sjfcontrol wrote:Keith B wrote: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.
Keith -- although we agree that the passenger is not guilty of UCW, my analysis is somewhat different. I would claim that while the driver (not necessarily the owner) is temporarily away from the vehicle, the passenger would be in control of it. Otherwise, you get into the situation where you have to define how far away the driver can wander and still be in control of the vehicle. Is the driver still in control while standing beside the vehicle pumping gas? How about if he goes into the station to use the "facilities"? How about if he leaves the vehicle while going into Walmart?
If the driver is out of sight of the vehicle, and there were an issue with the vehicle (blocking traffic, or something similar), wouldn't an officer expect the passenger to resolve that issue if possible?
On the other hand, leaving a firearm in a vehicle with your children unsupervised, could leave the driver in violation of PC46.13(b)(2)
I think you're stretching both the letter and intent of the law in a tortured way.
Following your line of logic, if you drive to any 30.06 location with your non CHL holder wife in a car that is in your name only and put your gun in the console while you go inside, you'd have to make your wife either go inside with you or stand outside the locked car until you return to avoid the "in control" issue you pose.
If you do that just once, I suspect your wife will help you reach a much more nuanced
understanding of the law by the time you get home.
