TexasCHLforum.com

Arrested for Unlawful Carry of a Weapon in a vehicle. I'll be sure to post updates. Thanks for the advise/support.

Get a lawyer. Contact the NRA and they can give you contact info for a good lawyer in your area. Also ask them if you are eligible for help to pay for this all. I hope you are a NRA member and if your not you will join now. If this happened as described your civil rights have been violated and you need to defend yourself or you risk never being able to own a gun again. This is a very bid deal and you do not want to let it pass without getting a good lawyer and defending yourself. Do not allow your lawyer to strike a "deal" unless you’re not telling the full truth on this. From what I have heard a lawyer that does not know gun laws, or care to, will push you to accept a deal that will destroy your ability to own a gun and possibly get a license from the state or get another job in your chosen career. http://www.nradefensefund.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

shootthesheet wrote:Get a lawyer. Contact the NRA and they can give you contact info for a good lawyer in your area. Also ask them if you are eligible for help to pay for this all. I hope you are a NRA member and if your not you will join now. If this happened as described your civil rights have been violated and you need to defend yourself or you risk never being able to own a gun again. This is a very bid deal and you do not want to let it pass without getting a good lawyer and defending yourself. Do not allow your lawyer to strike a "deal" unless you’re not telling the full truth on this. From what I have heard a lawyer that does not know gun laws, or care to, will push you to accept a deal that will destroy your ability to own a gun and possibly get a license from the state or get another job in your chosen career. http://www.nradefensefund.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

While I agree with "shootthesheet" that an aggressive defense lawyer is required in this matter, I see nothing that indicates a risk of not being able to own a gun again. UCW in Texas is a Class A Misdemeanor and not a bar to firearm ownership, federally or otherwise. It is however serious, and upon conviction could result in jail time and significant fines. UCW, as any class A or B misdemeanor, is a bar to obtaining a CHL for 5 years from conviction. So recently applied for license will be in limbo until disposition. Not aware that a misdemeanor conviction is an issue for a TACL, although it could be an issue for OP's employer. My best advice is similar to "shootthesheet". Don't "plead" to a crime you didn't commit. Even upon conviction by a jury this is a Class A misdemeanor, assuming no priors jail time seems unlikely. Based on original post seems like the State or County has a very weak case. Indicate your willingness to fight by hiring a good lawyer and there's a good likelihood this could go away.

Lawyer up. Now.

Doesn't matter if you cannot afford it. Liquidate whatever you can, beg, borrow, etc to do so.

As said before, a crappy or public defender will most likely try to make you go for a plea deal. Do not do it.
If your story is 100% true, then you did nothing wrong, and should be acquited on all charges.

Do not take this lightly. This is a serious, life-changing situation. If convicted, it WILL affect the rest of your life,
specifically employment, as every employer that runs a background check will see that you have a WEAPONS Conviction.

No quicker way to have your application/resume tossed in the circular file.

Things like this is why I pay $15 a month into a group legal plan, and am a NRA Member, so I have a lawyer ready to go at zero notice.

Yes get a lawyer quick. What am I missing here? Does not the MPA apply in this case?

stash wrote:Yes get a lawyer quick. What am I missing here? Does not the MPA apply in this case?

Yes it does. You are missing nothing.

If the OP is 100% truthful in his explanation, The fact that they 'cleared' the vehicle and did not notice the gun in and of itself should prove it was properly concealed.

The could have got him on UCW if he was, in fact, shooting out of the window, as there is a clause in the MPA that invalidates it if you are in the act of commiting a crime, or are a member of a gang.
This is probably why they arrested him on it, as they thought he was the one shooting.

But, as he said, the actual perps were caught later, which proves it was not him, which then restores the MPA. This should have been immediately & completely dropped upon the real perps being caught.
A Good lawyer can probably have it dropped inside of 2 hours.

I swear; these cops are out of control!


http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea ... d=54162036" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

dicion wrote:

stash wrote:Yes get a lawyer quick. What am I missing here? Does not the MPA apply in this case?

Yes it does. You are missing nothing.

If the OP is 100% truthful in his explanation, The fact that they 'cleared' the vehicle and did not notice the gun in and of itself should prove it was properly concealed.

Bingo.

However, if it was not intentionally concealed, like as in covered up, etc., but simply in a location in the vehicle where you are unlikely to see it from outside the car or if the assumption is that the dark of night is what is concealing the gun, then it may be a pretty iffy argument that it was concealed.

From my reading, it sounds like it was not actually "concealed" by a normal definition of concealed, inside the vehicle. It was "tucked back into a thin compartment under the cup holder" and was evident once the police officer shined his flashlight into/towards the compartment, right? So if this is the case, then if it had been broad daylight, the gun would have not been concealed. If I am reading this wrong, and the officer actually had to open a lid or cover over such a compartment before observing the gun, then it may have been concealed.

I look at it this way: if the officer could have observed it in the light of day while looking into the window of the vehicle, then it was likely not concealed. Darkness doesn't equal concealment, does it?

