TexasCHLforum.com

seamusTX wrote:That is an interesting twist.

The nagging question in my mind is how the police would handle a call from a private property owner who wants to file a charge against someone who was found to have a weapon there.

- Jim

I agree, plus TPC §30.05 makes the CHL holder issue a defense to prosecution, so an arrest could well be made and the CHL has to prove it in court. As a practical matter however, as long as the CHL doesn't refuse to leave the property, most LEOs aren't going to make the arrest. Most agencies will have the officer instruct the landowner to tell the person to leave in the LEO's presence. If they refuse to leave, they get arrested. If they do leave, many agencies will have their officers issue a "trespass warning" and that is logged into their system for some period of time so that future violations will result in an arrest.

Chas.

mr.72 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Rather interesting little twist, isn't it?

Indeed it is. However, it is not surprising, in light of the rest of the law regarding carrying handguns. Does the whole Texas Penal Code have these wacky loops and twists?

There are some, but not as many as one might believe. Someone in Austin mentioned that it's time to do a complete rewrite of the Texas Penal Code to get everything in it's proper place. For example, combining the "off-limits" areas of hospitals, nursing homes, churches and meetings of governmental agencies, with the provision that this applies only if notice is given per TPC §30.06. I about swallowed my tongue and told him, if we do that, we'll lose the sign requirement!

Rewriting codes is a very difficult job, simply because it is a massive undertaking. But it also brings many things into focus and often is little fuzziness is better.

Chas.

If any verbal statement is made to the effect that guns aren't allowed on the property, then that's sufficient notice to a CHL for purposes of TPC §30.06 and it is sufficient notice to a non-CHL for purposes of TPC §30.05.

Now comes a rather interesting distinction. As we know, only TPC §30.06 can be used to prosecute a CHL for trespass, if the sole reason for exclusion is the fact that the CHL has a handgun. If the handgun is stored in the truck of your car before driving onto the property, then you aren't carrying a handgun "on or about your person." The CHL could be fired, but not prosecuted under TPC §30.06. They can't be prosecuted under TPC §30.05, because it doesn't apply to a CHL, if the reason for exclusion is the fact that the CHL has a handgun. Rather interesting little twist, isn't it?

Chas.