TexasCHLforum.com

Question about pistol location. You are somewhere where your carry is prohibited and you leave it in your vehicle. If you are stopped by a LEO and present CHL do you have to take the LEO to your vehicle if it is requested? Even if the location is of a great distance? Had a discussion today about that topic. Thank you.

If I'm not near my vehicle, I don't consider myself carrying... in that situation. I would NOT even inform the officer if I was not near the car. That would be like checking your mailbox at the street and a police officer stops you... and having to tell him you have a glock on the nightstand inside.

^ just my unofficial opinion.

So let me get this straight, we have the following conditions:
1: Your handgun is in the vehicle.
2: Your not in, or close to, the vehicle but in a prohibited location.
3: Officer asks for ID and you presented a CHL (although not required since your not carrying a handgun).
4: LEO has requested access to vehicle.
5: You want to know if you have to.

In regards to #1, #2 and #3 your good, although #3 was not required. In regards to #4, why do they want access to the vehicle? And as for #5 it depends on the answer to #4, but if its just because you are a CHL then the answer is no as long as the vehicle isn't in a prohibited location. If the vehicle is somehow in a prohibited location then you need to talk to a lawyer before consenting to a search.

If you're not carrying a handgun and not operating a motor vehicle, I don't believe you're required to show either card.

I'm thinking, I'm thinking. Okay.

The reason the officer asked for your ID has something to do with you drinking and then you mistakenly give the officer your CHL and declare that you are unarmed and left your gun in your car. I can see where they might want to secure that weapon before you drive off with it. I don't think this is very likely and don't even know if it would be legal for an officer to do so.

...the law says "...if a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person..."...the answer is no...there is no need to provide the CHL...and, given the info in the OP...the officer has no reason to search the car...or even know where it is...

G.A. Heath wrote:4: LEO has requested access to vehicle.

I do not consent to any search. Final Answer.

speedsix wrote:...the law says "...if a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person..."...the answer is no...there is no need to provide the CHL...and, given the info in the OP...the officer has no reason to search the car...or even know where it is...

Speedsix, is there any difference between "on" and "about" one's person?

Just askin'.

Jim

57Coastie wrote:

speedsix wrote:...the law says "...if a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person..."...the answer is no...there is no need to provide the CHL...and, given the info in the OP...the officer has no reason to search the car...or even know where it is...

Speedsix, is there any difference between "on" and "about" one's person?

Just askin'.

Jim

I've always believed that "on or about" means "within easy reach". You might be able to stretch that to "across the room on the nightstand".... but... "A half mile away in a locked car in the parking lot" is well outside my definition of "about"..... unless I have a guilty conscience

Here's another example....
I am inside a school, talking to my kids teacher. My gun is locked in my car in the parking lot. If for some reason I have an encounter with the police while I'm still inside the building and I am asked for ID, I do not have to provide CHL since the gun is not "on or about" my person. If I am standing next to the still-locked car in the parking lot, I would provide CHL, even though the gun, IMO, is still not "on or about" if it's in the locked car. I'll err on the side of disclosure in that case, unless there is some circumstance where it would be imprudent for me to do so.

IMO, IANAL.

I can envision an interesting scenario though.... One thing I love about this forum is the scenario creation we all are capable of... ;)

You go out with a bunch of guys (say 6th street area here in Austin). You are carrying when you leave your house, but knowing that many of the places on 6th street are 51% places you leave it in the car when you get there. You have no intention of drinking, but at some point you decide to have more than a few. The plan at that point is "guys, we're just going to cab it home, and i'll come and get my car tomorrow."

So.... in this scenario. The LEO asks for your ID when you are walking around (not obviously drunk, but probably not ok to drive), runs it, and says "i see you have a CHL. Are you carrying? " to which you say "I am not, but I have it in the car (clearly,volunteering that you have it in the car may be a mistake). We've decided to cab it home though tonight."

What would be the likely responses? The LEO may or may not believe you'll cab it home. Would be justified in asking to go to your car and disarming you? Would he congratulate you on a good decision? ;)

I've never done the above, but I think its a realistic scenario.

If an officer disarms you, he is required to return the firearm to you at the conclusion of the incident. That is, unless he arrests you. So taking the gun away from you would do no good, since he'd just have to give it back before leaving.

The simple answer to the original question is no. We can make up scenarios all day long but if you are not in or about your vehicle then the officer has no probable cause of search your vehicle and you DO NOT have to consent to a search. And personally I would not. We do not live in a police state and you did not give up your rights when you got your CHL (rather you exercised them). Thus if a Police Officer wishes to search any of my property he will require a warrant it is that simple.

On the topic of the alcohol related scenarios. Again, if you are not in or about your vehicle the officers does not have probable cause to search it. And I would not allow him to do so. Also he has no reason to "disarm" you or seize you weapon without you consent. And there is no way I'd let that happen without a court order. Alcohol or not you still have certain right and the constitution still protects you.

RoyGBiv wrote: ... I've always believed that "on or about" means "within easy reach"....

Jim

Longshot38 wrote:The simple answer to the original question is no. We can make up scenarios all day long but if you are not in or about your vehicle then the officer has no probable cause of search your vehicle and you DO NOT have to consent to a search. And personally I would not. We do not live in a police state and you did not give up your rights when you got your CHL (rather you exercised them). Thus if a Police Officer wishes to search any of my property he will require a warrant it is that simple.

On the topic of the alcohol related scenarios. Again, if you are not in or about your vehicle the officers does not have probable cause to search it. And I would not allow him to do so. Also he has no reason to "disarm" you or seize you weapon without you consent. And there is no way I'd let that happen without a court order. Alcohol or not you still have certain right and the constitution still protects you.

Really? Have you been on an airplane lately? After my last encounter trying to pick-up my grandkids at Ft. Hood I'll take exception to your statement.

i8godzilla wrote:

Longshot38 wrote:The simple answer to the original question is no. We can make up scenarios all day long but if you are not in or about your vehicle then the officer has no probable cause of search your vehicle and you DO NOT have to consent to a search. And personally I would not. We do not live in a police state and you did not give up your rights when you got your CHL (rather you exercised them). Thus if a Police Officer wishes to search any of my property he will require a warrant it is that simple.

On the topic of the alcohol related scenarios. Again, if you are not in or about your vehicle the officers does not have probable cause to search it. And I would not allow him to do so. Also he has no reason to "disarm" you or seize you weapon without you consent. And there is no way I'd let that happen without a court order. Alcohol or not you still have certain right and the constitution still protects you.

Really? Have you been on an airplane lately? After my last encounter trying to pick-up my grandkids at Ft. Hood I'll take exception to your statement.

Our rights have been slowly eroded over the past decades but we are not to the point of police state yet. And yes I have done a lot of flying recently. I hate flying but sometime it is the only viable option. On you experience at Ft. Hood I read about that. And as ridiculous as that was you were on a military base. Hints things operate differently.