TexasCHLforum.com

I just discovered something courtesy of a sharp-eyed fellow on another forum. Notice Texas Penal Code sec 46.15 (b) (6). It appears that one can legally carry an "illegal knife" or club if one has a CHL and is currently carrying a handgun that is allowed by your license.
Note: you can NOT carry a switchblade, because those are classified the same way as hand grenades.
If anybody knows case law that contradicts this, please let me know.

From 46.15 B:

(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 of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying;

Section 46.02 (beginning):

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

46.01 just provides definitions, including that of illegal knives and clubs:

(1) "Club" means an instrument that is specially designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting serious bodily injury or death by striking a person with the instrument, and includes but is not limited to the following:
(A) blackjack;
(B) nightstick;
(C) mace;
(D) tomahawk.
...
(6) "Illegal knife" means a:
(A) knife with a blade over five and one-half inches;
(B) hand instrument designed to cut or stab another by being thrown;
(C) dagger, including but not limited to a dirk, stiletto, and poniard;
(D) bowie knife;
(E) sword; or
(F) spear.

NO...read (6) as: is carrying (What?)...a handgun (How?) under the authority of a concealed handgun license...mentions nothing about carrying a knife, club...specifically addresses handguns only...

speedsix wrote:NO...read (6) as: is carrying (What?)...a handgun (How?) under the authority of a concealed handgun license...mentions nothing about carrying a knife, club...specifically addresses handguns only...

Right, FLORIDA and some States have a CWP Concealed WEAPONS Permits, Texas has Concealed HANDGUN License.

People from Florida and other States need to understand that you can't carry say... brass knuckles here.


P.S. .... don't forget there is a FEDERAL law about switchblades too, though there used to be an exemption for people with only one arm/hand under Federal law..

Additionally, Firearms (not knives) are covered under Texas Preemption, so cities etc can't override State Law, but San Antonio has ordinances about what knife you can carry too.

I thought I posted case law here before about someone being convicted of using a club convicted of assault ... and carrying a club (actually it was a cane used as a club)... though I don't recall if it was a CHL or not....probably not.
viewtopic.php?f=94&t=43331&p=546300&hil ... ub#p546217" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?f=94&t=43331&p=546300&hil ... ub#p546300" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...son just moved to San Antonio...believe they have an ordinance against any lockback knife carried on the person...

This has been discussed a couple other times, but why not one more?

Geronimo45 has the better of the argument here; RPB and Speedsix are misreading/misinterpreting the exemption in 46.15(b). (I am not sure 'exemption' is the right term, but it's what I am gonna go with for now):

Sec 46.15(b)(6) defines the conditions that must be met in order for an exemption to 46.02 to apply. In order to qualify for the exemption, you must have a concealed handgun license AND be carrying a concealed handgun of the same category authorized by your license. No, it does not mention knives or clubs or whatnot, but that is irrelevent -- the purpose of this section is to define the conditions under which the exemption applies: CHL + concealed handgun. It does not define what you may or may not carry -- you have to go see 46.02 to determine that.

Now, if you meet the conditions by having a CHL and concealed handgun, what are you exempt from? You are exempt from the prohibitions of 46.02, in its entirety. This is not qualified in any way -- it doesn't limit the exemption to handguns only -- it just says 46.02. This includes "handgun, illegal knife, or club." "Illegal knife" and "club" are of course defined just as Geronimo45 pointed out. And unfortunately this does not include switchblades.

This has not been thrashed out in court, AFAIK, so you decide for yourself, but it looks pretty clear to me, and many others on this board. A search on "knives unlawful carry" will bring up some more threads.

As far as San Antonio goes, last I look I believe they try to ban lockblades with a blade shorter than 5.5 inches. State law makes defines an illegal knife as one with a blade more than 5.5 inches. So it would appear to me that a person with a CHL and a concealed handgun could carry a lockblade knife with a blade over 5.5 inches and not run afoul of San Antonio ordinance or state law.

Or anyone could carry a lockblade with a blade EXACTLY 5.5. inches in San Antonio.

My CHL instructor said pretty much the same thing as ELB just described. In the black letter of the law, carrying a CHL & a concealed handgun gives you license to carry an illegal knife or club. However, he also pointed out that there is no case law (that he was aware of) to settle the issue one way or another. He also wondered why, if you've got a CHL and are carrying, would you want to also have an illegal knife or club?

I'd be interested in hearing from one of the lawyers on the forum as to how they read this.

In interpreting 46.15(b), compare it to 46.15(c), (d), and (e), which all begin:

The provision of Section 46.02 prohibiting the carrying of...

