Traveling In A Motorboat

[Keith B]

Thus a boat is not going to be considered a motor vehicle.

I will not attempt to answer the houseboat question since there are conflicting definitions in the code, and I could make a good argument either way. I would go with it being legal as a habitation, though i can see arguments the other way.

I think a houseboat would be considered a recreational vehicle and fall under the 'premises' guideline only.

[TX_Jim]

Since there is no definition of the phrase motor vehicle in this chapter, we need to look at other areas of the law. As we go up the chain, we can find a definition of motor vehicle in the same title (Title 10) that applies for another section. It refers us to a definition in section 32.34, which is another title. Other uses of the phrase are not defined, such as in Chapter 30, though it is important to note that Chapter 30 does define "vehicle".

Since a motor vehicle is more specific than a vehicle, and we take the specific over the general as another general rule, we can use the definition referred to for almost the whole Penal Code. This is supplemented by the fact that Chapter 49 refers to Chapter 32 for the definition.

Chapter 32 says a motor vehicle is:

a device in, on, or by which a person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a highway, except a device used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks.

Thus a boat is not going to be considered a motor vehicle.

I will not attempt to answer the houseboat question since there are conflicting definitions in the code, and I could make a good argument either way. I would go with it being legal as a habitation, though i can see arguments the other way.

I looked up the GC Code Construction Act 311.11 and it does not specifically state the order in which to define a word or phrase as you state. It does say use the common usage or the technical definition or the legislative definition should be construed accordingly.

§ 311.011. COMMON AND TECHNICAL USAGE OF WORDS. (a)
Words and phrases shall be read in context and construed according
to the rules of grammar and common usage.
(b) Words and phrases that have acquired a technical or
particular meaning, whether by legislative definition or
otherwise, shall be construed accordingly.

Do you have any references I can look up to valid this procedure? Anyway, that being said, I followed your logic and found that Title 10, chapter 49, does in fact contain a definition for motor vehicle. My problem with this logic is that 49.01 says “Definitions� “in this chapter� and then says that motor vehicle takes on the meaning from 32.34 . I would have to argue that 49.01 “in this chapter� limits the scope of those definitions to that chapter and does not imply that they should be used in any other context. Am I way off base here?

§ 49.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Alcohol concentration" means the number of grams
of alcohol per:
(A) 210 liters of breath;
(B) 100 milliliters of blood; or
(C) 67 milliliters of urine. (2) "Intoxicated" means:
(A) not having the normal use of mental or
physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a
controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of
two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the
body; or
(B) having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or
More.
(3) "Motor vehicle" has the meaning assigned by
Section 32.34(a) .

[seamusTX]

I think a houseboat would be considered a recreational vehicle and fall under the 'premises' guideline only.

Recreational vehicle by itself is not defined in the transportation code. (It does define towable recreational vehicle.) Therefore we're back to the question of whether a boat is a vehicle.

I should point out that searching a boat without a warrant would probably be a defective search, and even if something illegal were found, it could not be admitted to evidence.

With a boat, you can also easily avoid the "on or about one's person" element of unlawful carry most of the time.

- Jim

[TX_Jim]

I think a houseboat would be considered a recreational vehicle and fall under the 'premises' guideline only.

You may be correct that it is legal, but I think that it still boils down to the definition of motor vehicle.

Recreation vehicle is defined by code as follows:

(h) For the purpose of Subsection (b)(2), "premises"
includes a recreational vehicle that is being used by the person
carrying the handgun, illegal knife, or club as living quarters,
regardless of whether that use is temporary or permanent. In this
subsection, "recreational vehicle" means a motor vehicle primarily
designed as temporary living quarters or a vehicle that contains
temporary living quarters and is designed to be towed by a motor
vehicle . The term includes a travel trailer, camping trailer,
truck camper, motor home, and horse trailer with living quarters.

Is it a motor vehicle? Due to conflicting definitions it is hard to say. I do not believe it would fall within the second definition: "vehicle that contains
temporary living quarters and is designed to be towed by a motor
vehicle" because...it meets the first part by having living quarters....but does it meet the second part being designed to be towed by the (undefinined) motor vehicle? I think that a typical houseboat is not designed for easy towing and that it takes special equipment and permits (because of the oversize nature of it) to tow it. This is pure speculation on my part.

I think there are many other issues at hand too. For example, you are in your houeboat on a lake or river controlled by the LCRA or controlled by some other entitiy that does not allow firearms. Whose rights takes precedents? The "homeowner" on the houseboat?!?!?!? Or does the rights of the LCRA take precedents. This in not an issue for CHL holders as the new code allows CHL holders to be armed on LCRA property...i think....i need to look that up again....but some other time.

[TX_Jim]

I should point out that searching a boat without a warrant would probably be a defective search, and even if something illegal were found, it could not be admitted to evidence.

Do they (LE) have the right to board and conduct safety searches...i.e. counting up lifevest and etc. And if during that search or safety stop...they find a firearm....would it still be considered inadmissiable?

[seamusTX]

Do they (LE) have the right to board and conduct safety searches...i.e. counting up lifevest and etc. And if during that search or safety stop...they find a firearm....would it still be considered inadmissiable?

I have no idea.

