Open carry: negative ramifications

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1


Topic author
SlowDave
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 6:51 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

Re: Open carry: negative ramifications

#31

Post by SlowDave » Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:32 pm

ScottDLS wrote:
A licensee carrying a gun in his car is not carrying "under the authority" of his LTC, therefore 30.06 does not apply, as it does not apply to a non-licensee. The 30.06 statute is very specific that offense occurs while carrying "under the authority" of LTC. And even 30.05 has a defense for a person who HAS a LTC and is being excluded for carrying a handgun.
How do you know that the CHL is not carrying under the authority of his license? Is it a settled issue that the carrier can "decide" under which authority he is carrying? I always thought this was a gray area.

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 4615
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: Open carry: negative ramifications

#32

Post by ScottDLS » Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:55 pm

SlowDave wrote:
ScottDLS wrote:
A licensee carrying a gun in his car is not carrying "under the authority" of his LTC, therefore 30.06 does not apply, as it does not apply to a non-licensee. The 30.06 statute is very specific that offense occurs while carrying "under the authority" of LTC. And even 30.05 has a defense for a person who HAS a LTC and is being excluded for carrying a handgun.
How do you know that the CHL is not carrying under the authority of his license? Is it a settled issue that the carrier can "decide" under which authority he is carrying? I always thought this was a gray area.
If it wasn't... then cops carrying on-duty who happened to have a LTC could be charged under 46.035 for carrying at sporting events, in bars, and before Jan 1...open carrying. If you had a CHL before Jan. 1, you could have been charged with open carrying on your own property under 46.035...etc.

If you don't NEED the authority of your LTC to carry legally, then you are not carrying under its authority. I suppose if you really wanted to make sure, you could lock your LTC in your trunk while carrying under MPA, then you couldn't be carrying under its authority because you don't have it on you...
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!!!!"


Topic author
SlowDave
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 6:51 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

Re: Open carry: negative ramifications

#33

Post by SlowDave » Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:25 am

ScottDLS wrote:
SlowDave wrote:
ScottDLS wrote:
A licensee carrying a gun in his car is not carrying "under the authority" of his LTC, therefore 30.06 does not apply, as it does not apply to a non-licensee. The 30.06 statute is very specific that offense occurs while carrying "under the authority" of LTC. And even 30.05 has a defense for a person who HAS a LTC and is being excluded for carrying a handgun.
How do you know that the CHL is not carrying under the authority of his license? Is it a settled issue that the carrier can "decide" under which authority he is carrying? I always thought this was a gray area.
If it wasn't... then cops carrying on-duty who happened to have a LTC could be charged under 46.035 for carrying at sporting events, in bars, and before Jan 1...open carrying. If you had a CHL before Jan. 1, you could have been charged with open carrying on your own property under 46.035...etc.

If you don't NEED the authority of your LTC to carry legally, then you are not carrying under its authority. I suppose if you really wanted to make sure, you could lock your LTC in your trunk while carrying under MPA, then you couldn't be carrying under its authority because you don't have it on you...
I respectfully disagree. Well, maybe not disagree, but don't believe you've answered the question. When either the CHL/LTC or MPA would cover your actions, I don't see how it is prescribed which authority you're carrying under. I can *hope* that I'm carrying under the MPA rather than CHL/LTC, but I don't know how that would come down in a court of law. And the location of your card is irrelevant, other than if an authority decides that HE/SHE believes you were carrying under the CHL/LTC rather than the MPA and you don't have your card on you, you might get introduced to our legal system.

The policeman situation is different. Since the CHL/LTC would not cover his actions, it is very clear that he is not carrying under it's authority.

