoned "residential - single family only[?]" No.
Can you grow marijuana on your own property? No.
Can you open a brothel and offer under age girls "for hire" on your own property? No.
Can you put up a Ham Radio tower on your property in violation of city ordinances, deed restrictions, or HOA rules/regulations? No.

Like it or not, and I know you don't, the only thing you have a "right" to do on your own property is use it in a manner that does not violate federal law, state law, county ordinances, city ordinances, deed restrictions, and HOA rules/regulations. Oh yeah, I left out paying your state, county, city, and school district property taxes.

I understand you don't like the state of things, but staring a 2,000 bull in the face and arguing "you're only a Chihuahua" is futile. Telling your friends "it's only a Chihuahua" is irresponsible.

Chas.

Longshot38 wrote:Charles your entire argument is bases on the CHL statute being all encompassing, which it is not. Like many other parts of the Penal code it has limited scope and in this case it does not over-ride my rights as a property owner.

Your so-called "private-property rights" do not give you veto power over Texas law. You have absolutely no authority to tell someone else they can violate a Texas statute or code.

Chas.

The Annoyed Man wrote:[ I]f I, as a CHL holder, carry a cased up unloaded pistol into my gunsmith's store, set it on the counter, and open the case, am I guilty of intentional failure to conceal? After all, I have a CHL; the gun is concealed (in the case); and I am carrying it.

No, because at that moment in the gun store, you are not carrying pursuant to your CHL. As Steve said, case law holds that taking a gun to a gunsmith for service is not a violation of TPC §46.02. Likewise for taking a gun home from the person or store when you purchase it.

The Annoyed Man wrote: And then, by extension, if I carry that same cased up unloaded handgun into longshot38's house to show off my new acquisition, set it on the coffee table, and open the case, am I guilty of intentional failure to conceal?

Yes, because carrying at a friend's home is not protected by case law or statute. You cannot legally get out of your car at longhot38's home with a handgun unless you have a CHL. Thus, you are carrying pursuant to the authority of your CHL making TPC 46.035(a) (intentional failure to conceal) applicable.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Also, isn't there a legal principle in play (I don't know what it would be called) which says something to the effect of: "wherever the law's meaning must be interpreted, it should always be interpreted in the most narrow and liberal fashion possible (in the sense of classical liberalism as opposed to modern leftism) so that it not be too broadly applied?"

Close, but not quite. Statutes/codes must be read according to their clear and unambiguous language. Only if a statute is unclear do we look to the rules of statutory construction, then to legislative intent. If a statute restricts a constitutional right, then it must be drafted as narrowly as possible to achieve a legitimate legislative goal. This is the basis of attacking statutes on constitutional grounds. Both TPC §46.02 and §46.035(a) are absolutely clear, so they are applied as written.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Was it seriously the legislature's intent that I should never be allowed to take my new gun over to longshot38's house to show it to him, when that very same thing is permitted to anybody who doesn't have a CHL and is otherwise lawfully permitted to be in possession of a handgun?

It is not lawful for a person without a CHL to have a pistol in longshot38's home, so there's no conflict.

The Annoyed Man wrote:That makes no kind of sense to me, and if that was the legislative intent, then the legislature ought to be heartily ashamed of itself for trying to sell us a sow's ear as a silk purse.

I wasn't around when TPC §46.02 (actually it predecessor) was written, so I can't comment about legislative intent. However, I seriously doubt any thought was given to buddies looking at each others guns in the privacy of one's home. That said, the law is clear. As I've said before, gun shows are hardly "sporting events" as anticipated in TPC §46.15(b), but no one is ever arrested for bringing a handgun to a gun show, whether it's concealed or not. I cannot imagine a LEO even hearing about you showing a handgun to longshot38 in his home, much less him arresting you for intentional failure to conceal. If he did, a good and reasonable prosecutor would refuse to accept the charges. Failing that, a good and reasonable judge would dismiss the charges.

Try as we might, it's not possible to craft every law to include every conceivable exception to prevent abuse. We have to rely upon LEO's, DA's, Grand Juries, and judges to round off the rough edges of the law.

The Annoyed Man wrote:We BADLY need Constitutional Carry in this state,. . .

I agree.

Chas.

Longshot38 wrote:Charles your entire argument is bases on the CHL statute being all encompassing, which it is not. Like many other parts of the Penal code it has limited scope and in this case it does not over-ride my rights as a property owner. Case in point, I live a private road, which means if I want to take my truck and drive it up and down said road with an open container of beer I can do that. Why can I do this, the Penal Code make DUI and open container a criminal offense. Because said road is private property, thus LEO have no jurisdiction concerning the conduct of drivers on said road. Now if I were to enter a public roadway then it is a different story. The same applies to the application of the CHL statute. Its application does not apply to my property, if I wish for a firearm to openly displayed while in my home, it is my right.

Does TPC §46.02 make it illegal for a non-CHL holder to carry a handgun into your home?

Chas.

Longshot38 wrote:When a third party is acting under this law they are not acting under CC laws. Rather they are acting on my behalf on my property as if it were me and they have the same rights that I do in regards to this. Also the CC laws in this state only speak to handguns, nothing in the law says anything about concealing long guns. Which brings me back to my original point. I can hand out weapons to everyone adult that steps on my property and require that those weapons be carried in any fashion I wish. If those individuals don't like it they can leave or I can have them arrested for trespassing. But on the flip side I am liable for the acts committed with said weapons.

Cite the code, statute or case law that says you can authorize a person to violate a section of the Penal Code, simply because they are in your home. You tried TPC §9.31 (self-defense with non-lethal force) and §9.32 (deadly force in self-defense) but as Steve pointed out, those do not have anything to do with telling a CHL it’s okay to intentionally fail to conceal their handgun. You are giving very poor advice to people reading this thread and I don’t want anyone to be mislead and have a legal problem because of it.

Longshot38 wrote: Attorney or not Charles is off course with his post. It is a legally accepted principal that any right I have on my property I can extend to my guest at my discretion.

Once again, site the code, statute or case law that supports this sweeping statement.

You can no more authorize someone to violate TPC §§46.02 or 46.035(a) than you can authorize them to commit murder, simply because they are in your home. As others have pointed out, TPC §46.02 prohibits having a handgun on or about your person anywhere in the state, except in your home, business (under your control), or car, or at sporting events where the handgun is commonly used. (There are a few others, but "your buddy's home" isn't one of them.) TPC §46.15(b) removes the restrictions set out in §46.02 for people holding valid CHL's, but it requires the handguns to be concealed. Since you do not have the authority to allow guests to violate TPC §46.02, your guests can legally carry handguns in your home only if they have a CHL. Just as you cannot authorize guests to violate TPC §46.02, you cannot authorize them to violate TPC §46.035(a).

You can authorize people to do anything in your home that is not otherwise illegal. For example, you can tell them they can smoke in your home, eat your food, or swim in your pool. But even though it's legal for you to spank your child, you cannot authorize a guest to do so because it violates Tex. Family code §151.001(e).

Chas.