Failure to Conceal?

[Longshot38]

A private property owner has every right to give someone permission to openly carry on his or her own property.

Please cite the law which says that.

Texas penal code Title 2, Chapter nine, subchapert D, Section 9.41-43

[longtooth]

Both Charles Cotton & Steve Rothstein have told you that you are incorrect.
Lawyer that has written most of the CC legislation for Texas & one of the most knowledgable LEOs on the board.

What are your cradentials for arguing as you do???

[Longshot38]

Both Charles Cotton & Steve Rothstein have told you that you are incorrect.
Lawyer that has written most of the CC legislation for Texas & one of the most knowledgable LEOs on the board.

What are your cradentials for arguing as you do???

Because I know the law also, and my argument is not about CC rather that property rights. Guess what guys it doesn't take an attorney to read what the law says, and I have read more then just CC laws.

[srothstein]

I do not want to be argumentative about this, but I do disagree with your interpretation of the law. The sections you referred to deal with the legal justification for using deadly force, not where you may carry a weapon. Sections 9.41 and 9.42 deal with protecting your own property, so they would not apply to this discussion. Section 9.43 does deal with using force and deadly force to protect a third person's property, so I can see how it might come into your thought process. But it does not cover violating other laws, such as showing a pistol to friends in their home. Since this would not be the use of force, Chapter 9 would not come into play.

My point on this is that many people feel what is right is not actually what the law says.

[RPB]

A private property owner has every right to give someone permission to openly carry on his or her own property.

Please cite the law which says that.

Texas penal code Title 2, Chapter nine, subchapert D, Section 9.41-43

That's PROTECTION OF PROPERTY (and special relationships)

not "granting permission" .... to open carry or commit other criminal offenses

Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or

(2) the actor reasonably believes that:

(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;

(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or

(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

[longtooth]

So you have absolutely no cradentials at all. You just know the law better than a lawyer & LEO w/ years of experience.

[apostate]

A private property owner has every right to give someone permission to openly carry on his or her own property.

Please cite the law which says that.

Texas penal code Title 2, Chapter nine, subchapert D, Section 9.41-43

That's "Protection of Property" and does not say what you claim it does. Would you care to try again?

[srothstein]

So, if I take my concealed handgun to the range that I don't own and is not under my control, I'm only a member of the club, I cannot pull out said concealed handgun and shoot at targets with it? Do I have to take it off my belt in the car and carry it to the shooting station to stay in compliance with the law?

No, this would be covered under a different exemption to the law. Section 46.15(b)(3) says that you can carry a gun openly while engaged ina normal sporting activity. Shooting at the range would meet that definition.

So your saying that a Police Officer who has a CHL is breaking the law when he is openly carrying his weapon? I don't think so.

I agree with you that he is not breaking the law. Section 46.035 specifies that you cannot fail to conceal the weapon if you are carrying under the authority of your CHL. Since he is carrying under the authority of his status as a peace officer, he can carry openly. I actually use this very scenario to show that you can choose which authority you are carrying under when more than one authority applies.

[Longshot38]

When a third party is acting under this law they are not acting under CC laws. Rather they are acting on my behalf on my property as if it were me and they have the same rights that I do in regards to this. Also the CC laws in this state only speak to handguns, nothing in the law says anything about concealing long guns. Which brings me back to my original point. I can hand out weapons to everyone adult that steps on my property and require that those weapons be carried in any fashion I wish. If those individuals don't like it they can leave or I can have them arrested for trespassing. But on the flip side I am liable for the acts committed with said weapons.

[RPB]

Longshot38

I do think I know what you are trying to do ... there may be a way to do it, ...but not the way you stated ...
consider this:

If you had LEASED the property to me, (a nickle a day?) rather than giving me power of attorney, then I'd acquire some property right in the property itself, such that it could be "property under my control" and with that it wouldn't be under a CHL anyway, so the lessee could open carry, as property under his control, even without a CHL

So rather than drafting a POA, you should have drafted a lease

Sec. 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

[longtooth]

No cradintials at all. You are quoting portions of the law that do not apply to anything you are arguing.
Both authorities on this board have tried to reason w/ you.
Go be the test case.
This one is locked.
You can appeal to Charles.
LT

[Charles L. Cotton]

When a third party is acting under this law they are not acting under CC laws. Rather they are acting on my behalf on my property as if it were me and they have the same rights that I do in regards to this. Also the CC laws in this state only speak to handguns, nothing in the law says anything about concealing long guns. Which brings me back to my original point. I can hand out weapons to everyone adult that steps on my property and require that those weapons be carried in any fashion I wish. If those individuals don't like it they can leave or I can have them arrested for trespassing. But on the flip side I am liable for the acts committed with said weapons.

Cite the code, statute or case law that says you can authorize a person to violate a section of the Penal Code, simply because they are in your home. You tried TPC §9.31 (self-defense with non-lethal force) and §9.32 (deadly force in self-defense) but as Steve pointed out, those do not have anything to do with telling a CHL it’s okay to intentionally fail to conceal their handgun. You are giving very poor advice to people reading this thread and I don’t want anyone to be mislead and have a legal problem because of it.

Attorney or not Charles is off course with his post. It is a legally accepted principal that any right I have on my property I can extend to my guest at my discretion.

Once again, site the code, statute or case law that supports this sweeping statement.

