CHL and Vehicle?

[speedsix]

...the law says "...if a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person..."...the answer is no...there is no need to provide the CHL...and, given the info in the OP...the officer has no reason to search the car...or even know where it is...

Speedsix, is there any difference between "on" and "about" one's person?

Just askin'.

Jim

I've always believed that "on or about" means "within easy reach". You might be able to stretch that to "across the room on the nightstand".... but... "A half mile away in a locked car in the parking lot" is well outside my definition of "about"..... unless I have a guilty conscience

Here's another example....
I am inside a school, talking to my kids teacher. My gun is locked in my car in the parking lot. If for some reason I have an encounter with the police while I'm still inside the building and I am asked for ID, I do not have to provide CHL since the gun is not "on or about" my person. If I am standing next to the still-locked car in the parking lot, I would provide CHL, even though the gun, IMO, is still not "on or about" if it's in the locked car. I'll err on the side of disclosure in that case, unless there is some circumstance where it would be imprudent for me to do so.

IMO, IANAL.

...without diggin' it up..."within easy reach" 'bout covers it...I used to think in the car you could claim MPA...but the Boss said if we HAVE a CHL...that's what we're under in our car...and so, if we have a handgun in the interior of the car, we should give up our CHL with our DL if asked for ID...now, if I had 4 in the car and only one was loaded...that'd be the one he'd "hold" for me if he felt like he needed to disarm me...I'd just keep hush about the rest of them...and deny the search request...I think that would show compliance on my part...if they were all loaded...well, I'd give him notice of all 4...

[speedsix]

...the law says "...if a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person..."...the answer is no...there is no need to provide the CHL...and, given the info in the OP...the officer has no reason to search the car...or even know where it is...

Speedsix, is there any difference between "on" and "about" one's person?

Just askin'.

Jim

I've always believed that "on or about" means "within easy reach". You might be able to stretch that to "across the room on the nightstand".... but... "A half mile away in a locked car in the parking lot" is well outside my definition of "about"..... unless I have a guilty conscience

Here's another example....
I am inside a school, talking to my kids teacher. My gun is locked in my car in the parking lot. If for some reason I have an encounter with the police while I'm still inside the building and I am asked for ID, I do not have to provide CHL since the gun is not "on or about" my person. If I am standing next to the still-locked car in the parking lot, I would provide CHL, even though the gun, IMO, is still not "on or about" if it's in the locked car. I'll err on the side of disclosure in that case, unless there is some circumstance where it would be imprudent for me to do so.

IMO, IANAL.

...I wouldn't mind disclosing my CHL...but if you weren't IN the car...you're not required to by law...it's just not that big a deal to me to show the CHL...but if I'm not in the car and it's locked...he has no reason to "hold" it for his perceived safety...it's not in reach...not in play, and it'd take a search warrant or arrest to give him rights into the car...

[Dan20703]

So.... in this scenario. The LEO asks for your ID when you are walking around (not obviously drunk, but probably not ok to drive), runs it, and says "i see you have a CHL. Are you carrying? " to which you say "I am not.

This would be my version of the conversation.

[speedsix]

...no, Sir...just standin' here waitin' for my ride...

[smoothoperator]

So.... in this scenario. The LEO asks for your ID when you are walking around (not obviously drunk, but probably not ok to drive), runs it, and says "i see you have a CHL. Are you carrying? " to which you say "I am not, but I have it in the car (clearly,volunteering that you have it in the car may be a mistake). We've decided to cab it home though tonight."

We can imagine all kinds of scenarios where you create problems for yourself and then ask for advice to solve them, but I think it's easier to not create the problems in the first place. In the situation you described, you're not required to show your ID. You're not even required to carry it.

[Heartland Patriot]

The simple answer to the original question is no. We can make up scenarios all day long but if you are not in or about your vehicle then the officer has no probable cause of search your vehicle and you DO NOT have to consent to a search. And personally I would not. We do not live in a police state and you did not give up your rights when you got your CHL (rather you exercised them). Thus if a Police Officer wishes to search any of my property he will require a warrant it is that simple.