- Jim

[TX_Jim]

Do they (LE) have the right to board and conduct safety searches...i.e. counting up lifevest and etc. And if during that search or safety stop...they find a firearm....would it still be considered inadmissiable?

I have no idea.

- Jim

LOL....me either.

There has to be some boat owners out there that can weigh in on this.

[gmckinl]

Search the board - a recent thread details a poster being stopped on the lake by a game warden, asked for ID, since GW is a LEO the poster had to produce his CHL (he was armed), GW asked if poster was armed, poster replied yes, GW told poster to get his blankety blank weapon off the lake NOW and NO you cannot leave it in your truck at the boat ramp parking lot as that is still Corp of Engineers property!

I'll let one of the professional legal eagles chime in, but to me... the federal prohibition against firearms on COE property trumps any and all state regulations because you are not on state property, you are on federal property.

Note also, that if we are talking lake Texoma, you have the federal COE regs to consider plus state regs from both TX and OK (eg the unique Texoma fishing license).

[TX_Jim]

Search the board - a recent thread details a poster being stopped on the lake by a game warden, asked for ID, since GW is a LEO the poster had to produce his CHL (he was armed), GW asked if poster was armed, poster replied yes, GW told poster to get his blankety blank weapon off the lake NOW and NO you cannot leave it in your truck at the boat ramp parking lot as that is still Corp of Engineers property!

I'll let one of the professional legal eagles chime in, but to me... the federal prohibition against firearms on COE property trumps any and all state regulations because you are not on state property, you are on federal property.

Note also, that if we are talking lake Texoma, you have the federal COE regs to consider plus state regs from both TX and OK (eg the unique Texoma fishing license).

Good information to know. Are all water ways owned or regulated by the feds? Or are some state owned/regulated? What about fishing in these waterways?!?!?!? If they are regulated by the feds...why do states have the right to require a license to fish....is this an authority passed down from the feds to the state? If that is the case...the feds have left 2A rights up to the states and therefore the state regulates the weapons (I assume states can only regulate weapons on state property....not fed property)?

I'm just throwing stuff out there for consideration...I may be way off base in asking these questions.

I think s boats...because of all the implications, makes deciphering the law mush more difficult.

[gmckinl]

The following are the CoE lakes in Texas:

Aquilla Lake
Bardwell Lake
Belton Lake
Benbrook Lake
Buffalo Bayou
Caddo Lake
Canyon Lake
Cooper Lake
Ferrells Bridge Dam Lake O' The Pines
Georgetown Lake
Granger Lake
Grapevine Lake
Hords Creek Lake
Joe Pool Lake
Lavon Lake
Lewisville Lake
Navarro Mills Lake
O.C. Fisher Lake
Pat Mayse Lake
Proctor Lake
Ray Roberts Lake
Sam Rayburn Reservoir
Somerville Lake
Steinhagen Lake
Stillhouse Hollow Reservoir
Texoma Lake
Waco Lake
Wallisville Lake
Whitney Lake
Wright Patman Lake

Only lakes I can think of that I've been to and are not on the above list would be Toledo Bend, Lake Corpus Christi, Eagle Mountain, & Lake Worth. I'm sure there are others, but that's what comes to mind.

I just did a board search on "corps" and got two pages of hits. Interesting reading.

On edit... I've been to Buchanan, LBJ, Inks, & Marble Falls which are not on the CoE list.

[casingpoint]

Toledo Bend is not a Corps lake. It was built by the states of Texas and Louisiana in conjunction with Gulf States Utilities.

After all of the above posts, I am beginning to understand why it may be preferable to buy fish than go fishing.

[TX_Jim]

After some thought, I would assume the Game Warden acted that way simply because of federal regulations. I think that any other water way would fall under the state guidlines for carrying a weapon. I have not seen anything forbidding CHL holders from carrying on a waterway. Even if state or municipalitiy owned, state property (please correct me if I am wrong) can not be posted or otherwise regulated except those places regulated by statute...i.e. building where governemental meeting take place and etc.

Given a waterway not owned by the feds and the weapon holder having a CHL in texas...the holder would be legal.

This of course does not resolve the question in the OP...

Back to the original post...you are on a fed waterway it is a clear violation even if we could define a watercraft as a motor vehichle. This narrows the scope of the question down to non-chl holders and state waterways.

[bpet]

Ray Hubbard is owned by the city of Dallas and I therefore assume would be legal for concealed carry.

Nice list GMckinl. You spend too much time on the water and not enough time in the woods. You really need to fix that. Much simpler to understand the laws.

[Renegade]

Search the board - a recent thread details a poster being stopped on the lake by a game warden, asked for ID, since GW is a LEO the poster had to produce his CHL (he was armed), GW asked if poster was armed, poster replied yes, GW told poster to get his blankety blank weapon off the lake NOW and NO you cannot leave it in your truck at the boat ramp parking lot as that is still Corp of Engineers property!

What state laws was the GW thinking he was enforcing by order person to get off lake with gun?

What law gives GW authority to carry on lake?

I guess what I am asking is if lake is Federal property, where is Federal law on this issue?

[gmckinl]

You spend too much time on the water and not enough time in the woods. You really need to fix that. Much simpler to understand the laws.

I think I'll work on that.