You can no more authorize someone to violate TPC §§46.02 or 46.035(a) than you can authorize them to commit murder, simply because they are in your home. As others have pointed out, TPC §46.02 prohibits having a handgun on or about your person anywhere in the state, except in your home, business (under your control), or car, or at sporting events where the handgun is commonly used. (There are a few others, but "your buddy's home" isn't one of them.) TPC §46.15(b) removes the restrictions set out in §46.02 for people holding valid CHL's, but it requires the handguns to be concealed. Since you do not have the authority to allow guests to violate TPC §46.02, your guests can legally carry handguns in your home only if they have a CHL. Just as you cannot authorize guests to violate TPC §46.02, you cannot authorize them to violate TPC §46.035(a).

You can authorize people to do anything in your home that is not otherwise illegal. For example, you can tell them they can smoke in your home, eat your food, or swim in your pool. But even though it's legal for you to spank your child, you cannot authorize a guest to do so because it violates Tex. Family code §151.001(e).

Chas.

[The Annoyed Man]

Charles, thank you for unlocking the thread, as I had a question related to this stuff. I have traded PMs with both longshot38 and srothstein about this as well.......

My question followed from statements made by both you and srothstein. As I recall, the law makes no differentiation between whether a concealed handgun is loaded or unloaded—only whether it is concealed or not, and whether or not the person carrying it has a CHL. I asked: if I, as a CHL holder, carry a cased up unloaded pistol into my gunsmith's store, set it on the counter, and open the case, am I guilty of intentional failure to conceal? After all, I have a CHL; the gun is concealed (in the case); and I am carrying it. And then, by extension, if I carry that same cased up unloaded handgun into longshot38's house to show off my new acquisition, set it on the coffee table, and open the case, am I guilty of intentional failure to conceal? After all, I have a CHL; the gun is concealed (in the case); and I am carrying it.

According to what srothstein told me (Steve feel free to correct me if I didn't get it right), in the first scenario, I am not guilty of intentional failure to conceal because taking a firearm to a gunsmith would be consistent with the "common sense sporting purpose" case law. However, taking my new gun to longhshot38's house and showing it off to him—even though I was manifestly not carrying it as a defensive weapon, it being unloaded and in a locked case—would be a case of intentional failure to conceal and therefore illegal for me as a CHL holder (but presumably not illegal for my neighbor who does not have a CHL).

My understanding of Steve's explanation is that the judge ruling on the "sporting use" exception wrote of "common sense" interpretations of the law. Also, isn't there a legal principle in play (I don't know what it would be called) which says something to the effect of: "wherever the law's meaning must be interpreted, it should always be interpreted in the most narrow and liberal fashion possible (in the sense of classical liberalism as opposed to modern leftism) so that it not be too broadly applied?" Was it seriously the legislature's intent that I should never be allowed to take my new gun over to longshot38's house to show it to him, when that very same thing is permitted to anybody who doesn't have a CHL and is otherwise lawfully permitted to be in possession of a handgun?

I ask these questions because one of the things that I admire greatly about the law in Texas is the use of terms like "reasonable" and "reasonably." The law assumes that a reasonable person would behave thus and so, and that they ought not be punished for behaving reasonably. So is the state legislature saying in effect that it is entirely unreasonable for two otherwise assumed to be reasonable people who share an interest in the "sporting use" of handguns to show one another the implements of their sport, in the privacy of one or the other's home, simply because one or both also happen to be holders of CHLs?

That makes no kind of sense to me, and if that was the legislative intent, then the legislature ought to be heartily ashamed of itself for trying to sell us a sow's ear as a silk purse.

We BADLY need Constitutional Carry in this state, if for no other reason than to decriminalize decent people who were artificially criminalized by a legislature which, to paraphrase the words of Susana Gratia Hupp, views us as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of, instead of viewing us as trustworthy and productive citizens.

Charles, of course I bear neither you nor Steve any ill will for telling the truth about the status quo, but I am baffled and disappointed if that is the status quo, and I would hope that you, in your unique position vis-a-vis the legislature and CHL in Texas have added things like this to your long list of corrective measures which need to be made to the law as it currently stands.

[Longshot38]

Charles your entire argument is bases on the CHL statute being all encompassing, which it is not. Like many other parts of the Penal code it has limited scope and in this case it does not over-ride my rights as a property owner. Case in point, I live a private road, which means if I want to take my truck and drive it up and down said road with an open container of beer I can do that. Why can I do this, the Penal Code make DUI and open container a criminal offense. Because said road is private property, thus LEO have no jurisdiction concerning the conduct of drivers on said road. Now if I were to enter a public roadway then it is a different story. The same applies to the application of the CHL statute. Its application does not apply to my property, if I wish for a firearm to openly displayed while in my home, it is my right.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Charles your entire argument is bases on the CHL statute being all encompassing, which it is not. Like many other parts of the Penal code it has limited scope and in this case it does not over-ride my rights as a property owner. Case in point, I live a private road, which means if I want to take my truck and drive it up and down said road with an open container of beer I can do that. Why can I do this, the Penal Code make DUI and open container a criminal offense. Because said road is private property, thus LEO have no jurisdiction concerning the conduct of drivers on said road. Now if I were to enter a public roadway then it is a different story. The same applies to the application of the CHL statute. Its application does not apply to my property, if I wish for a firearm to openly displayed while in my home, it is my right.

Does TPC §46.02 make it illegal for a non-CHL holder to carry a handgun into your home?

Chas.