CHL holder accidently discharges weapon at work question

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

That makes no sense, there is no law that forbids a hand gun from being viable in public that I know of. Is there????

. If so, there would have to be hundreds of exceptions for where we see hand guns openly displayed every day..

Did you mean visible?

If so, then yes there is. It is 46.02. If this was not the case then OC would be legal in TX.

46.02 makes it a crime to carry a handgun on or about your person unless you are on your property or property under your control. It just says handgun so it does not matter if it is CC'd/OC'd loaded/unloaded if it is on or about your person and you are not on your property or property under your control its a crime (this of course is if you do not have a CHL).

[E.Marquez]

That makes no sense, there is no law that forbids a hand gun from being viable in public that I know of. Is there????

. If so, there would have to be hundreds of exceptions for where we see hand guns openly displayed every day..

Did you mean visible?

If so, then yes there is. It is 46.02. If this was not the case then OC would be legal in TX.

46.02 makes it a crime to carry a handgun on or about your person unless you are on your property or property under your control. It just says handgun so it does not matter if it is CC'd/OC'd loaded/unloaded if it is on or about your person and you are not on your property or property under your control its a crime (this of course is if you do not have a CHL).

Ok, yes I see that ,,,thats what Im going for.. again..
BOTH lines.. say
"(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."
OR, not and..
It does not say the hand gun must be concealed in either of those two cases.., AFTER those lines in the next part, it speaks to being visible.

IANAL.... and I don't obey this part of the law, never have, not likely to ever do consistently. I don't try and conceal when I disarm, I disarm, lock the gun up in the car and move out... From my house to the car, I do not conceal,, from my car to other property I control I do not conceal many times.. from my car to others property I do not control, but i have permission to be on, I do not always conceal a hand gun I might be transporting (my carry gun is of course concealed, but other guns may or may not be.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

Ok, yes I see that ,,,thats what Im going for.. again..
BOTH lines.. say
"(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."
OR, not and..
It does not say the hand gun must be concealed in either of those two cases.., AFTER those lines in the next part, it speaks to being visible.

IANAL.... and I don't obey this part of the law, never have, not likely to ever do consistently. I don't try and conceal when I disarm, I disarm, lock the gun up in the car and move out... From my house to the car, I do not conceal,, from my car to other property I control I do not conceal many times.. from my car to others property I do not control, but i have permission to be on, I do not always conceal a hand gun I might be transporting (my carry gun is of course concealed, but other guns may or may not be.

You are right, on your property, property you control or en route to your vehicle from those places you do not have to keep it concealed but once you get in the vehicle it must be concealed. If you are going from your vehicle to someone else's property or property you do not have control of the handgun must be concealed. Once on their property the property owner can do what he/she pleases with it. Be careful if you do that though as 46.02 only states "or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control". It says nothing about going from your vehicle to someone else's property. If you do this with a handgun and are not a CHL you are in violation of 46.02. It is called the Motorist Protection Act. Once you leave your vehicle you are no longer a motorist.

It is important to note that this is for handguns as they are specifically named in 46.02. Longuns such as rifles and shotguns are not.

As for the part of your response that I highlighted be very careful as that is against the law. Any handgun that is in your vehicle must be concealed regardless if it is being transported to a show, friends house to sell, or self-defense.

[E.Marquez]

As for the part of your response that I highlighted be very careful as that is against the law. Any handgun that is in your vehicle must be concealed regardless if it is being transported to a show, friends house to sell, or self-defense.

I obviously was not clear in my response... At that point in my reply.. I was talking about transporting the gun from car TO said property.. not INSIDE the car.

[Beiruty]

Let met ask, how do transport a handgun if you do not own a car? say, you use a public transportation like a public bus, light train/metro or a taxi cab.

Assume you have no CHL. Also, assume that you are taking the handgun fron your house to the gunsmith. Or, you are going to visit a friend and you would like to loan him the handgun for a range trip.

Are you in violation of 46.02?

My quick answer, is no. even though 46.02 does not give an exception. However, 46.035 gives you one under the "traveling" exception. In Texas, the code does not talk about "transporting" handguns.

Many in Texas do open carry while "travelling". Check it out under open carry forum.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

Let met ask, how do transport a handgun if you do not own a car? say, you use a public transportation like a public bus, light train/metro or a taxi cab.