In (c), (d), and (e), the law identifies the specific provisions of 46.02 that are not applicable. In contrast, (b) does not identify specific provisions; rather, it makes the entirety of 46.02 not applicable.

Previous discussions:

viewtopic.php?f=94&t=43331&hilit=unlawf ... ife+knives" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=41363&hilit=unlawf ... ife+knives" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The are actually about batons, clubs, and canes, but same sections of the law apply. There are other threads on knives specifically, but for some reason my search-fu is weak today.

RottenApple wrote:My CHL instructor said pretty much the same thing as ELB just described. In the black letter of the law, carrying a CHL & a concealed handgun gives you license to carry an illegal knife or club. However, he also pointed out that there is no case law (that he was aware of) to settle the issue one way or another. He also wondered why, if you've got a CHL and are carrying, would you want to also have an illegal knife or club?

I'd be interested in hearing from one of the lawyers on the forum as to how they read this.

"If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."

RottenApple wrote: .... He also wondered why, if you've got a CHL and are carrying, would you want to also have an illegal knife or club?

Yes, hammer/nail. If you do even a little serious training defending against a close-in attack such as one would encounter on the street or bigboxstore parking lot, it doesn't take long to realize that a handgun is not a solution to every violent problem. Guns fail, jam, get dropped, and are easier to pin or disarm in a contact-distance fight than a blade. Much good work can be done with a "legal" knife, of course -- any blade is better than no blade -- but having the longer reach of an extended blade is definitely an advantage.

So, as long as 1) CHL AND 2) handgun carried .... can ALSO carry ... machete/speargun/ninja swords/nunchucks?

I agree that's what it "says" ... but I doubt LEOs will read it that way, unknown how judges will read it, I wouldn't trust a jury to comprehend, and I'm still baffled why brass knuckles are more restricted than machetes in that case.

(Those are on my mind as a retired LEO with a booth at a gun show was selling "keyrings" that looked like a cat ... I say illegal, he says no, I think I'm correct.) He says they are "aluminum" NOT BRASS ... I say tell the Judge that ...
(8) "Knuckles" means any instrument that consists of finger rings or guards made of a hard substance and that is designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting serious bodily injury or death by striking a person with a fist enclosed in the knuckles.
(Knuckles are Sec. 46.05. PROHIBITED WEAPONS... not 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 )

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... /PE.46.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.livefreestuff.com/portable-c ... ocalprice/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

==========================

I think I'll just keep carrying my 2 to 3 guns ... the .45 and 9mm and the .32 for "close quarters".
In the event of a malfunction, they are hard enough metal I wouldn't want to get poked in the eye/temple/throat with one.
My thumbnail is long/strong enough to use as a boxcutter though

Thanks for the discussion so far. I figure speedsix's position is what the judge(s) would say on the subject, despite the context supporting the other position (they say things extremely clearly in sec's C, D, etc). What we really need is the AG's opinion. This law (like many others) was poorly written.
I guess literacy is not a requirement for Texas legislators.

Maybe we can get knife laws struck out during the next legislative session.

Geronimo45 wrote:Thanks for the discussion so far. I figure speedsix's position is what the judge(s) would say on the subject, despite the context supporting the other position (they say things extremely clearly in sec's C, D, etc). What we really need is the AG's opinion. This law (like many others) was poorly written.
I guess literacy is not a requirement for Texas legislators.

Maybe we can get knife laws struck out during the next legislative session.

I disagree. It is clearly written. It is just one area in which people are likely to try to guess the intent of the legislature while ignoring the written word.

MasterOfNone wrote:

Geronimo45 wrote:Thanks for the discussion so far. I figure speedsix's position is what the judge(s) would say on the subject, despite the context supporting the other position (they say things extremely clearly in sec's C, D, etc). What we really need is the AG's opinion. This law (like many others) was poorly written.
I guess literacy is not a requirement for Texas legislators.

Maybe we can get knife laws struck out during the next legislative session.

I disagree. It is clearly written. It is just one area in which people are likely to try to guess the intent of the legislature while ignoring the written word.

Exactly, that's why I'd prefer a judge to a jury on this type situation, and pray the judge reads well in "applying the law" instead of one trying to "create law" :)

However ..... there's been a lot of "bad law" ... "made" ... by some Courts in the past.

...agree that it needs to be worded better...but the intent of the legislators was to deal with CHL only...noone in their right mind would open Pandora's box...I can see the Ninjas swaggerin' down the street now...carrying one of each, with a token mousegun in their boot just to get them the pass...

...seriously, though, I'll add this food for thought..... http://forums.realpolice.net/showthread ... ge=1&pp=15" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;