TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub

johnson0317 wrote:I don't think it has so much to do with whether or not you have a weapon in the vehicle, or whether or not you are operating under the MPA. I think it has more to do with them being able to ask for it. Doesn't the law say you have to produce it when asked for it? I may be a little gray in this area, and on my temples, mustache, beard, eyebrows, chest...well, let's just stop there.

RJ

It does and that is where I have a problem with a person that has a CHL claiming they are carrying under the MPA. It has happened to me before where I have left the house and forgotten my wallet, but remembered my gun. I usually only get a block or two away before making the discovery and return to get the wallet with my licenses. I can't see it going very well if I were stopped and were unable to produce a CHL license and try claiming I was carrying under the MPA. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see that going well for me.

C-dub

apostate wrote:If you have a handgun on or about your person in the car, you're still required to display but there's no penalty if you don't. In that sense, it's similar to many laws that state a government employee (or agency) "shall" do something, but provide no penalty for noncompliance. A prime example would be several years ago when CHL applications were not processed by DPS in a timely fashion.

Right, but where I'm still hung up on that is when the LEO asks for our CHL license. If we have it we might have forgotten to give it to the LEO and that penalty has been removed. What I wonder about is what will happen when the LEO returns from their car and asks for it and I either choose not to provide or am unable to do so, while claiming to be carrying under the MPA.

C-dub

srothstein wrote:
C-dub wrote:Hmmm. I can be convinced, but it won't be easy. It doesn't make any sense to me that if one has a CHL that they could choose to carry under any other authority other than that CHL because we do have to display our license when asked for ID by a Texas LEO.
Well, let me make it easy for you. Suppose I am an active peace officer. Now suppose I got my CHL so I can buy guns without waiting for the NICS check (which I don't trust). Can I carry a gun into a bar that is posted with a 51 sign? Of course I can since I am a peace officer and that law does not apply to me, right? That clearly indicates that there are times when a person may have multiple exceptions to the laws on unlawfully carrying and can choose which authority he is carrying under.

But, since I still am a CHL, I must show my CHL when I get stopped by another officer. There is no exception in the display requirement for peace officer.

So, if that can be true, then the choice of authority when one is an exception to the law and one is the law not including the act must be true. In that case you are not really choosing which authority, the law is by making car carry legal.

Does that help a little?

I can see the benefit of a LEO getting a CHL in order to forego the NICS check, but even that's not that intrusive. Before I had my CHL they told me the wait might only be 20-30 minutes. And the person is still always a LEO and reaps the benefits from being a LEO.

You're saying that if I don't take my gun with me from the car except at home or to and from my business then I wouldn't need to ever have my CHL license with me to show a LEO in Texas? Since the penalty has been removed for not displaying and if I'm only carrying under the authority of the MPA I wouldn't even have a duty to show my CHL to a LEO if asked for ID? Even if I'm in the car? Am I on track here or have I got it twisted in my head again?

C-dub

sjfcontrol wrote:
C-dub wrote:Hmmm. I can be convinced, but it won't be easy. It doesn't make any sense to me that if one has a CHL that they could choose to carry under any other authority other than that CHL because we do have to display our license when asked for ID by a Texas LEO.
Ok, but it also doesnt make sense that we would LOSE rights/privileges by getting a license. Not that EITHER of us will get far arguing legal "logic". I believe that it was an oversight that the law requires the display of the license when carrying regardless of whether it's being used. Of course when that law was passed the only legal way to carry was with a CHL. So back then there was no distinction. Only when MPA was passed did it matter.

And it's not really a matter of "choosing" how we carry. 46.15(b)(6) says that 46.02 doEs not apply to CHL holders. But it already doesn't apply if you meet the 46.02(a-1) (MPA) section. So, since the CHL exception isn't needed, you're not carrying under it.

Easy-peazy!

I didn't look at it as losing rights, but possibly incorrectly viewing them as two different things. The MPA has muddied the waters for situations like this. Hopefully, as issues like this are discovered, they will get clarified in the next session.

C-dub

unhappycamper wrote:
40khammer wrote:Wanna solve this whole problem? Keep a shotgun in your car instead of a handgun. Then you're definitely not carrying under the CHL so there's no question.