Assume you have no CHL. Also, assume that you are taking the handgun fron your house to the gunsmith. Or, you are going to visit a friend and you would like to loan him the handgun for a range trip.

Are you in violation of 46.02?

My quick answer, is no. even though 46.02 does not give an exception. However, 46.035 gives you one under the "traveling" exception. In Texas, the code does not talk about "transporting" handguns.

Many in Texas do open carry while "travelling". Check it out under open carry forum.

No 46.035 does not give you an exception of traveling that is 46.15(b)(2). 46.035 is Unlawful Carry of a Handgun by a LICENSE Holder. 46.15 is Nonapplicability.

It does say traveling in 46.15(b)(2). However, AFAIK there has not been a set definition of traveling by the courts. If this is in fact true then it would be a case by case basis. You can go ahead and OC while "traveling" and if pulled over you may take the ride and beat the time or you may not. Depends on the courts. Again, if you are carrying under the authority of your CHL while "traveling" it still needs to be concealed as "traveling" is not an exception under 46.035.

Back to the original topic before all these "what about this" stuff came up, I still have yet to find anyone here that can prove where the subject in the OP was legally in the right and should keep his CHL?

[Beiruty]

Sorry, i meant Sec. 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY. (b)-2.
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
(2) is traveling;

Good to hear such stories as this one: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showt ... exas-today" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[E.Marquez]

Back to the original topic before all these "what about this" stuff came up, I still have yet to find anyone here that can prove where the subject in the OP was legally in the right and should keep his CHL?

Agree, mostly,, Id rather say. The subject in question have his CHL suspended until he completes a training and certification program(something much better then the minimal program we do for CHL)

[mamabearCali]

With all due respect, you are completely misunderstanding this issue from the standpoint of Texas law.

On this board, when you see someone say "concealed is concealed," that means nothing more or less than if you keep your gun concealed (and your mouth shut), nobody will know about your gun—regardless of the circumstances in question. We do not have a law against printing in Texas. Literally. There is no law against printing. What we DO have is a law against INTENTIONAL failure to conceal. When you open carry, that is "intentional failure to conceal." When you draw your weapon to show it off to friends, that is "intentional failure to conceal." When you draw your weapon in self defense, that is a defense to prosecution for intentionally failing to conceal your weapon. When you're showing off to your friends, you don't have that defense to prosecution.

When you are "printing," there is no way in most cases that the observer can know what the object is that is printing under that shirt. It has to rise to the level of being readily discernible (like, able to read the logo on the slide through the fabric) as a firearm. So if you wore your full sized 5" 1911 underneath a skin-tight UnderArmor shirt, such that the casual observer could tell if it was a Springfield and not a Kimber, that would probably rise to the level of intentional failure to conceal.

However, if the wind blows your shirt up, momentarily exposing your firearm for anyone to see, and you immediately make attempts to cover it up, that is NOT intentional failure to conceal.

So, in the case of the person who negligently fired the pistol, the pistol's owner was definitely guilty of intentional failure to conceal, as the events did not occur in the privacy of his own home.

Believe me, most of us are not worried about printing. In fact, concerns about printing are commonly raised by n00bs who are brand new to carrying, and the most common advice they get is, "strap it on, cover it up, and forget about it." Most respondents will tell the concerned individual there is no way for a casual observer to know whether the object under the shirt is a pistol, an insulin pump, a cellphone, or a colostomy bag. So, you have VERY much misread the tone of this board in that regard.

I am glad you are not so worried about it. I do however think that a class A misdemeanor and loss of a CHL because you show your friend your gun is pretty insane. I have checked and it is not even a crime in my state at all as long as you are not pointing it at anyone or threatening anyone with it. Yall have a great castle doctrine but some of your gun laws leave much to be desired. And with that I am done with this thread. Have a nice day yall.

I can only respond with this: Ours is not an open carry state. Yours is. That is the only difference here. If your state did not have open carry, then drawing your weapon in a public place (and for practical application of the law, your workplace is a public place) for purposes other than self defense would constitute intentional failure to conceal.

You keep saying "your state's gun laws" (meaning Texas's gun laws) leave much to be desired, but you really aren't specific about which laws you mean. We have several. If you did your research and could point out specifically which one, we could have a serious discussion about it. One cannot really respond to that, except to point out, as I have done, that the real difference seems to be open versus concealed carry.

