Ah, but that's part of the administrative section of CHL law, not penal code section. Completely separate set of statutes. So like srothstein said, in your car, you are not carrying under the authority of the CHL, since it is not illegal to carry in your car, you do not need the CHL exception to 46.02 to do so, the Penal code is satisfied. HOWEVER, under the administrative code, if you are CHL licensed, and have a handgun on or about your person, you are required to show your License.The Annoyed Man wrote:Ditto if you are stopped in your car, and you have a CHL. Although the penalty for failure to show your CHL has been removed, it is still a requirement to do so. A CHL holder cannot, to the best of my understanding, claim MPA in that situation.Hoi Polloi wrote:If you were carrying on your property and an officer asked you for identification, would you be required to give him your CHL? If so, the CHL law trumps the castle doctrine.srothstein wrote:This is already clear in the law. CHL is an exception to the law so it only applies where carrying would otherwise be illegal. If you are in a place where it is not illegal for anyone to carry (your car, your home, etc.) then CHL does not apply because it cannot come into play.Hoi Polloi wrote:It seems to me that the CHL specific laws should be clarified in the next legislative session to specifically say that a person with a CHL is not barred from having a gun in any place that those without a CHL are legally allowed to have one and it should say which laws take precedence when more than one are in effect in the same location.
I would love to be wrong about that one, by the way.
At least that's how I understand it.
Being that 30.06 is part of the penal code, if it is not illegal to carry a firearm there under penal code, then you do not need the exception to the penal code that CHL grants, so you are not technically carrying 'under CHL' so it would not apply. However, you would still need to show your license if asked for ID under administrative code.
At least this is how I take srothstein's comments, and how I understand the code in administrative vs penal matters. Please feel free to enlighten me if I am mistaken.
I agree though, this area is very undefined, and very uncertain. Depending on the court, the case, the judge, etc, it could be taken multiple different ways.
If you actually read the code, it also says you are only allowed to take weapons from a premises under a person's control TO your vehicle, but not back. Apparently, all of our cars are supposed to be filled with handguns, since, without a CHL, it's illegal to carry them To your residence/hotel room/etc (unless you're on your own property, of course, but this doesn't work for those living in apartments or on hotel property!
)
Not "To or From" but just "to"PC §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
(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned
by the person or under the person's control.
So, with all the above, my answer to the hotel question? I really don't know. I agree that Once the handgun is in the hotel room, it's legal there, since it's obviously a 'premises under the person's control'. Question is... how do you get it there, and is it legal?