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 4615
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: Open carry: negative ramifications

#34

Post by ScottDLS » Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:10 am

SlowDave wrote:
ScottDLS wrote:
SlowDave wrote:
ScottDLS wrote:
A licensee carrying a gun in his car is not carrying "under the authority" of his LTC, therefore 30.06 does not apply, as it does not apply to a non-licensee. The 30.06 statute is very specific that offense occurs while carrying "under the authority" of LTC. And even 30.05 has a defense for a person who HAS a LTC and is being excluded for carrying a handgun.
How do you know that the CHL is not carrying under the authority of his license? Is it a settled issue that the carrier can "decide" under which authority he is carrying? I always thought this was a gray area.
If it wasn't... then cops carrying on-duty who happened to have a LTC could be charged under 46.035 for carrying at sporting events, in bars, and before Jan 1...open carrying. If you had a CHL before Jan. 1, you could have been charged with open carrying on your own property under 46.035...etc.

If you don't NEED the authority of your LTC to carry legally, then you are not carrying under its authority. I suppose if you really wanted to make sure, you could lock your LTC in your trunk while carrying under MPA, then you couldn't be carrying under its authority because you don't have it on you...
I respectfully disagree. Well, maybe not disagree, but don't believe you've answered the question. When either the CHL/LTC or MPA would cover your actions, I don't see how it is prescribed which authority you're carrying under. I can *hope* that I'm carrying under the MPA rather than CHL/LTC, but I don't know how that would come down in a court of law. And the location of your card is irrelevant, other than if an authority decides that HE/SHE believes you were carrying under the CHL/LTC rather than the MPA and you don't have your card on you, you might get introduced to our legal system.

The policeman situation is different. Since the CHL/LTC would not cover his actions, it is very clear that he is not carrying under it's authority.
It simply does not make sense that the legislature would make it legal to carry for a non-LTC, but not a LTC holder. Why is the phrase "carrying under authority of LTC" included in 46.035 and 30.06/7 at all?

If you were caught carrying under MPA without your license on you, what would you be charged with? 46.02 is not applicable to MPA carry if you meet the requirements, whether you have LTC or not. There is no 46.035 violation for carrying in car, unlike a cop at a sporting event.

In the case of the cop, how does he get to "decide" that he is carrying on-duty in a bar or sporting event "not under the authority" of his LTC? Unlike MPA this is prohibited to a LTC in 43.035. How is an off-duty or on-duty cop WITH A LTC exempt from 30.06...? They are.
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!!!!"


srothstein
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 4147
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

Re: Open carry: negative ramifications

#35

Post by srothstein » Fri Jan 08, 2016 11:52 pm

SlowDave wrote:I respectfully disagree. Well, maybe not disagree, but don't believe you've answered the question. When either the CHL/LTC or MPA would cover your actions, I don't see how it is prescribed which authority you're carrying under. I can *hope* that I'm carrying under the MPA rather than CHL/LTC, but I don't know how that would come down in a court of law. And the location of your card is irrelevant, other than if an authority decides that HE/SHE believes you were carrying under the CHL/LTC rather than the MPA and you don't have your card on you, you might get introduced to our legal system.

The policeman situation is different. Since the CHL/LTC would not cover his actions, it is very clear that he is not carrying under it's authority.
The trick to understanding what authority you are carrying under is to look at how the law is worded. If the act you are performing is not an illegal act, you do not need any authority to do it. So, a person carrying a pistol in his own house can do it any way he wants and needs no permit or other legal authority to do so. This is because the law says it is illegal to carry on premises other than your own (well, the a slightly more precise wording of the offense is it is illegal to carry off your own premises). In the case of being in your car, note that section 46.02 makes it an element of the offense that you are not in your car, or if in your car it is not concealed or you are committing another crime, etc. This means a person is not breaking the law and he needs no special authority or permission to do what he is doing.

Now, the second you step out of the car, you are on someone else' property and need some legal authority to carry a gun. This authority is required because you would be breaking the law otherwise.

So, when a parking lot is posted, it means that you can still carry in your car because the sign applies only to those carrying under the authority of an LTC.
Steve Rothstein


tiger1279
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 6:09 pm
Location: Houston, Tx.

