What do you think of this tweak to the law?

[AlaskanInTexas]

I would love to see this next legislative session tweak the law to protect CHL holders who innocently leave home without their plastic. Under a strict reading of current law, it appears to be a Class A misdemeanor (or class C felony in certain alcohol venues) if a CHL holder goes to a place requiring a CHL, but accidentally leaves the plastic at home.

Penal Code 46.15(b)(6) "Section 46.02 [unlawful carrying of weapons] does not apply to a person who . . . is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun."

As I read this provision, it requires the CHL holder to actually be carrying the plastic and makes no exception if it is innocently missing from his/her wallet.

If there is any gun legislation this coming session, I would like to see the law tweaked so that this situation is handled more like the situation where a driver forgets to bring their driver's license - a $200 fine and a misdemeanor unless you can produce the license in court, in which case it is just a $10 fee. It seems like this would be a reasonable legislative request.

Here is the law for driver's licenses.

Trans. Code Sec. 521.025. LICENSE TO BE CARRIED AND EXHIBITED ON DEMAND; CRIMINAL PENALTY.
(a) A person required to hold a license under Section 521.021 shall:
(1) have in the person's possession while operating a motor vehicle the class of driver's license appropriate for the type of vehicle operated; and
(2) display the license on the demand of a magistrate, court officer, or peace officer.
***
(c) A person who violates this section commits an offense. An offense under this subsection is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200...

(d) It is a defense to prosecution under this section if the person charged produces in court a driver's license:
(1) issued to that person;
(2) appropriate for the type of vehicle operated; and
(3) valid at the time of the arrest for the offense.
***
(f) The court may assess a defendant an administrative fee not to exceed $10 if a charge under this section is dismissed because of the defense listed under Subsection (d).

[LabRat]

..snip

Penal Code 46.15(b)(6) "Section 46.02 [unlawful carrying of weapons] does not apply to a person who . . . is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun."

As I read this provision, it requires the CHL holder to actually be carrying the plastic and makes no exception if it is innocently missing from his/her wallet.

I don't read it that way. The section (as quoted above) states that you must have a valid license "issued" under..."
Well, I have a valid CHL, and it is issued to me, regardless whether I have it with me or not. The section says nothing about "on or about your person" so some-such legalese...

just my $0.02.

I may be wrong, but that's the way I read it. But, we all know that the law really is up to interpretation - read the articles on the CHL who had his license removed by the Levelland police, even though the "Gun Busters" sign nowhere near met the verbiage in the statute.

LabRat

[AlaskanInTexas]

I don't read it that way. The section (as quoted above) states that you must have a valid license "issued" under..."
Well, I have a valid CHL, and it is issued to me, regardless whether I have it with me or not. The section says nothing about "on or about your person" so some-such legalese...

I think if you read it a little more closely, you will see that as a matter of grammar, it applies if you are carrying two things (1) a "concealed" handgun and (2) a valid license issued under... I think if is quite explicit that you have to be carrying the license not that you simply "have" a license.


Penal Code 46.15(b)(6) "Section 46.02 [unlawful carrying of weapons] does not apply to a person who . . . is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun."

[Keith B]

I don't read it that way. The section (as quoted above) states that you must have a valid license "issued" under..."
Well, I have a valid CHL, and it is issued to me, regardless whether I have it with me or not. The section says nothing about "on or about your person" so some-such legalese...

I think if you read it a little more closely, you will see that as a matter of grammar, it applies if you are carrying two things (1) a "concealed" handgun and (2) a valid license issued under... I think if is quite explicit that you have to be carrying the license not that you simply "have" a license.


Penal Code 46.15(b)(6) "Section 46.02 [unlawful carrying of weapons] does not apply to a person who . . . is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun."

Yep, you must carry your license if you are carrying. However, unless you run into a cop who is really being a jerk, then they can tell you have a valid CHL if they run your DL number though the system. I would suspect a warning might be issued vs. a UCW charge.

It would not be a bad change to make it a Class C, but personally I think there are way more things with higher priority to worry about first this session, like removing prohibited places and full campus carry.

[Cedar Park Dad]

It is a pretty stupid section at this point technology wise.

[LabRat]

I think if you read it a little more closely, you will see that as a matter of grammar, it applies if you are carrying two things (1) a "concealed" handgun and (2) a valid license issued under... I think if is quite explicit that you have to be carrying the license not that you simply "have" a license.


Penal Code 46.15(b)(6) "Section 46.02 [unlawful carrying of weapons] does not apply to a person who . . . is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun."

Yep, you must carry your license if you are carrying. However, unless you run into a cop who is really being a jerk, then they can tell you have a valid CHL if they run your DL number though the system. I would suspect a warning might be issued vs. a UCW charge.

It would not be a bad change to make it a Class C, but personally I think there are way more things with higher priority to worry about first this session, like removing prohibited places and full campus carry.

I see the grammar and the connector. The license is the outward symbol that I've met the requirements. Saying that I don't have a valid CHL issued because its not with me is like saying I didn't take the class, wasn't fingerprinted, wasn't background checked and that DPS didn't make the decision, based on that evidence, to construct a plastic card symbolizing all those elements.

While it is my intent to follow a law as best I can, in the grand scheme of things, if you're debating grammar with a police officer, whether you physically have a license on your person or not, will be irrelevant.

If police officers can twirl their interpretation of a law to meet a charge they want to apply (and have a DA back them up all the way to court); that is hardly any incentive for me to worry about grammar. If or when it comes to that, its likely I'll have much worse things to worry about.

LabRat

[Dragonfighter]

Sec. 411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 10.01(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, Sec. 9.17(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1999.

Amended by:

Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1146 (H.B. 2730), Sec. 12A.02, eff. September 1, 2009.

The penalty for not displaying has been stricken. You're still required to show it, there is just no penalty anymore for failing to do so.

[Right2Carry]

Sec. 411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 10.01(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, Sec. 9.17(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1999.

Amended by:

Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1146 (H.B. 2730), Sec. 12A.02, eff. September 1, 2009.

The penalty for not displaying has been stricken. You're still required to show it, there is just no penalty anymore for failing to do so.

I believe failure to display and not having the liscense with you are two entirely different things.

[CoffeeNut]

Does a picture count? I've left my wallet at home and only realized it when I was halfway to my location but I always have my phone and I've got a picture of my DL/CHL permanently saved in it. I figure it's better than having nothing and it can help prove that it's a genuine mistake.

[doncb]

Does a picture count? I've left my wallet at home and only realized it when I was halfway to my location but I always have my phone and I've got a picture of my DL/CHL permanently saved in it. I figure it's better than having nothing and it can help prove that it's a genuine mistake.

I never thought about having a picture on my phone. Might make a difference, might not.