DPS Stop near Luling. Is this typical?

[KaiserB]

(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 think you are reading to much into this.

In this case the gun is secured in the car, the passenger is in the car and the driver is outside the car but in proximity of it. I don't see where a passenger would be guilty of UCW for getting in the car.

If the passenger is guilty perhaps the police should spend a lot of time at gas stations where the driver leaves the car to pump and pay and the passengers (including children left in the car) could all be charged with UCW. There is some common sense to the law, and intent is usually a factor...do not try to define everything by one law or a few words in a law.

[puma guy]

The trooper's refusal to be drawn into a conversation regarding the circumstances of the violation should not be interpreted as disinterest or lack of courtesy. It is a tactic used to avoid arguments and prolonged discussions, many of which can lead to complaints about what the officer did or did not say.

I don't know if this is a training point at the DPS academy, but if you're the one doing 20 or 30 stops daily, after a few negative experiences when conversation was engaged, this quickly starts to looks like a better and better approach.

During the couple of times I've been stopped by TX DPS troopers, they avoided all discussion as well. I knew what they were doing and why they were doing it, and just let them do their job and make their decisions based on the circumstances they observed.

Thanks. Maybe that explains it. Other than answering and responding to the questions and commands, my conversation at the beginning generated maybe 15 words which weren't acknowlwdged or responded to so that I remained silent.

[sjfcontrol]

(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)

[Excaliber]

(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.

[Pawpaw]

I think you guys are getting hung up on the wrong part of the statute.

The passenger didn't "intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly" do anything. He was a passenger... a spectator, if you will. There is no law against being near a handgun, unless you "intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly" carry it.

[Keith B]

You have to read intent into the law. In your scenario, I contend that once the passenger had to move the car, then they would be in control of the vehicle (still legal unless they can't posess a firearm), but until that time, the driver/owner would still be in control of it per the MPA statute.


And, in the OP's case, I can bet you that any DPS trooper KNOWS that someone heading to a deer lease will have one or more firearms on them or in the vehicle. Unless they perceive a threat from the driver or other occupant, they should really care less about a firearm in the car. In this incident, that seems to be the case with this trooper and I applaud the fact she was good with us exercising our 2A rights.

[KaiserB]

(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
SNIP
defined by Section 71.01.

SNIP
BTW, thanks for quoting the law, I didn't have the opportunity to look it up for the exact wording.

SNIP 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.

Hmmm Texas is a community property state so technically any gun purchased from a joint account could NOT be considered a single owner asset (i.e. owned by the husband only) thus the firearm would most likely not be in the husbands name only. :)

I am now running for cover.

[Keith B]

Hmmm Texas is a community property state so technically any gun purchased from a joint account could NOT be considered a single owner asset (i.e. owned by the husband only) thus the firearm would most likely not be in the husbands name only. :)

I am now running for cover.

I think I will use that next year when I buy my wife that new Wilson Combat 1911 for our anniversary. 'But honey, it is for BOTH of us!!'

[sjfcontrol]

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.

Umm, you're going to have to explain that a little further. Why would my non-chl wife not be eligible for MPA-carry for the gun in the car that she would then be in control of? She doesn't have to be the owner. And if I ever buy a car without her on the title, I'd be in plenty of hot water anyway!

[speedsix]

...if I, having a CHL, either leave my gun in the car when I loan it to my son, a friend, or I get out and leave a passenger in the car(who is not a minor...)they now are obviously "in control"...and MPA covers them...they don't have to own the car or the gun...who OWNS the gun is not an issue...the only issue is are they following the guidelines of MPA (which they would NOT be if they were a felon or gang member, but I don't run with those folks)...I don't think it's any more complicated than that...a lot of folks are too hung up on whose car or whose gun it is...the key is whether the person who's with it may legally have control/possession of a gun...if he can, no problem(I know, gun-free school zones excepted)...

[speedsix]

Hmmm Texas is a community property state so technically any gun purchased from a joint account could NOT be considered a single owner asset (i.e. owned by the husband only) thus the firearm would most likely not be in the husbands name only. :)

I am now running for cover.

I think I will use that next year when I buy my wife that new Wilson Combat 1911 for our anniversary. 'But honey, it is for BOTH of us!!'

...that wouldn't work for me...mine'd sell her half first chance and go shoppin'!!!

[Excaliber]

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.

Umm, you're going to have to explain that a little further. Why would my non-chl wife not be eligible for MPA-carry for the gun in the car that she would then be in control of? She doesn't have to be the owner. And if I ever buy a car without her on the title, I'd be in plenty of hot water anyway!

I think I misread your post.

I initially thought you were taking the position that a passenger would be illegal with a gun in the car but the owner some distance from it. I reread it and see I looked at it wrong, and we actually agree.

[sjfcontrol]

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.

Umm, you're going to have to explain that a little further. Why would my non-chl wife not be eligible for MPA-carry for the gun in the car that she would then be in control of? She doesn't have to be the owner. And if I ever buy a car without her on the title, I'd be in plenty of hot water anyway!

I think I misread your post.

I initially thought you were taking the position that a passenger would be illegal with a gun in the car but the owner some distance from it. I reread it and see I looked at it wrong, and we actually agree.

[KC5AV]

Heck, my interpretation was a lot simpler. If the passenger wasn't prohibited from possessing the weapon, and the trooper told them to get in the vehicle, there's no problem.

If a trooper is working an accident, and motions you through a 4-way stop, you don't necessarily have to stop at the stop sign. Right?

[sjfcontrol]

Heck, my interpretation was a lot simpler. If the passenger wasn't prohibited from possessing the weapon, and the trooper told them to get in the vehicle, there's no problem.

If a trooper is working an accident, and motions you through a 4-way stop, you don't necessarily have to stop at the stop sign. Right?

Your answer may be simpler, but mine was more general -- it didn't require a LEO at all.