On the topic of the alcohol related scenarios. Again, if you are not in or about your vehicle the officers does not have probable cause to search it. And I would not allow him to do so. Also he has no reason to "disarm" you or seize you weapon without you consent. And there is no way I'd let that happen without a court order. Alcohol or not you still have certain right and the constitution still protects you.

Really? Have you been on an airplane lately? After my last encounter trying to pick-up my grandkids at Ft. Hood I'll take exception to your statement.

Yeah, but that's "the Feds", not LEOs in OUR state...personal opinion only, of course, and it shouldn't be this way, but two different sets of rules seem to apply.

[RSJ]

The simple answer to the original question is no. We can make up scenarios all day long but if you are not in or about your vehicle then the officer has no probable cause of search your vehicle and you DO NOT have to consent to a search. And personally I would not. We do not live in a police state and you did not give up your rights when you got your CHL (rather you exercised them). Thus if a Police Officer wishes to search any of my property he will require a warrant it is that simple.

On the topic of the alcohol related scenarios. Again, if you are not in or about your vehicle the officers does not have probable cause to search it. And I would not allow him to do so. Also he has no reason to "disarm" you or seize you weapon without you consent. And there is no way I'd let that happen without a court order. Alcohol or not you still have certain right and the constitution still protects you.

Really? Have you been on an airplane lately? After my last encounter trying to pick-up my grandkids at Ft. Hood I'll take exception to your statement.

Yeah, but that's "the Feds", not LEOs in OUR state...personal opinion only, of course, and it shouldn't be this way, but two different sets of rules seem to apply.

and airports are voluntary consent, you have the right NOT to fly or to leave

[57Coastie]

...and airports are voluntary consent, you have the right NOT to fly or to leave

If you are indeed a lawyer in the making, RSJ, you may be privileged to observe first hand the consideration of a significant question of Constitutional Law and Federal/State relations.

Yours is the same legal argument the State of Texas makes with respect to requiring ladies desiring an abortion to arguably be raped by a physician. Yes, having an instrument of any kind inserted into her vagina without her consent is now considered by the FBI to be rape:

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/sto ... 52398350/1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I suspect this issue about whether the lady's consent is truly voluntary will be addressed by the courts during your lifetime, if not mine.

Jim

[jmra]

I can envision an interesting scenario though.... One thing I love about this forum is the scenario creation we all are capable of... ;)

You go out with a bunch of guys (say 6th street area here in Austin). You are carrying when you leave your house, but knowing that many of the places on 6th street are 51% places you leave it in the car when you get there. You have no intention of drinking, but at some point you decide to have more than a few. The plan at that point is "guys, we're just going to cab it home, and i'll come and get my car tomorrow."

So.... in this scenario. The LEO asks for your ID when you are walking around (not obviously drunk, but probably not ok to drive), runs it, and says "i see you have a CHL. Are you carrying? " to which you say "I am not, but I have it in the car (clearly,volunteering that you have it in the car may be a mistake). We've decided to cab it home though tonight."

What would be the likely responses? The LEO may or may not believe you'll cab it home. Would be justified in asking to go to your car and disarming you? Would he congratulate you on a good decision? ;)

I've never done the above, but I think its a realistic scenario.

I understand you are trying to create a scenario that supports the question you are wanting to ask, but really? What kind of moron is going to put himself in a position of having to leave his car with his firearm in a parking lot overnight just so he can "enjoy" a few beers? As far as I'm concerned that betrays the very concept of why most people get their CHL in the first place.

[Jumping Frog]

Yours is the same legal argument the State of Texas makes with respect to requiring ladies desiring an abortion to arguably be raped by a physician. Yes, having an instrument of any kind inserted into her vagina without her consent is now considered by the FBI to be rape:

Alright, I can't let this go without question. What are you talking about? I know the 2011 law requires an ultrasound, but what does that have to do with your statement?

