Found Illegally Carrying

[Droshi]

Somewhat related to a conversation with a friend...it got me to wonder exactly what the penalties for illegally carrying a weapon are? In other words, what is the charge for having to use your firearm to defend your life, but you were:

(1) in violation of a 30.06 sign
(2) in violation of a 51% rule/sign
(3) on an illegal premises (school, govt building...etc)
(4) without a CHL

I'm just guessing that they increase in severity as you go down...but his idea was that it would always be worth any lawyer money or jail time if you actually had to use your gun to save your life or that of another innocent person. I'm sure actual sentencing is different on a case by case basis, but I imagine each of these have some sort of classification.

Apologies if this is common knowledge or a dumb question... hoping someone will humor the hypothetical.

[hirundo82]

Somewhat related to a conversation with a friend...it got me to wonder exactly what the penalties for illegally carrying a weapon are? In other words, what is the charge for having to use your firearm to defend your life, but you were:

(1) in violation of a 30.06 sign
(2) in violation of a 51% rule/sign
(3) on an illegal premises (school, govt building...etc)
(4) without a CHL

I'm just guessing that they increase in severity as you go down...but his idea was that it would always be worth any lawyer money or jail time if you actually had to use your gun to save your life or that of another innocent person. I'm sure actual sentencing is different on a case by case basis, but I imagine each of these have some sort of classification.

Apologies if this is common knowledge or a dumb question... hoping someone will humor the hypothetical.

Each section of the penal code that lists unlawful acts also specifies the class of the crime.

(1) in violation of a 30.06 sign:
Class A misdemeanor

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(2) in violation of a 51% rule/sign AND (3) on an illegal premises (school, govt building...etc):

These two are kind of related, and the answer varies. Carrying places prohibited under §46.03 (school, court, etc.) is a 3rd degree felony, while violations of§46.035 (eg carrying at a professional sporting event) are generally Class A misdemeanors, except for carrying in a 51% establishment or a correctional facility which are 3rd degree felonies.

(4) without a CHL:

Violations of §46.02, such as carrying without a CHL, are Class A misdemeanors unless you are carrying illegally somewhere that sells alcohol (this includes most restaurants, grocery stores, convenience stores, etc) in which case it is a 3rd degree felony.

[Beiruty]

My understanding if justified in defending yourself or others, those violations are overlooked.

e.g. engaging an active shooter in a school building after you were waiting outside to pick up your daughter.

[Keith B]

My understanding if justified in defending yourself or others, those violations are overlooked.

e.g. engaging an active shooter in a school building after you were waiting outside to pick up your daughter.

This would be totally up to the prosecutor. It is possible, but I would not count on the fact that they would overlook a charge of UCW even if justified.

[dac1842]

Keith it is contained within the Penal Code that if a person is unlawfully carrying a weapon,but uses deadly force appropriately that the person will not be charged with the weapons violation.

[philip964]

One of the defense's used by the police in the killing of Erik Scott in Las Vegas last summer was that he had a technical violation of Nevada's concealed handgun law. His back up gun (if he actually was carrying one) was the same type and caliber of the one on his carry card, but it was a different manufacturer.

Thus it might not be the punishment you should worry about, but the fact that if discovered illegally carrying, you could face much more damaging reactions by the police.

[Droshi]

Keith it is contained within the Penal Code that if a person is unlawfully carrying a weapon,but uses deadly force appropriately that the person will not be charged with the weapons violation.

The legal system is always somewhat surprising, which is why I asked!

I think this above quote is a good idea, however it just doesn't make sense that carrying without a CHL is a less serious violation than carrying on a school. To me it makes more sense to have no restrictions for CHL holders, but allow basic citizens to carry in restricted areas without a license. But I understand the world doesn't work like that!

Thanks for the clarification guys.

[Keith B]

Keith it is contained within the Penal Code that if a person is unlawfully carrying a weapon,but uses deadly force appropriately that the person will not be charged with the weapons violation.

Actually, it is not. It is a defense to prosecution, but does not state that you won't be charged. If I am not mistaken, the Prosecutor can still bring you up on the 46.02 violation but the statute gives you some teeth in defense of your actions and the violation of 46.02.

[srothstein]

Keith it is contained within the Penal Code that if a person is unlawfully carrying a weapon,but uses deadly force appropriately that the person will not be charged with the weapons violation.

Could you tell me where you are reading that? I am unaware of such a clause, unless you (and Keith in his reply) are referring to the necessity defense under Chapter 9.

If it is the necessity defense, Keith is correct that this is your defense after you get charged, but that you could still be charged.

I know it was not Texas, but Bernard Goetz was convicted and sentenced to two years in jail for unlawfully carrying the weapon he used to lawfully defend himself. This was done by the very same jury that ruled him not guilty for the shootings based on his self-defense claims.

