TexasCHLforum.com

anygunanywhere wrote:Ya'll are pig rasslin'.

Anygunanywhere

Longshot38 wrote: No, first off he is more then likely not the property owner. And secondly, a grocery store is a public area. If lets say a discount club were to enact that policy then that would fall outside the purview of the law because it is a private club which can restrict access and membership. Just as my home is not a public area and thus falls outside the scope of TPC 46.

C-dub wrote: In your example of not being able to give someone permission to commit murder on your property, but you can give someone permission to intentionally fail to conceal their handgun, what is the difference? I know there is a HUGE difference, but when you get down to it, what is the difference? They are, of course, both illegal for me to do at your house without your permission, but what makes it legal for you to give me permission to do one and not the other?

Longshot38 wrote:

C-dub wrote:

Longshot38 wrote:Charles I have provided more then enough real world examples of how the scope of TPC can be and is limited. Yet you refuse to accept it. You might be a fine attorney who wrote TPC 46 but there is more to the Penal Code then that. And I can promise you that in real world practical application of the law you are dead wrong, I know this because I live it everyday. And I will stand behind what I have said to the point being the first test case. I am confident in this because no officer would charge me, no TX DA would accept the charges, and no jury would convict me. In the world outside the pages of the TPC your argument has no merit.

Hello again Longshot38.

You have provided plenty of anecdotal examples, much like the legendary interpretation of traveling where one could carry a loaded handgun in their car out in plain view if they were traveling across more than two county lines and staying over at least one night. None of that was ever really true or in the PC, but you have not provided even one piece of legislation or ruling to support your theory. That travelling thing was just what one person heard from another person who hear it from another person who heard it from ... kind of stuff.

However, I also think I might understand why you think that this is okay. No one is likely to say anything or call the police in your situation. How many of us haven't shown a friend a new handgun in the privacy their home? Probably not very many can say they haven't. I can't.

In your example of not being able to give someone permission to commit murder on your property, but you can give someone permission to intentionally fail to conceal their handgun, what is the difference? I know there is a HUGE difference, but when you get down to it, what is the difference? They are, of course, both illegal for me to do at your house without your permission, but what makes it legal for you to give me permission to do one and not the other?

Again this has to do with scope of law. Which I have provided all the evidence I need. The most glaring being the DUI example. The TPC does say the it is a crime to drive while intoxicated. However this does not apply to private roadways and property. While I can be arrested for driving down the a public roadway while drunk, I can not be arrested or charged with crime if I drive on the private road in front of my home or in pasture behind my home while intoxicated. Which is the exact point I have been making this entire time. Just because it is in the TPC does not mean it is all encompassing. Rather it is something that has to be taken in context. So back to the original conversation. TPC 46 is designed to allow citizens with a CHL the ability to carry in public areas, private property is allowed to set the rules as they see fit. Hints the 30.06 portion of the law. It allows for those that wish to restrict CHL holders the ability to do so. Which is clear indication that the law was designed in a manner as not to run over the rights of property owners.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: And then, by extension, if I carry that same cased up unloaded handgun into longshot38's house to show off my new acquisition, set it on the coffee table, and open the case, am I guilty of intentional failure to conceal?

Yes, because carrying at a friend's home is not protected by case law or statute. You cannot legally get out of your car at longhot38's home with a handgun unless you have a CHL. Thus, you are carrying pursuant to the authority of your CHL making TPC 46.035(a) (intentional failure to conceal) applicable.
Chas.

Longshot38 wrote:Charles I have provided more then enough real world examples of how the scope of TPC can be and is limited. Yet you refuse to accept it. You might be a fine attorney who wrote TPC 46 but there is more to the Penal Code then that. And I can promise you that in real world practical application of the law you are dead wrong, I know this because I live it everyday. And I will stand behind what I have said to the point being the first test case. I am confident in this because no officer would charge me, no TX DA would accept the charges, and no jury would convict me. In the world outside the pages of the TPC your argument has no merit.

Longshot38 wrote:Attorney or not Charles is off course with his post. It is a legally accepted principal that any right I have on my property I can extend to my guest at my discretion. And the CHL law is not all encompassing. It only applies when one is carrying under it, and just possessing a CHL does not mean you are constantly carrying under this law. Example is when you are in your own home, the CHL law does not apply here. You can carry either openly or concealed and I have a lot more leeway in what I can do versus what I can do in public. This is because not all parts of the law apply equally to all circumstances.

Longshot38 wrote:
Your right and wrong at the same time. The CHL law is clear. But it what is not in that section of the law and must be found elsewhere is property owners rights. A private property owner has every right to give someone permission to openly carry on his or her own property. And in this event the CHL law no longer applies because you are no longer operating under it. Thus back to my point. Believe it or not property owners have both the right restrict or embrace firearms and allow for their carry in any fashion on their own property. If I wanted to I could hand a firearm, pistol or long gun, to every adult that entered property and require then to carry it in any fashion I wished. This is because the CHL law does not cover activities on private property only those that pertain to public property. In fact the only thing in that law to extends to private property is the 30.06 posting and 51% portion.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=38771&hilit=unconce ... 30#p463482" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Stephen is absolutely correct.

No person can give you permission to violate a Penal Code provision, so your friend cannot give you permission to violate TPC §46.035(a) and intentionally fail to conceal your handgun.

When you are in your friend's home, you are carrying pursuant to the authority of your CHL so TPC §46.035(a) applies. Your friend does not transfer control of his home to you merely by granting permission to enter with a gun, or to use the restroom, or to get a drink of water. Sorry, this isn't the least bit ambiguous and the courts would reject that argument summarily. At most, your friend would be "granting" you control over your own firearm, not his home.

As Stephen said, the OP's scenario is one in which a violation of TPC §46.035(a) would occur (intentional failure to conceal), but there is little chance of prosecution because there would be no complaining witness. Let's extend this hypothetical and say your friend's mother in law is Sarah Brady and she comes in and sees you handling your handgun. She panics and calls the police. It won't help for your friend to tell the police "it's okay, I said he could show his handgun" anymore than he could tell them "I gave him permission to bring his cocaine into my home." No one can give another person permission to violate the law.

Chas.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

RHenriksen wrote:Eh - if the only people in the private establishment are gun friendly, and I have a personal relationship with them, I'm not opposed to show & tell. But I unload the firearm before I hand it off to anyone to look at.

If there is *anyone* else (general public) around, then I wouldn't.

The only place I've ever done that was at Euless guns & Ammo, and I was in the back in the gunsmith shop, and it was just me and the gunsmith in the room at the time. So while it wasn't on my property, it was definitely in private. I am not convinced that this would be anymore illegal than if you were in the privacy of someone else's home and it was with their consent.