[RSJ]

...and airports are voluntary consent, you have the right NOT to fly or to leave

If you are indeed a lawyer in the making, RSJ, you may be privileged to observe first hand the consideration of a significant question of Constitutional Law and Federal/State relations.

Yours is the same legal argument the State of Texas makes with respect to requiring ladies desiring an abortion to arguably be raped by a physician. Yes, having an instrument of any kind inserted into her vagina without her consent is now considered by the FBI to be rape:

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/sto ... 52398350/1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I suspect this issue about whether the lady's consent is truly voluntary will be addressed by the courts during your lifetime, if not mine.

Jim

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1590582.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
^ it is in every criminal procedure textbook and constantly being (unsuccessfully) tested. IMHO wanting to fly and going to the airport isn't a right. You being there in line is purely voluntary. I see a difference between that and the "...State of Texas makes with respect to requiring ladies desiring an... ", a litigious issue that IMHO is a state mandate violating privacy.

[jeffrw]

From CHL/weapon-in-your-vehicle question, to airport security measures, to abortion ultrasound laws...

I think this thread may have veered off-topic.

[steveincowtown]

...and airports are voluntary consent, you have the right NOT to fly or to leave

If you are indeed a lawyer in the making, RSJ, you may be privileged to observe first hand the consideration of a significant question of Constitutional Law and Federal/State relations.

Yours is the same legal argument the State of Texas makes with respect to requiring ladies desiring an abortion to arguably be raped by a physician. Yes, having an instrument of any kind inserted into her vagina without her consent is now considered by the FBI to be rape:

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/sto ... 52398350/1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I suspect this issue about whether the lady's consent is truly voluntary will be addressed by the courts during your lifetime, if not mine.

Jim

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1590582.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
^ it is in every criminal procedure textbook and constantly being (unsuccessfully) tested. IMHO wanting to fly and going to the airport isn't a right. You being there in line is purely voluntary. I see a difference between that and the "...State of Texas makes with respect to requiring ladies desiring an... ", a litigious issue that IMHO is a state mandate violating privacy.

The right to travel and freedom of movement is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Using your logic that flying is "voluntary" and therefore can be regulated, then the Federal government should be able to regulate everything down to the shoes on your feet.

...wait a second, they already do.

[RottenApple]

The right to travel and freedom of movement is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Using your logic that flying is "voluntary" and therefore can be regulated, then the Federal government should be able to regulate everything down to the shoes on your feet.

...wait a second, they already do.

You have the right to travel. You do not have the right to travel using just any method you wish.

Airlines are (for the most part) private corporations and can restrict their services to those whom they choose. For "safety" (ok, really it's the ILLUSION of safety) reasons, the government has placed certain requirements on air travel. If you don't like those requirements, you have other options. You can drive, take a bus, walk, or even buy your own plane. The government has not abridged your freedom to move about.

...at least not yet.

[C-dub]

I can envision an interesting scenario though.... One thing I love about this forum is the scenario creation we all are capable of... ;)

You go out with a bunch of guys (say 6th street area here in Austin). You are carrying when you leave your house, but knowing that many of the places on 6th street are 51% places you leave it in the car when you get there. You have no intention of drinking, but at some point you decide to have more than a few. The plan at that point is "guys, we're just going to cab it home, and i'll come and get my car tomorrow."

So.... in this scenario. The LEO asks for your ID when you are walking around (not obviously drunk, but probably not ok to drive), runs it, and says "i see you have a CHL. Are you carrying? " to which you say "I am not, but I have it in the car (clearly,volunteering that you have it in the car may be a mistake). We've decided to cab it home though tonight."

What would be the likely responses? The LEO may or may not believe you'll cab it home. Would be justified in asking to go to your car and disarming you? Would he congratulate you on a good decision? ;)

I've never done the above, but I think its a realistic scenario.

I understand you are trying to create a scenario that supports the question you are wanting to ask, but really? What kind of moron is going to put himself in a position of having to leave his car with his firearm in a parking lot overnight just so he can "enjoy" a few beers? As far as I'm concerned that betrays the very concept of why most people get their CHL in the first place.

A drunk moron.