HB 1509 "related to...unlawful carrying of firearms"

[K5GU]

Although there were some positive results by the Texas legislature in the recent session, I have to scratch my head over the failure of HB 1509 to get out of House Calendars. http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 01509H.htm

As a result, it is still a Class A misdemeanor under PE 46.02(a) (1) and (2) http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... .htm#46.02 to carry on another person's premises even when you have their permission.

In other words, if you get into your friend's car carrying your concealed handgun with your friend's permission, you could be arrested and charged with a Class A misdemeanor. Does this make sense?

I wonder why they're holding this up?

[DocV]

I still get dazed and confused when trying to read past some of the formatting but does HB910 not address this issue?

HB 910

SECTION 49. Sections 46.15(a) and (b), Penal Code, are
amended to read as follows:
.....
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
(6) is carrying:
(A) a [concealed handgun and a valid] license
issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a
[concealed] handgun; and
(B) a handgun:
(i) in a concealed manner; or
(ii) in a shoulder or belt holster;

(Format edits are mine)

[K5GU]

Nope. Remember that a CHL is not required to carry a gun in the car. Section 49 is talking about someone with a CHL, removing the "concealed" part and adding the holster part.

HB 910 amends 46.02 but the amendment just adds an exception to (a-1)(1) to allow carrying in the car unconcealed if you have a CHL. The part underlined is added to (a-1)(1).

" (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 or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:
(1) the handgun is in plain view, unless the person is licensed to carry a handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code, and the handgun is carried in a shoulder or belt holster; or.. "

It doesn't amend (a)(1) and (2) which says:
" 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 or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control. "

[casp625]

Although there were some positive results by the Texas legislature in the recent session, I have to scratch my head over the failure of HB 1509 to get out of House Calendars. http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 01509H.htm

As a result, it is still a Class A misdemeanor under PE 46.02(a) (1) and (2) http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... .htm#46.02 to carry on another person's premises even when you have their permission.

In other words, if you get into your friend's car carrying your concealed handgun with your friend's permission, you could be arrested and charged with a Class A misdemeanor. Does this make sense?

I wonder why they're holding this up?

That only applies if you carry in your friend's car and you do NOT have a CHL.

Sec. 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.
...
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
...
(6) is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun;

[NotRPB]

Sec. 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.
Deleting this post of mine here to put under more suitable location
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=72773&p=1005321#p1005321

[K5GU]

Although there were some positive results by the Texas legislature in the recent session, I have to scratch my head over the failure of HB 1509 to get out of House Calendars. http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 01509H.htm

As a result, it is still a Class A misdemeanor under PE 46.02(a) (1) and (2) http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... .htm#46.02 to carry on another person's premises even when you have their permission.

In other words, if you get into your friend's car carrying your concealed handgun with your friend's permission, you could be arrested and charged with a Class A misdemeanor. Does this make sense?

I wonder why they're holding this up?

That only applies if you carry in your friend's car and you do NOT have a CHL.

Sec. 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.
...
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
...
(6) is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun;

Right. The benefit if HB1509 passed might be the fact that the bill adds the wording "(2) on premises owned by or under the control of another person, provided that the owner or the person in control of the premises consents to the carrying of the weapon;.." Today, it's an offense even if the owner gives you consent. (Not referring to LTC (CHL).)

[casp625]

That only applies if you carry in your friend's car and you do NOT have a CHL.

Sec. 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.
...
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
...
(6) is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun;

Right. The benefit if HB1509 passed might be the fact that the bill adds the wording "(2) on premises owned by or under the control of another person, provided that the owner or the person in control of the premises consents to the carrying of the weapon;.." Today, it's an offense even if the owner gives you consent. (Not referring to LTC (CHL).)

Using the same logic, if you knew the business owner of every establishment you are visiting, then you could carry your handgun everywhere without ever having a CHL/LTC since you gained the permission beforehand. But isn't that the point of getting your CHL/LTC, so you can carry in places that are not included in 46.02 (I.E. Home, car)?

[K5GU]

That only applies if you carry in your friend's car and you do NOT have a CHL.

Sec. 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.
...
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
...
(6) is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun;

Right. The benefit if HB1509 passed might be the fact that the bill adds the wording "(2) on premises owned by or under the control of another person, provided that the owner or the person in control of the premises consents to the carrying of the weapon;.." Today, it's an offense even if the owner gives you consent. (Not referring to LTC (CHL).)

