30.06 is ok,but

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1

User avatar

sjfcontrol
Senior Member
Posts: 6235
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 7:14 am
Location: Flint, TX

Re: 30.06 is ok,but

Postby sjfcontrol » Mon May 16, 2011 3:08 pm

tbrown wrote:I agree with srothstein with one addition. A gunbuster sign applies to people who are not carrying under the authority of a CHL, unless they have some other 30.05 exemption like a peace officer. So if the business posts a gunbuster and a 30.06 sign, that prohibits MPA and CHL guns.


Under what authority (statute) does a "gunbuster" sign have ANY meaning, and where is such a sign defined?
Range Rule: "The front gate lock is not an acceptable target."
Never Forget. Image

User avatar

tbrown
Senior Member
Posts: 1554
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:47 pm

Re: 30.06 is ok,but

Postby tbrown » Mon May 16, 2011 3:18 pm

If a gunbuster sign wasn't 30.05 notice then we wouldn't need 30.06 in the first place.
sent to you from my safe space in the hill country


RPB
Banned
Posts: 8697
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: 30.06 is ok,but

Postby RPB » Mon May 16, 2011 3:21 pm

sjfcontrol wrote:
tbrown wrote:I agree with srothstein with one addition. A gunbuster sign applies to people who are not carrying under the authority of a CHL, unless they have some other 30.05 exemption like a peace officer. So if the business posts a gunbuster and a 30.06 sign, that prohibits MPA and CHL guns.


Under what authority (statute) does a "gunbuster" sign have ANY meaning, and where is such a sign defined?

It's in the attack chicken warning statute. (kidding)
Attachments
attackchicken.jpg
I'm no lawyer

"Never show your hole card" "Always have something in reserve"


Topic author
texaspilgrim
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 7:27 pm

Re: 30.06 is ok,but

Postby texaspilgrim » Mon May 16, 2011 10:44 pm

Thanks again, but after reading all the posts, I have a headache. I think I'll just have a drink and go lay down. ;-)


apostate
Senior Member
Posts: 2015
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 10:01 am
Location: Houston Texas

Re: 30.06 is ok,but

Postby apostate » Mon May 16, 2011 10:58 pm

texaspilgrim wrote:Thanks again, but after reading all the posts, I have a headache. I think I'll just have a drink and go lay down. ;-)

Okey-dokey. Just as long as you're not intoxicated. ;-)
I'm too old for this...

User avatar

MasterOfNone
Senior Member
Posts: 1276
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 12:00 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: 30.06 is ok,but

Postby MasterOfNone » Tue May 17, 2011 7:16 am

G.A. Heath wrote:The way I read TPC 46.15(b)(6) is that Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying. Meaning that the authority to carry the handgun in your vehicle as defined in 46.02(a)(2) as long as you don't meet any of the disqualifications in 46.02(a-1) does not apply seeing how you have your license and weapon on or about your person.

46.02 does not grant "authority to carry" in your vehicle. It only defines an offense to which being in your vehicle is an exception. So whether 46.02 applies (or even exists) or not, there is no prohibition to carrying in your vehicle, so there is nothing that requires the authority of your CHL either way.
http://www.PersonalPerimeter.com
DFW area LTC Instructor
NRA Pistol Instructor, Range Safety Officer, Recruiter


stash
Senior Member
Posts: 808
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:04 am
Location: Woodcreek

Re: 30.06 is ok,but

Postby stash » Tue May 17, 2011 8:24 am

After reading all this, let me see if I have this right. I can carry in my car under MPA and leave my CHL at home with no legal problem (as long as I am not a gang member, etc.) Should I be stopped on some traffic thing, I don't advise the officer I have a gun in the car (unless asked) even thou he/she will find out I have a CHL when he/she runs the DL. If this is correct, I learned something new today. I did not know I had the option to carry in vehicle under my CHL or MPA
TSRA
NRA
TFC
USMC 1961-1966

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts: 4013
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: 30.06 is ok,but

