TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:I love it when new folks with all the answers show up on here and want to set everyone straight.

I also am leery of the idea of tortured reading and interpreting the law in order to find a loophole to do justify doing what someone wants.

I'll stick with Mr. Cotton's opinion on this and other legal matters regarding guns. I do wish he would chime in and explain the theory that open carry is allowed when traveling which is discussed in another thread as I just can't wrap my mind around it.

Traveling is not defined by statute and the case law definitions are all over the map. The theory that if you are traveling, you are not carrying pursuant to the authority of your CHL is not going to fly in court because a CHL is carrying under the authority of your license.

Let's follow his argument through to conclusion in a trial. In spite of the words "Do not apply," Tex. Penal Code §46.15(b) establishes a defense that must be asserted in trial. If a CHL were arrested for unlawfully carrying a handgun under Tex. Panel Code §46.02, then the CHL must either assert the defense of having a CHL, or it is waived. Under his erroneous theory, if the person was traveling he would not be carrying under the authority of his CHL, thus the defense would not be asserted. The only question for the jury would be whether the person was "traveling." If not, then they would be convicted of a violation of Tex. Penal Code §46.02. The chances of prevailing on a traveling defense are very remote bordering on impossible, unless one were truly traveling a long distance in Texas.

If the CHL was carrying openly and asserted their CHL as a defense to a Tex. Penal Code §46.02 charge, then they would win on that count, but would be convicted of a violation of Tex. Penal Code §46.035(a), "intentional display."

In reality, the way it would actually work is that the ADA would charge the CHL with violation of §46.035(a) rather than §46.02, thus the "traveling" defense would not be relevant and the CHL would be convicted of a Class A misdemeanor.

The discussion above presumes that the CHL was arrested while they were not in their own motor vehicle or one under their control. If they were in their car, then they have not violated §46.02 and no defense is necessary. However, §46.02(A-1)(1) creates an offense if the handgun is "in plain view" so the CHL could be convicted of a Class A misdemeanor violation.

I understand how he's trying to bootstrap a traveling defense, but that will not work in the real world. It would be a great law school exam question, but offering that advice for people carrying handguns is beyond irresponsible.

Chas.

Gaidheal wrote:Once you are on private land and premises (not a business), in all practical terms, you have nothing to worry about. Legally speaking it is my opinion, based on the law and legal advice I received on this specific topic, that if you are given permission by the owner or someone who can speak with their authority (agent, manager, whatever) you can carry freely and legally, concealed or openly in accordance with their wishes.

This is absolutely incorrect. In fact, HB1509 has been filed this legislative session to make it legal to carry on private property with the owner's permission. If a Texas lawyer gave you this advice, then you need to get another lawyer.

To our Ohio visitor, don't rely upon the above-quoted advice. (See below.) Unless you are on your own property, or property your control, you cannot carry a handgun. There are exceptions for hunting, shooting ranges, etc., but those are just that, exceptions.

Chas.

Tex. Penal Code §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 . . .

Scott B. wrote:After the recent changes in Ohio law, what's holding up reciprocity between our two states now?

I'm not sure why Texas hasn't already recognized an Ohio license as a unilateral proclamation as we have New York and others. My guess is that Ohio didn't require a background check before issuing a license. If that has changed, then we may recognize an Ohio license soon. Someone posted earlier that Ohio would recognize a Texas license in March.

Chas.

RPBrown wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:Glad it was answered here because I wasn't going to try to quote from my phone over on OFCC.

I disagree with the above interpretation on some minor points.

First, there is no statutory requirement that the handgun cannot be on your person in a car. The only requirement is you cannot still have it on your person when you step out of the car. Some people recommend having it not on your person in case you are stopped by LEO and asked to step out of the car, and I understand how that simplifies the issue, but on your person in the car is not forbidden by statute.

Second, on their property, a private party cannot give you permission to break the law. Notice the statute uses the language "premises under the person's control"; it does not say "with permission". I recall a post on this subject by Mr. Cotton where he made this exact point and asked the question, "If you are in control of the premises, does that mean you can tell tell property owner to leave?"

A slightly different example, someone cannot host a poker party with six other people in his apartment and give all six people permission to carry on his premises. Seven people simultaneously "in control" of the premises is ridiculous.

All that said, if your parents-in-law have 270 acres, you could carry all day long and have virtually zero chance of arrest. If you are shooting at their range or en route to/from the range, or hunting, carrying is explicitly allowed.

If you are going to visit TX frequently before your Ohio CHL next renews after 2015, then I'd suggest spending the $50-odd bucks and get an AZ non-resident license. An Ohio license issued after March 23, 2015 should be recognized by Texas in January 2016. However, your existing license, issued before 3/23, will not be recognized because it did not meet the NICS requirements. Your renewal license (assuming renewal after 3/23/2015) will meet the NICS requirements.

Based on your comments, how do employees open carry at gun ranges? They are not all in control of the premises. Not saying you are right or wrong,just curious.

As TVGuy noted, there's a specific provision in the Code dealing with gun ranges. However, that provision will not apply to a gun store or other businesses where employees sometimes do carry handguns either openly or concealed with or without a CHL. (The concealment part is another topic.) The code references "control" not "exclusive control" so it's not terribly clear as to the level of control that must be exercisable. To my knowledge, there is no case law holding that there can be only one person in "control" of the property. It's probably a matter of application meaning that LEOs aren't going to make an arrest and the DA won't prosecute when an employee carries a handgun at work. I know that DPS addresses this in the context of an employee serving in a security capacity, but that too is a different topic.

Chas.

Jumping Frog wrote:I disagree with the above interpretation on some minor points.

Second, on their property, a private party cannot give you permission to break the law. Notice the statute uses the language "premises under the person's control"; it does not say "with permission". I recall a post on this subject by Mr. Cotton where he made this exact point and asked the question, "If you are in control of the premises, does that mean you can tell tell property owner to leave?"

Correct. HB1509 has been filed to address this specific issue; i.e. give property owners the authority to allow people to carry handguns on their property or property under their control.

Chas.