30.06 is ok,but

[sjfcontrol]

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?

[tbrown]

If a gunbuster sign wasn't 30.05 notice then we wouldn't need 30.06 in the first place.

[RPB]

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)

[texaspilgrim]

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]

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.

[MasterOfNone]

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.

[stash]

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

[ScottDLS]

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.

[mgood]

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]

...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...

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

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

[4copas]

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.

[ScottDLS]

...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.

[Charles L. Cotton]

...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.

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.

[speedsix]

...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...