TexasCHLforum.com

I have tried to search the topic and cannot find anything, if there is something, then sorry for asking again.

Can an off duty LEO carry, concealed of course, in an extablishment that is 51%?

LM230023 wrote:I have tried to search the topic and cannot find anything, if there is something, then sorry for asking again.

Can an off duty LEO carry, concealed of course, in an establishment that is 51%?

Yes. LEO's are not subject to either TPC §§46.02 or 46.035, even if they also hold a CHL.

Chas.

A lot of 'em work extra jobs in bars/clubs and they're officially off duty, but in uniform and armed.

-Cain

Thanks.

Charles, after rereading TPC §§46.02 and 46.035 I did not find any indications in those two specific statutes that LEO's are exempt, could you direct me to the relevant laws as I was unaware of this? Thanks!

NVM, further reading lead me to TPC §§46.15 which makes TPC §§46.02 and 46.03 non-applicable to peace officers. Is 46.035 considered a subset of 46.03 is that how 46.035 is non applicable as well?

Look at PC 46.15(1).

If you read further in that section, you will see that judges and district attorneys. They are now required to have a CHL, but that is only to identify them as such.

PC 46.035 applies only to CHL holders who do not carry under some other authority. I am referring, for example, to LEOs who also have a CHL.

- Jim

ninjamedic2293 wrote:Charles, after rereading TPC §§46.02 and 46.035 I did not find any indications in those two specific statutes that LEO's are exempt, could you direct me to the relevant laws as I was unaware of this? Thanks!

Most of the clauses exepting LEOs are in 46.15, but it's moot anyway. LEOs carry concealed under authority of LEOSA, not State CCW laws; thus, any State law a CHL holder is required to respect does not apply to an LEO because they are not carrying under authority of a CHL. LEOs only have to pay attention to places off-limits by federal law; 30.06, 51%, and sporting events are fair game because only CHL holders are barred from those places.

LEOSA is a federal law that applies only to officers traveling outside their jurisdiction. The states are not done testing LEOSA, either. They have arrested cops for violating state laws.

The state laws are needed to allow resident LEOs to carry under state law, and they predate LEOSA by decades.

One of the elements of the definition a LEO in LEOSA is that he is authorized by his agency to carry a weapon, so we still need state laws.

- Jim

ninjamedic2293 wrote:NVM, further reading lead me to TPC §§46.15 which makes TPC §§46.02 and 46.03 non-applicable to peace officers. Is 46.035 considered a subset of 46.03 is that how 46.035 is non applicable as well?

As others have noted, LEO's are not carrying under the authority of their CHLs, so §46.035 UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER does not apply to them, whether on duty or off-duty. The "not applicable" provisions in §46.15 "exempt" LEOs from both §§46.02 and 46.03, as you stated.

One note on LEOSA; it has yet to be tested at the Supreme Court level. It is based upon the Commerce Clause, so if it is upheld then the federal gun-free school zone law will also be upheld. If either are found unconstitutional, both will be found unconstitutional.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:One note on LEOSA; it has yet to be tested at the Supreme Court level. It is based upon the Commerce Clause, so if it is upheld then the federal gun-free school zone law will also be upheld. If either are found unconstitutional, both will be found unconstitutional.

Both should be found unconstitutional. LEOSA also violates equal protection, imo.

The constitutional authority for NYPD carry in TX is the same as for CHL carry in NYC.

even though it is legal it would be against most departments policy for them to be drinking with their gun on them and could end them in the unemployment line

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

ninjamedic2293 wrote:NVM, further reading lead me to TPC §§46.15 which makes TPC §§46.02 and 46.03 non-applicable to peace officers. Is 46.035 considered a subset of 46.03 is that how 46.035 is non applicable as well?

As others have noted, LEO's are not carrying under the authority of their CHLs, so §46.035 UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER does not apply to them, whether on duty or off-duty. The "not applicable" provisions in §46.15 "exempt" LEOs from both §§46.02 and 46.03, as you stated.

Chas.

Does this apply to carry under LEOSA by retired federal and out of state officers as well, even though they are no longer LEO's?

I'm about to ask a question that may very well be silly.

Ok, here goes: If movies are to be believed, big city cops drink in 'cop bars', (usually owned by a retired cop) and are always carrying when drinking. If, movies are to be believed...and yes, I fully appreciate this hypothetical may produce guffaws.

I've no clue whether such bars exist, but if they do, does this occur, or do these cops disarm before going in to have a drink?

Seen it in person at FOP bar in DC when drinking with some US Capital Police Officers I met at a class, some movies are based in fact . . .