Re: Open carry: negative ramifications

#36

Post by tiger1279 » Sun Jan 10, 2016 6:44 am

jed wrote:
C-dub wrote: ...The public is receiving much more education about the laws this go around and due to OC are paying far more attention...
This was my biggest issue with OC. In the coming weeks or months we will see 30.06 signs popping up at places that may not even had a gunbuster sign before. I have no dog in the 30.07 fight, for I will not be OCing. But thanks to the OCers, we CCers will be barred from more places. :banghead:
I'm seeing this happen daily. I have been paying attention to the 30.06 site (I get the daily notifications) and it's disturbing how often I see a 30.06 sign being posted along with the 30.07 sign. I too only CC so the 30.07 sign doesn't upset me that much; but when I see the 30.06 sign being posted as well then I feel my rights are under attack. I admit that I am surprised at how strong the backlash has been by merchants and property owners. :confused5

User avatar

C-dub
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 12645
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Open carry: negative ramifications

#37

Post by C-dub » Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:15 pm

tiger1279 wrote:
jed wrote:
C-dub wrote: ...The public is receiving much more education about the laws this go around and due to OC are paying far more attention...
This was my biggest issue with OC. In the coming weeks or months we will see 30.06 signs popping up at places that may not even had a gunbuster sign before. I have no dog in the 30.07 fight, for I will not be OCing. But thanks to the OCers, we CCers will be barred from more places. :banghead:
I'm seeing this happen daily. I have been paying attention to the 30.06 site (I get the daily notifications) and it's disturbing how often I see a 30.06 sign being posted along with the 30.07 sign. I too only CC so the 30.07 sign doesn't upset me that much; but when I see the 30.06 sign being posted as well then I feel my rights are under attack. I admit that I am surprised at how strong the backlash has been by merchants and property owners. :confused5
The "daily notifications" didn't used to be daily. I used to see about one or two every 1-3 weeks at the most in the five cities I've chosen to monitor. Now it's more like 5-6 per day. :grumble
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016.
NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider


thetexan
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Open carry: negative ramifications

#38

Post by thetexan » Sun Jan 10, 2016 11:42 pm

ScottDLS wrote:
SlowDave wrote:
ScottDLS wrote:
SlowDave wrote:
ScottDLS wrote:
A licensee carrying a gun in his car is not carrying "under the authority" of his LTC, therefore 30.06 does not apply, as it does not apply to a non-licensee. The 30.06 statute is very specific that offense occurs while carrying "under the authority" of LTC. And even 30.05 has a defense for a person who HAS a LTC and is being excluded for carrying a handgun.
How do you know that the CHL is not carrying under the authority of his license? Is it a settled issue that the carrier can "decide" under which authority he is carrying? I always thought this was a gray area.
If it wasn't... then cops carrying on-duty who happened to have a LTC could be charged under 46.035 for carrying at sporting events, in bars, and before Jan 1...open carrying. If you had a CHL before Jan. 1, you could have been charged with open carrying on your own property under 46.035...etc.

If you don't NEED the authority of your LTC to carry legally, then you are not carrying under its authority. I suppose if you really wanted to make sure, you could lock your LTC in your trunk while carrying under MPA, then you couldn't be carrying under its authority because you don't have it on you...
I respectfully disagree. Well, maybe not disagree, but don't believe you've answered the question. When either the CHL/LTC or MPA would cover your actions, I don't see how it is prescribed which authority you're carrying under. I can *hope* that I'm carrying under the MPA rather than CHL/LTC, but I don't know how that would come down in a court of law. And the location of your card is irrelevant, other than if an authority decides that HE/SHE believes you were carrying under the CHL/LTC rather than the MPA and you don't have your card on you, you might get introduced to our legal system.

The policeman situation is different. Since the CHL/LTC would not cover his actions, it is very clear that he is not carrying under it's authority.
It simply does not make sense that the legislature would make it legal to carry for a non-LTC, but not a LTC holder. Why is the phrase "carrying under authority of LTC" included in 46.035 and 30.06/7 at all?