Using the same logic, if you knew the business owner of every establishment you are visiting, then you could carry your handgun everywhere without ever having a CHL/LTC since you gained the permission beforehand. But isn't that the point of getting your CHL/LTC, so you can carry in places that are not included in 46.02 (I.E. Home, car)?

You're absolutely correct. One of the criteria used during the hearing and testimony of HB1509 was the fact that since private properties could prohibit carrying, and therefore denying permission, that property owners desiring to give permission should not be denied that right. I also agree with you that among many other reasons, the LTC method is the way to go.

[K5GU]

An additional thought (not in the context of carrying in a business somewhere), I could benefit (and probably others would as well if they thought about) if able to give permission for someone to carry a gun unlicensed on my property with my permission is when my daughter and grandson come to my 50 acres in east Texas to learn and practice handling and shooting a handgun. I wouldn't consider them to be "persons in control" of the property since I would be there to supervise, and keep them from leaving a gate open or something. We wouldn't be committing a Class A misdemeanor under PE 46.02 if the Penal Code was amended to allow me to give them permission.

[der Teufel]

So, does this mean that if I decide to go shooting, and I pick up my buddy on the way, and he brings his handgun along, he's violating the law if he doesn't have a CHL?

[mojo84]

So, does this mean that if I decide to go shooting, and I pick up my buddy on the way, and he brings his handgun along, he's violating the law if he doesn't have a CHL?

Wouldn't it depend on if he is wearing his handgun or not? If he isn't wearing it, shouldn't be a problem in my mind.

[K5GU]

So, does this mean that if I decide to go shooting, and I pick up my buddy on the way, and he brings his handgun along, he's violating the law if he doesn't have a CHL?

Wouldn't it depend on if he is wearing his handgun or not? If he isn't wearing it, shouldn't be a problem in my mind.

I guess it would depend on how "..on or about his or her person.." is interpreted. Not sure what "about" means. I guess that's why we have lawyers to help us.

Sec. 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 or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control....

[dlh]

An additional thought (not in the context of carrying in a business somewhere), I could benefit (and probably others would as well if they thought about) if able to give permission for someone to carry a gun unlicensed on my property with my permission is when my daughter and grandson come to my 50 acres in east Texas to learn and practice handling and shooting a handgun. I wouldn't consider them to be "persons in control" of the property since I would be there to supervise, and keep them from leaving a gate open or something. We wouldn't be committing a Class A misdemeanor under PE 46.02 if the Penal Code was amended to allow me to give them permission.

A couple of thoughts.

First, I understand the theoretical problem. However, I do not know of any LEOs that would arrest your daughter or grandson under the circumstances you mentioned.

Secondly, I don't have the statute handy, but another exception deals with firearms used in a "sporting activity." The meaning of "sporting activity" can be nuanced and argued between lawyers and judges but if you are teaching them to shoot you could argue you were engaging in a "sporting activity."... I mean, this is Texas! :)

dlh

[casp625]

So, does this mean that if I decide to go shooting, and I pick up my buddy on the way, and he brings his handgun along, he's violating the law if he doesn't have a CHL?

(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
...
(2) is traveling;
(3) is engaging in lawful hunting, fishing, or other sporting activity on the immediate premises where the activity is conducted, or is en route between the premises and the actor's residence, motor vehicle, or watercraft, if the weapon is a type commonly used in the activity;

[K5GU]

An additional thought (not in the context of carrying in a business somewhere), I could benefit (and probably others would as well if they thought about) if able to give permission for someone to carry a gun unlicensed on my property with my permission is when my daughter and grandson come to my 50 acres in east Texas to learn and practice handling and shooting a handgun. I wouldn't consider them to be "persons in control" of the property since I would be there to supervise, and keep them from leaving a gate open or something. We wouldn't be committing a Class A misdemeanor under PE 46.02 if the Penal Code was amended to allow me to give them permission.

A couple of thoughts.

First, I understand the theoretical problem. However, I do not know of any LEOs that would arrest your daughter or grandson under the circumstances you mentioned.

Secondly, I don't have the statute handy, but another exception deals with firearms used in a "sporting activity." The meaning of "sporting activity" can be nuanced and argued between lawyers and judges but if you are teaching them to shoot you could argue you were engaging in a "sporting activity."... I mean, this is Texas! :)

dlh

Yes, I suppose the "sporting activity" could be an argument, although an expensive stretch. If an unfriendly neighbor or someone with a grudge filed a complaint such as this, resulting into interpretation by the LEO, ADA, etc. it would become complicated and expensive. A statute allowing a property owner to give permission would be much more simple, and would more than likely prevent an arrest.