Search found 3 matches

by Flatland2D
Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:40 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: HB1815 vs. 30.06 question
Replies: 18
Views: 898

Re: HB1815 vs. 30.06 question

aardwolf wrote:30.05 applies to someone without a CHL.
That's what I'm looking for. I knew 30.05 says that the reason for trespass cannot be because of the handgun, but I forgot it also ties that to being a CHL.

Code: Select all

(f)  It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:                   
		(1)  the basis on which entry on the property or land or 
in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was 
forbidden;  and
		(2)  the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a 
license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to 
carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was 
carrying.
by Flatland2D
Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:38 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: HB1815 vs. 30.06 question
Replies: 18
Views: 898

Re: HB1815 vs. 30.06 question

Don't get me wrong, I know someone in this situation would most assuredly be fired and it's no risk I'm willing to take, but I'm wondering the boundaries of car carry vs. unlawful carry by CHL.
by Flatland2D
Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:23 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: HB1815 vs. 30.06 question
Replies: 18
Views: 898

HB1815 vs. 30.06 question

I don't know if this has been addressed before, so I hope this may still be relevant.

My employer verbally told me I can't carry at work. I assume 30.06 would mean that I can't carry at all on the property (including my car).

Now consider another employee, not licensed to carry and thus 30.06 does not apply to them.

HB1815 doesn't say anything about oral communication prohibiting carry. Could this person carry to work and leave their gun in their car? I'm a little rusty on my weapons and carry laws.

Return to “HB1815 vs. 30.06 question”