I see the grammar and the connector. The license is the outward symbol that I've met the requirements. Saying that I don't have a valid CHL issued because its not with me is like saying I didn't take the class, wasn't fingerprinted, wasn't background checked and that DPS didn't make the decision, based on that evidence, to construct a plastic card symbolizing all those elements.Keith B wrote:
I think if you read it a little more closely, you will see that as a matter of grammar, it applies if you are carrying two things (1) a "concealed" handgun and (2) a valid license issued under... I think if is quite explicit that you have to be carrying the license not that you simply "have" a license.
Penal Code 46.15(b)(6) "Section 46.02 [unlawful carrying of weapons] does not apply to a person who . . . is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun."
Yep, you must carry your license if you are carrying. However, unless you run into a cop who is really being a jerk, then they can tell you have a valid CHL if they run your DL number though the system. I would suspect a warning might be issued vs. a UCW charge.
It would not be a bad change to make it a Class C, but personally I think there are way more things with higher priority to worry about first this session, like removing prohibited places and full campus carry.
While it is my intent to follow a law as best I can, in the grand scheme of things, if you're debating grammar with a police officer, whether you physically have a license on your person or not, will be irrelevant.
If police officers can twirl their interpretation of a law to meet a charge they want to apply (and have a DA back them up all the way to court); that is hardly any incentive for me to worry about grammar. If or when it comes to that, its likely I'll have much worse things to worry about.
LabRat