TexasCHLforum.com

Doug.38PR wrote:How do you define who is a gangmember?

That's a complicated question. The Supreme Court has ruled on it several times. Not being a police officer, I don't know the criteria.

I will sometimes see the phrase "subject was known to the police," meaning that the goon had been arrested a bunch of times.

- Jim

For the first year or so I went out every morning expecting to see part of an arm hanging over the fence. It didn't happen, and that was over ten years ago. We haven't had another break-in. I guess crooks are only so dumb.

- Jim

numist wrote:A while back I was at work overnight and was privileged to encounter and hold a guy that had climbed over our 6' iron fence that surrounds the property (locked gates and all). He had a nice empty duffle bag and a couple of screwdrivers on him as he was looking into all the cars.
When Dallas police arrived, they scratched their heads then had to call a sgt. who said that they couldn't charge him with trespass unless their were "no trespassing" signs posted.

I got a similar piece of advice from a police officer when I had a garage break-in. She said the judge would let trespassers off unless there were "no trespassing" signs. Needless to say, there are now. Also nails on the top of the wooden fence.

- Jim

You're welcome.

We haven't heard much about this law since it went into effect, except for some police officials complaining that they can't arrest criminals caught with handguns in their vehicles (which is not true). I think some people are going to get in trouble with it, sooner or later.

- Jim

The law does not limit you to one handgun in a vehicle (with or without a CHL). However, only the owner, lessee, renter or driver of the vehicle may have a handgun.

If the handgun is not in a holster on someone's body, it is effectively "on or about the person" of everyone in the vehicle. Therefore, if you have multiple people and multiple handguns in a vehicle, it is conceivable that those who are not drivers or owners could be charged with UCW.

I could see this happening, for example, if a bunch of kids were driving around with multiple handguns loose in the vehicle.

- Jim
[Edited to correct lessor => lessee.]

Try this.

It's a really complicated case. I don't have time to figure it out this morning.

[Later]This case is not relevant to the discussion of lying to an officer.

The issue in this case was as follows: A woman called the police and complained that her live-in boyfriend hit her. In the boyfriend's trial, a police officer testified about what the woman said. She did not testify. The boyfriend was convicted.

As I understand it, the appeals court ruled that the defendant should have had the right to confront the witnesses against him, and the prosecution's case should not have relied on hearsay evidence.

- Jim

Prosecution for making false statements is generally a last resort when prosecutors know a defendant has done something wrong, but can't prove the more serious offense.

I doubt it would be prosecuted if there was no other serious offense involved.

- Jim

HKUSP45C wrote:I don't think it's actually against the law to lie to a cop. Could you please point me to the relevant statute?

Certainly.

PC § 37.08. FALSE REPORT TO PEACE OFFICER OR LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE.
(a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to deceive, he knowingly makes a false statement that is material to a criminal investigation and makes the statement to:
(1) a peace officer conducting the investigation; or
(2) any employee of a law enforcement agency that is authorized by the agency to conduct the investigation and that the actor knows is conducting the investigation.

As to why this offense is not prosecuted, I'm not sure. It's difficult to prove in court that someone knowingly made a false statement. It's difficult to offer evidence of someone's mental state (knowledge or intentionality).

However, Martha Stewart is an example of this type of offense being prosecuted as a federal felony. It is prosecuted at the state level when people report theft that did not occur with the intention of getting an insurance claim.

As a more general principle, in Texas, only the most serious crime is prosecuted. For example, a murderer is prosecuted for murder, not for all the lesser offenses that led up to the murder, such as assault and deadly conduct.

- Jim

RetiredE9 wrote:So if I don't have my CHL with my gun in the glove box I can get into trouble but if my wife, who doesn't have a CHL, is driving she's legal?

Yes. The CHL law, written in 1995, requires CHL holders to present their license upon request.

H.B. 1815 does not require non-CHL citizens who possess a handgun to inform an officer (though it is illegal to lie to an officer).

I think this difference ocurred because the attitudes of police have changed.

Every time a state legislator proposes a new law allowing citizens to carry, certain police officials (usually big-city police chiefs) loudly predict that armed motorists will endanger the lives of police officers. That's why many states have requirements similar to Texas for their licensees.

When H.B. 1815 passed, I don't recall any police complaining about it.

- Jim

RetiredE9 wrote:So if I'm carrying my weapon and realized that I don't have my license I can conceal my weapon anywhere in the car and be legal?

If I get stopped and the officer asks me if I have a weapon I can say yes but not on my person and still be within the letter of the law?

I think not.

GC §411.205. DISPLAYING LICENSE; PENALTY. (a) If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license.

I interpret this as requiring you to have your CHL whenever you possess a handgun, and display it when asked by a peace officer.

However, at least one LEO who is a forum member said he would give a pass to a citizen who had forgotten his wallet. The police can look up your driver license information and confirm that you have a CHL.

Anywhere within reach inside your vehicle is "on or about your person," unless it is under control of another person.

There have been interesting and conflicting cases in this area, where everyone in the car was found guilty, or all were acquitted.

- Jim

"Castle doctrine" is a political bumper sticker, even if it is used by the good guys.

We had two completely separate bills passed into law this year:

• S.B. 378 removed any suggestion of a duty to retreat in any place where you have a right to be.
• H.B. 1815 made it legal for anyone to carry a concealed handgun in their vehicle. There are some "ifs and ands" which you can look up.

These laws modified different sections of the penal code, Chapter 9 and Article 46.02.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=SB378
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... ill=HB1815

- Jim

You are correct. Anyone who is not a gang member and who can legally possess firearms can have a concealed handgun in a vehicle.

But IMO, if you have a CHL, you must have the CHL with you and present it if asked for identification by a peace officer.

- Jim