Postby ScottDLS » Tue May 17, 2011 8:29 am

stash wrote:After reading all this, let me see if I have this right. I can carry in my car under MPA and leave my CHL at home with no legal problem (as long as I am not a gang member, etc.) Should I be stopped on some traffic thing, I don't advise the officer I have a gun in the car (unless asked) even thou he/she will find out I have a CHL when he/she runs the DL. If this is correct, I learned something new today. I did not know I had the option to carry in vehicle under my CHL or MPA


That's the way I see it. Just like you could leave your CHL at home and carry a gun into the shooting range for target practice, intentionally fail to conceal it (at the range), and carry it out of the store and back home.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"

User avatar

mgood
Senior Member
Posts: 964
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:07 am
Location: Snyder, Texas
Contact:

Re: 30.06 is ok,but

Postby mgood » Tue May 17, 2011 8:37 am

stash wrote:I did not know I had the option to carry in vehicle under my CHL or MPA

Most discussions here seem to come to the conclusion that you may not pick and choose which one you want to carry under that day. They seem to indicate that if you have a CHL, that's the authority you're carrying under.

If that's the case, I'd say you're carrying under CHL until something prevents you from doing so, such as a 30.06 sign, wich affects only CHL. At that point you're carrying under MPA.
IANAL.

I do like the idea that since you do not need a CHL to carry in your vehicle, then you're not carrying under it's authority because you have the authority to carry without it. That seems logical to me. But I know laws and logic rarely go together. If this were really the case, you would not be required to show your CHL to a LEO when you're in your vehicle. There's no longer any penalty for not doing so, and the reason for that is probably related to this, but you're still required to show it.


speedsix
Senior Member
Posts: 5608
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:39 am

Re: 30.06 is ok,but

Postby speedsix » Tue May 17, 2011 8:40 am

...I'm carrying under the CHL when I'm out walking around, but just because I took the class and bought the license, I'm still a citizen, and MPA covers me, too...I didn't trade any rights for my license...so if my mother would be good under MPA, so am I...we're required to show our CHL to a LEO while in our car IF we're carrying it on our person...not if it's concealed in the car...I'm one who believes we will benefit to show it anytime we're asked for ID even if our gun's at home, but for this discussion, I believe that's correct...

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts: 16696
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: 30.06 is ok,but

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Tue May 17, 2011 9:06 am

srothstein wrote:TAM, the problem is that section 30.06 does not use the word premises, but bars you from carrying on the property posted. So, it is legally possible to post a parking lot and prohibit carry there.

But, and I have posted this before, my opinion is that ti has no effect on someone in a car. The wording of 30.06 only applies to you when you are carrying under the authority of your CHL. I don't see carrying in your car as being under the authority of your CHL since ti is part of 46.02 that it is not illegal to carry in your car. The MPA made it one of the elements of the offense of unlawfully carrying to not be in a car you own or control. Since it is not illegal, and the CHL is an exception (or defense to prosecution) allowing carry when it is illegal, I don't see carrying in your car to be under the authority of your CHL.

There are people on the board who disagree with me on this subject. I am unaware of any court cases that would rule on this matter, so I may be wrong. As a general rule, I do not advise people to be a test case for any law. But in a case like the OP's, I would consider carrying it in the car if he had other business to go to that day. Pointing out that he is clearly not respecting the property owner's wishes, I don't think it is illegal and this might be one of the times where concealed means concealed is a better answer. Of course, parking outside the property would probably be the much better answer, to avoid any question of legal or ethical issues.


Steve is absolutely correct, the DPS page notwithstanding. Tex. Penal Code §30.06 could not be more clear; a 30.06 sign applies only to a person who "carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code . . ." Merely possessing a CHL does not mean you are carrying under the authority of it. That occurs only when you are in a location where carrying a handgun would be illegal, if you didn't have a CHL.