Even so, I am willing to bet that if you drew your openly carried weapon in a public place to show to your friend, in your state, and it was witnessed by a nearby police officer, you would almost certainly get more attention than you desired..........open carry or not. I'd be willing to bet you real greenbacks on that. So, I can only respond that "some of your gun laws leave much to be desired. And with that I am done with this thread. Have a nice day yall."

The law I was specifically referencing was the one where you are guilty of a class A misdemeanor for having a gun openly seen in public as a class A misdemeanor. In VA you might get some attention from a police officer, but I would be not very much if the situation was not overtly aggressive. In fact I remember three of us looking at a friends new pistol in the church parking lot and the deputy chief of state police came over (also a member of our church) and joined in on the conversation. Look on this forum we have trashed various states gun laws and called them crazy and insane. As a person from a state that I can openly carry a weapon in I find it very very strange that something I could legally do in VA would get a class A misdemeanor there. It is yall's laws--you have to live by them. I only have to watch myself in the few weeks a year that I can visit your lovely state (and I do mean that I love TX very much). I think that having the unconcealment statute opens up cans of worms for many situations that are otherwise innocent. If I was in TX I would want that changed, but that is me.

[tacticool]

Those of you who are meeting to sell your guns in a public place are not carrying them under the authority of your CHL. Also, you are showing them inside a vehicle or such and NOT blatantly exposing them to the public.

Where does the law say you're not carrying them under the authority of your CHL in that situation? If you say they're carrying under MPA because they're in cars, that evaporates when they show the gun. ("the handgun is in plain view")

Also, the guy who had an ND was showing it inside an office and NOT blatantly exposing it to the public.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

The guy in OP did blatantly/purposely/intentionally expose his gun to the public. The office he was in was a public place and not his property or property under his control.

[canvasbck]

Your ignoring the first part of his post. When you sell/purchase a firearm in a public place such as a parking lot, you are violating CHL and MPA laws as soon as you show the handgun. Many here on this board recommend EXACTLY such an action when selling a handgun (myself included). If you think this guy should be turned in for the act of removing the firearm from his backpack, then many of us on this board should also be reported or turn ourselves in for INTENTIONALLY placing a handgun in plain view in a public place.

[Beiruty]

Your ignoring the first part of his post. When you sell/purchase a firearm in a public place such as a parking lot, you are violating CHL and MPA laws as soon as you show the handgun. Many here on this board recommend EXACTLY such an action when selling a handgun (myself included). If you think this guy should be turned in for the act of removing the firearm from his backpack, then many of us on this board should also be reported or turn ourselves in for INTENTIONALLY placing a handgun in plain view in a public place.

We are recommending something like committing a crime in TX? Never mind we do it very often.

[boba]

Your ignoring the first part of his post. When you sell/purchase a firearm in a public place such as a parking lot, you are violating CHL and MPA laws as soon as you show the handgun. Many here on this board recommend EXACTLY such an action when selling a handgun (myself included). If you think this guy should be turned in for the act of removing the firearm from his backpack, then many of us on this board should also be reported or turn ourselves in for INTENTIONALLY placing a handgun in plain view in a public place.

If there's a LEGAL difference between the two, someone would be breaking the law if they inspected a gun and backed out of the sale because they didn't like the condition it was in.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

I guess I just find it odd that so many here want to give this guy a pass simply because he has a CHL. Yet, when someone comes on here and asks if they are eligible for a CHL because they have a Class A or B misdemeanor on their record you say no and cite the CHL eligibility requirements.

There are also a lot of people on here that condemn breaking the law and are always talking about how we can't do this or that because it is the law. Yet, when this guy breaks the law its ok because he has a CHL.

You are right I believe that he should be held accountable for his actions. I do not believe, as some do here, that we get to pick and choose who or when we apply laws.

This thread has more than run its course. The only argument for not holding him accountable and him losing his CHL is that it was an accident Clearly it was not. All I am seeing is hypocrisy because this guy has a CHL. It seems as though because one can obtain a CHL one can do no wrong in some people's eyes. I hate to tell y'all but that is not the case. He took the class. He took the training. He took the responsibility of carrying that gun and one of the many responsibilities of carrying a gun is knowing and following the laws. Which he clearly did not. But it's ok he has a CHL