[DKSuddeth]

if charged for UCW, you can choose a jury trial or bench trial. Living in the DFW area, I wouldn't trust 12 idiots to tie their shoes right, much less be able to rule on fundamental rights and judicial precedent. I'd go for the bench trial, then throw mcdonald at the judge with a total ban being unconstitutional, which 46.02 is. Then, when the prosecutor brings up chapter H licensing being the constitutional requirement to exercise the 2nd Amendment, I'd throw Murdock v. Pennsylvania at the judge.

[Beiruty]

if charged for UCW, you can choose a jury trial or bench trial. Living in the DFW area, I wouldn't trust 12 idiots to tie their shoes right, much less be able to rule on fundamental rights and judicial precedent. I'd go for the bench trial, then throw mcdonald at the judge with a total ban being unconstitutional, which 46.02 is. Then, when the prosecutor brings up chapter H licensing being the constitutional requirement to exercise the 2nd Amendment, I'd throw Murdock v. Pennsylvania at the judge.

You need to wait until the Supreme court rules that carrying firearms is a constitutional individual right like the free speech. So far, I guess the supreme ruling was only for purchasing and owing firearms.

[Droshi]

if charged for UCW, you can choose a jury trial or bench trial. Living in the DFW area, I wouldn't trust 12 idiots to tie their shoes right, much less be able to rule on fundamental rights and judicial precedent. I'd go for the bench trial, then throw mcdonald at the judge with a total ban being unconstitutional, which 46.02 is. Then, when the prosecutor brings up chapter H licensing being the constitutional requirement to exercise the 2nd Amendment, I'd throw Murdock v. Pennsylvania at the judge.

Are you saying that because the case makes a claim that a tax for a license placed a restriction on this person's 1st amendment rights that any similar tax on 2nd amendment rights is equally unconstitutional? Seems like it would have to be taken to Supreme Court for it to be directly applicable in lower courts, although it is a valid argument.

The real problem to me is that even freedom of speech has limitations that are not specifically regulated in the 1st amendment such as slander or yelling "fire" in a crowded place. Being able to own and carry a gun without a tax is still possible...it's just restricted to your own land. Paying the tax gives you extra privileges.

Still, the original argument presented to me was: is it worth the risk of life to obey every rule and disarm at places required by law? I feel a complex answer is in order.... :)

You need to wait until the Supreme court rules that carrying firearms is a constitutional individual right like the free speech. So far, I guess the supreme ruling was only for purchasing and owing firearms.

"...to keep and bear arms...."
I think is easy to interpret as own and carry...however carry where, and arms obviously doesn't include every weapon known to man (missiles, nuclear, Goldeneye satellites!)

Then again, I'm not a lawyer. :)

[The Annoyed Man]

You guys are engaging in wishful thinking if you think that a Texas judge is going to be impressed by you throwing case law from another state at him.

[Skiprr]

You guys are engaging in wishful thinking if you think that a Texas judge is going to be impressed by you throwing case law from another state at him.

Or arguing, pro se, recent SCOTUS decisions or personal Constitutional interpretations before a Texas criminal judge.

Still, the original argument presented to me was: is it worth the risk of life to obey every rule and disarm at places required by law? I feel a complex answer is in order.... :)

IMHO, the complexity rests solely with the individual's morality or ethicality, not the law.

The law, for all its foibles and strange phrasings and run-on sentences is, well...it's the law.

Some legal statutes we applaud, some we don't. The ones we don't, we should work to change or amend.

One can choose to act according to the law, or not. One can choose to work within the system to change the laws he does not like, or he can choose to disregard those laws and try to live on the fringe, at peril.

For me, these choices are not complex at all.

[Droshi]

You guys are engaging in wishful thinking if you think that a Texas judge is going to be impressed by you throwing case law from another state at him.

Or arguing, pro se, recent SCOTUS decisions or personal Constitutional interpretations before a Texas criminal judge.

Still, the original argument presented to me was: is it worth the risk of life to obey every rule and disarm at places required by law? I feel a complex answer is in order.... :)

IMHO, the complexity rests solely with the individual's morality or ethicality, not the law.

The law, for all its foibles and strange phrasings and run-on sentences is, well...it's the law.

Some legal statutes we applaud, some we don't. The ones we don't, we should work to change or amend.

One can choose to act according to the law, or not. One can choose to work within the system to change the laws he does not like, or he can choose to disregard those laws and try to live on the fringe, at peril.

For me, these choices are not complex at all.

Exactly...it all depends on the person. I have found however, that some people are willing to make uninformed decisions, which is somewhat what this thread is about. My personal decision was easy, but I guess that's why it's a problem question for me to try to answer or inform another person of who doesn't have the same motivations as me.