Now, I sincerely hope the OP gets these charges dropped and I would hammer them to recover as much of the cost of this as possible. There was no probable cause for searching the vehicle in the first place, therefore the fruit of such an unlawful search should be thrown out. BUT, one lesson to learn from this is, when you are carrying a handgun in your car, MAKE SURE IT IS CONCEALED. We have this debate on this forum all the time... would this be concealed in my car, etc. I would propose that if it is not actually covered or otherwise not observable AT ALL without removing a cover, opening a lid, or peering under the seat, etc., then it is not really "concealed" enough to cleanly and decisively beat a UCW rap.

It was adequately concealed if the officers searched the vehicle and found nothing, only to be made aware of it by the OP himself. Come daylight, he might have moved it elsewhere.

Purplehood wrote:It was adequately concealed if the officers searched the vehicle and found nothing, only to be made aware of it by the OP himself. Come daylight, he might have moved it elsewhere.

I guess I interpreted "clearing" in this context to not be referring to a search of the vehicle. It was a 15-passenger van, and they (reportedly) thought he may have been involved in a drive-by shooting. The "clearing" sounds like it was in order to ensure there were not other people in the large vehicle. The "search" after the gun was pointed out resulted in them easily finding the gun in a rather conspicuous location.

Anyway, point is that, while it may have been adequately concealed for most purposes, this all goes out the window once you get stopped and the cops start looking into the vehicle to find things. It's going to be a tough argument to make, that the gun was concealed, when all that it took to reveal it was a flashlight.

botheyesonyou wrote: The victims reported that the shooters were 3 hispanic males in a WHITE EXPEDITION. They were caught when they showed up later at a local hospital because they were shot up. I'm a white kid with an asian girlfriend in a white 15 passenger van. Probable cause was lost #1 by the vehicle description

We all know that the 15 passenger van is the new favorite of the gangsta set!

mr.72 wrote:

Purplehood wrote:It was adequately concealed if the officers searched the vehicle and found nothing, only to be made aware of it by the OP himself. Come daylight, he might have moved it elsewhere.

I guess I interpreted "clearing" in this context to not be referring to a search of the vehicle. It was a 15-passenger van, and they (reportedly) thought he may have been involved in a drive-by shooting. The "clearing" sounds like it was in order to ensure there were not other people in the large vehicle. The "search" after the gun was pointed out resulted in them easily finding the gun in a rather conspicuous location.

Anyway, point is that, while it may have been adequately concealed for most purposes, this all goes out the window once you get stopped and the cops start looking into the vehicle to find things. It's going to be a tough argument to make, that the gun was concealed, when all that it took to reveal it was a flashlight.

The key here is the wording in the MPA:

(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

It doesn't say 'concealed', it says 'in plain view'

If the police looked through the vehicle, and did not see the handgun, then it was not 'in plain view'.
Therefore, he did not violate the statute.

Someone more knowledgable than myself may correct me, but I believe that 'plain view' has a legal definition that an officer must be able to see this item WITHOUT actually searching, or even entering, the vehicle. So even if it was found in a search, it could still be considered not in 'plain view'. Eg, if you can't see it from standing outside a window and looking in, then it is not in 'plain view'.

never discuss the details of a legal issue on the internet prior to your day in court.

the three rules(as I understand them):

1) SHUT UP.
2) Get a lawyer
3) SHUT UP.

not trying to be a jerk, but I'd hate for this post to comeback and bite ya int he you know what later.

dicion wrote:

mr.72 wrote:

Purplehood wrote:It was adequately concealed if the officers searched the vehicle and found nothing, only to be made aware of it by the OP himself. Come daylight, he might have moved it elsewhere.

I guess I interpreted "clearing" in this context to not be referring to a search of the vehicle. It was a 15-passenger van, and they (reportedly) thought he may have been involved in a drive-by shooting. The "clearing" sounds like it was in order to ensure there were not other people in the large vehicle. The "search" after the gun was pointed out resulted in them easily finding the gun in a rather conspicuous location.

Anyway, point is that, while it may have been adequately concealed for most purposes, this all goes out the window once you get stopped and the cops start looking into the vehicle to find things. It's going to be a tough argument to make, that the gun was concealed, when all that it took to reveal it was a flashlight.

The key here is the wording in the MPA:

(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

It doesn't say 'concealed', it says 'in plain view'

If the police looked through the vehicle, and did not see the handgun, then it was not 'in plain view'.
Therefore, he did not violate the statute.

Someone more knowledgable than myself may correct me, but I believe that 'plain view' has a legal definition that an officer must be able to see this item WITHOUT actually searching, or even entering, the vehicle. So even if it was found in a search, it could still be considered not in 'plain view'. Eg, if you can't see it from standing outside a window and looking in, then it is not in 'plain view'.

I do recall someone saying that covering a weapon up with a towel would suffice, though that could become problematic if you stomp on the brakes and the weapon and towel fly-off in different directions.

dicion wrote:

(1) the handgun is in plain view; or

It doesn't say 'concealed', it says 'in plain view'

If the police looked through the vehicle, and did not see the handgun, then it was not 'in plain view'.
Therefore, he did not violate the statute.

Someone more knowledgable than myself may correct me, but I believe that 'plain view' has a legal definition that an officer must be able to see this item WITHOUT actually searching, or even entering, the vehicle. So even if it was found in a search, it could still be considered not in 'plain view'. Eg, if you can't see it from standing outside a window and looking in, then it is not in 'plain view'.

Excellent point.

I am curious to see how this turns out.