Unless I'm reading wrong.
They can post a sign banning all firearms just as easy. Look at the pix in the Polycom thread.

Correct! And I'm looking into making that a possibility.

C-dub

Hmmm. I can be convinced, but it won't be easy. It doesn't make any sense to me that if one has a CHL that they could choose to carry under any other authority other than that CHL because we do have to display our license when asked for ID by a Texas LEO.

C-dub

sjfcontrol wrote:
C-dub wrote:It does, but if one has a CHL and they have a handgun with them off of their own property or home they are always carrying under the authority of that CHL. We cannot claim to be carrying in our vehicles under the MPA whenever it suits us.
That is your opinion. As srothstein stated, the CHL is an exception to the law. If you're not breaking the law (which you're not in a car with a concealed gun), you don't need that exception, and therefore are not carrying under Subchapter H, Chapter 411.

I would invite you and 3dfxMM to re-read the following thread.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=46515" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It contains such gems as this.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:You're not argumentative at all. At first blush, what I posted appears to conflict with Tex. Gov't Code §411.205, but there is no conflict. In order for Tex. Penal Code §30.06 to apply to a person, they must be carrying a handgun under the authority of their CHL. However, Gov't Code §411.205 imposes a duty to display a license on every armed CHL, regardless whether they are carrying under the authority of their licenses. Therefore, it would apply in our cars, homes, sporting events, etc.

Chas.

I added the red color to the important part.

C-dub

It does, but if one has a CHL and they have a handgun with them off of their own property or home they are always carrying under the authority of that CHL. We cannot claim to be carrying in our vehicles under the MPA whenever it suits us.

C-dub

3dfxMM wrote:I am still not 100% on the 30.05 claim (haven't read it through yet), but I stand by the fact that the 30.06 sign has no meaning if the firearm stays in the car since the person with the firearm in their car is not carrying under the authority of their CHL until they step out of their car with the firearm.

If you have a CHL you cannot claim to be carrying under MPA. I think Charles has even agreed on this. You are probably aware that the penalty for not presenting your CHL to a LEO when asked for ID has been removed. However, what has not been decided is what will happen after the officer runs your DL and discovers your CHL and specifically asks for it and you cannot produce it if you've forgotten it at home, but are still carrying. I think we would still be in trouble at that point, but would yield to the possibility of being let off if we were still inside our vehicle. I would not count on it and am not willing to try it out.

C-dub

3dfxMM wrote:
shh83 wrote:my employer has their parking garage 30.06 posted!

I do not want to cause any issues at work...I just do not park in it
As long as the firearm remains concealed in the vehicle, you are covered under the MPA and the 30.06 sign has no meaning. Neither who owns the garage, nor whether or not you are an employee of the company is irrelevant.

Easy there. SB321 prevents employers from having policies against keeping guns in our vehicles in the parking lot. If I own a parking garage and charge people to park there I can certainly post a valid 30.06 sign and prevent everyone carrying with a CHL from bringing their guns into that parking lot or garage. The only exception for our purposes here is that this sign would not apply to my own employees.

And, a simple gunbuster sign is effective notice for the unlicensed. So does the "Unlicensed Possession" sign we see in so many places. It just won't apply to employees. If the employer doesn't own the parking lot it is not their policy, so they are in the clear. Whoever would be in this situation wold simply have to park somewhere else if they wanted to keep their gun in their vehicle.

C-dub

shh83 wrote:my employer has their parking garage 30.06 posted!

I do not want to cause any issues at work...I just do not park in it

Does your employer own the parking garage? If your employer does then this sign cannot apply to you.

This situation happened with one of the other fellows around here, but it wasn't his employer that owned the actual parking garage.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 11 matches

Re: Workplace Policy with New Law

Re: Workplace Policy with New Law

Re: Workplace Policy with New Law

Re: Workplace Policy with New Law

Re: Workplace Policy with New Law

Re: Workplace Policy with New Law

Re: Workplace Policy with New Law

Re: Workplace Policy with New Law

Re: Workplace Policy with New Law

Re: Workplace Policy with New Law

Re: Workplace Policy with New Law