This story sounds like urban legend, perhaps based on the former DA (Rosenthal's) opposition to the earlier implementation of the car carry. Previously, the exemption for carry in a motor vehicle was implemented by expanding the "traveling" exemption in PC 46.15 to include basically anyone in a car. Rosenthal didn't like that definition of traveling, even though it was clearly in the statute. He said he would prosecute people doing this because they weren't really traveling. However, I think only one case ever actually came up and the guy plead to a lower charge (by his own choice) rather than pay a lawyer.LarryH wrote:Ahem. Chuck Rosenthal is not the Harris County DA and hasn't been for quite some time. The current DA, Pat Lykos (a woman), is, I believe, quite friendly toward law-abiding CHLs.SecedeTX wrote:I live in Brazoria Co, and work in Harris Co (downtown). The current DA is against people carrying in their cars in Harris County under the castle doctrine. He opposed having the castle doctrine extend to your automobile. According to very reliable sources (multiple LEO's in different depts) if an officer pulls over a NON-CHL person who is carrying in the car under the castle doctrine, that person is to be arrested, gun confiscated, processed, bailed out, hire a lawyer, day in court. Once that person gets to court and is asked to make a plea, they say "not guilty, under castle doctrine" and the case is dismissed.
You are still out the time in jail being processed, bail, and attorneys fees. Makes it an expensive hassle.
The LEO's that I know are not fond of this, but it is unwritten policy. The are HIGHLY supportive of CHL holders as we are clearly not the problem. From my understanding, the anti-gun stance from Harris Co. is more concentrated on castle doctrine carriers rather than CHL carriers. They don't want protection from castle doctrine to extend to our inherited thug problem (it was bad enough before the storm).
I think it is interesting that I have approx 650 like minded individuals in my zip code that all have CHLs. Maybe we should all meet up at Don Picos for dinner one night!
Now the law 46.02 has been changed and says simply:
There doesn't seem to be a lot of room for interpretation there.PC §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 if the person is not:
(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or
(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control.
...
It seems unlikely that Harris County LEO's would articulate a (unwritten) policy that required them to arrest someone for something that the DA and LEO's know is not a crime. In fact it's unethical for the DA and perhaps even illegal. It's also a bit disturbing that in describing the DA's "policy" they used the term "Castle Doctrine", which has nothing to do with carrying in a motor vehicle, and that they referred to the DA as "he" when the current DA is a SHE (assuming OP didn't just mishear the pronoun).
The first one or two times the LEO's "implemented" this (unwritten) policy and the person arrested didn't, plead "Not guilty, under the Castle Doctrine" (how the heck are they supposed to know to say this?)...but instead protested that they were arrested for a non-crime... Well, I would suspect the arraigning judge would not be amused by the LEO's and prosecutor's explanation of the reason for arrest. Then if this "policy" ever came to light, it wouldn't be a stretch to get a judge to enjoin the County and LEO's from this behavior in the future.