As pointed out, the DPS webpage quoted is very old; it goes back to the days before the CHL statute was codified into the Government Code. The Motorist Protection Act (HB1815 - 2007) changed the law such that it is not illegal to have a handgun in your car without a CHL. Therefore, it changed the law concerning the impact of a 30.06 sign on parking lots. If you get out of your car with your gun on, now you have violated TPC §30.06.

As an aside, the case law is clear, a handgun locked in the trunk of your car is not "on or about your person," so even if the law had not changed in 2007, one still would not violate TPC §30.06 by driving into a parking lot with a gun in the trunk.

Chas.

Tex. Penal Code §30.06 wrote:Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:

(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
Image

User avatar

4copas
Senior Member
Posts: 254
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:28 am
Location: Lake Dallas

Re: 30.06 is ok,but

Postby 4copas » Tue May 17, 2011 9:17 am

ScottDLS wrote:
stash wrote:After reading all this, let me see if I have this right. I can carry in my car under MPA and leave my CHL at home with no legal problem (as long as I am not a gang member, etc.) Should I be stopped on some traffic thing, I don't advise the officer I have a gun in the car (unless asked) even thou he/she will find out I have a CHL when he/she runs the DL. If this is correct, I learned something new today. I did not know I had the option to carry in vehicle under my CHL or MPA


That's the way I see it. Just like you could leave your CHL at home and carry a gun into the shooting range for target practice, intentionally fail to conceal it (at the range), and carry it out of the store and back home.


Just remember that MPA does not cover you in a school zone. I believe with in 1000ft of school, not sure, but you are breaking federal law with out a chl.
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday. John Wayne
NRA Life Member :patriot: :txflag:

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts: 4013
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: 30.06 is ok,but

Postby ScottDLS » Tue May 17, 2011 9:19 am

speedsix wrote:...I'm carrying under the CHL when I'm out walking around, but just because I took the class and bought the license, I'm still a citizen, and MPA covers me, too...I didn't trade any rights for my license...so if my mother would be good under MPA, so am I...we're required to show our CHL to a LEO while in our car IF we're carrying it on our person...not if it's concealed in the car...I'm one who believes we will benefit to show it anytime we're asked for ID even if our gun's at home, but for this discussion, I believe that's correct...


If it's concealed in the car within reach, it's considered "on or about your person" and you still must show your CHL....even if you're not carrying under its authority...but there is no penalty for not doing so.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts: 16696
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: 30.06 is ok,but

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Tue May 17, 2011 10:50 am

ScottDLS wrote:
speedsix wrote:...I'm carrying under the CHL when I'm out walking around, but just because I took the class and bought the license, I'm still a citizen, and MPA covers me, too...I didn't trade any rights for my license...so if my mother would be good under MPA, so am I...we're required to show our CHL to a LEO while in our car IF we're carrying it on our person...not if it's concealed in the car...I'm one who believes we will benefit to show it anytime we're asked for ID even if our gun's at home, but for this discussion, I believe that's correct...


If it's concealed in the car within reach, it's considered "on or about your person" and you still must show your CHL....even if you're not carrying under its authority...but there is no penalty for not doing so.


Correct on both points. Case law holds that a firearm in the passenger compartment of a car is "on or about your person." Since TPC §46.02 was amended (Motorist Protection Act) and it's no longer illegal to have a handgun in your car, this doesn't have criminal implications, aside from the federal gun free school zone law.

However, also as Scott pointed out, Tex. Gov't Code §411.205 requires all CHL's to display their CHL when asked for identification by a LEO (or magistrate), if you are carrying a handgun. This duty applies whether or not you are carrying under the authority of your CHL.

Chas.

Tex. Gov't Code §411.205 wrote:Sec. 411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. 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.
Image


speedsix
Senior Member
Posts: 5608
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:39 am

Re: 30.06 is ok,but

Postby speedsix » Tue May 17, 2011 12:57 pm

...thanks, hadn't seen the "on or about one's person" explained in the law to include in the passenger compartment...knew it covered purses, briefcases, backpacks...


Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 12 guests