If you were caught carrying under MPA without your license on you, what would you be charged with? 46.02 is not applicable to MPA carry if you meet the requirements, whether you have LTC or not. There is no 46.035 violation for carrying in car, unlike a cop at a sporting event.

In the case of the cop, how does he get to "decide" that he is carrying on-duty in a bar or sporting event "not under the authority" of his LTC? Unlike MPA this is prohibited to a LTC in 43.035. How is an off-duty or on-duty cop WITH A LTC exempt from 30.06...? They are.
Let's imagine two things. One that 46.02 ONLY applies to non-LTCs and two, a non-LTC drives past a 30.06 and parks and an LTC drives up and parks.

The non-LTC can park as per 46.02 and the LTC can't because of the notification. So far so good. That's easy to understand. Now let's add LTCs to the protection of 46.02. If I am carrying a gun in my vehicle as I park it MUST be because I am authorized by 46.02! Because it CAN'T be because of my LTC privilege which has been prohibited by the 30.06 notification.

In other words. I have two sources of privilege, 46.02, and 46.03 and 46.035 unless it has been removed via 30.06. If one is removed I still have the other. and there is no protocol to remove the 46.02 privilege (generally speaking, other than very specific enumerated situations).

I don't need to pick. 30.06's authority does not extend beyond its official scope. It stops the exercise of your LTC privilege to carry. Ok. I don't need 30.06s input! I have a basic right under 46.02 and that right is not dependent upon the condition or status of your LTC or its exercise thereof. 46.02 doesn't come and go at the whim of someone notifying under 30.06, any more so than your basic 2nd amendment right depends or exists conditionally upon state laws.

tex
Texas LTC Instructor, NRA Pistol Instructor, CFI, CFII, MEI Instructor Pilot

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 4615
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: Open carry: negative ramifications

#39

Post by ScottDLS » Mon Jan 11, 2016 11:37 am

:iagree:

I hope you see that was my point to SlowDave.
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!!!!"


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3814
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: Open carry: negative ramifications

#40

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Mon Jan 11, 2016 1:00 pm

SlowDave wrote:
ScottDLS wrote:
SlowDave wrote:
ScottDLS wrote:
A licensee carrying a gun in his car is not carrying "under the authority" of his LTC, therefore 30.06 does not apply, as it does not apply to a non-licensee. The 30.06 statute is very specific that offense occurs while carrying "under the authority" of LTC. And even 30.05 has a defense for a person who HAS a LTC and is being excluded for carrying a handgun.
How do you know that the CHL is not carrying under the authority of his license? Is it a settled issue that the carrier can "decide" under which authority he is carrying? I always thought this was a gray area.
If it wasn't... then cops carrying on-duty who happened to have a LTC could be charged under 46.035 for carrying at sporting events, in bars, and before Jan 1...open carrying. If you had a CHL before Jan. 1, you could have been charged with open carrying on your own property under 46.035...etc.

If you don't NEED the authority of your LTC to carry legally, then you are not carrying under its authority. I suppose if you really wanted to make sure, you could lock your LTC in your trunk while carrying under MPA, then you couldn't be carrying under its authority because you don't have it on you...
I respectfully disagree. Well, maybe not disagree, but don't believe you've answered the question. When either the CHL/LTC or MPA would cover your actions, I don't see how it is prescribed which authority you're carrying under. I can *hope* that I'm carrying under the MPA rather than CHL/LTC, but I don't know how that would come down in a court of law. And the location of your card is irrelevant, other than if an authority decides that HE/SHE believes you were carrying under the CHL/LTC rather than the MPA and you don't have your card on you, you might get introduced to our legal system.

The policeman situation is different. Since the CHL/LTC would not cover his actions, it is very clear that he is not carrying under it's authority.
At the risk of :deadhorse:, how is the policeman situation different? In both cases, you are looking at multiple sources of authority for the carry of a weapon, one which allows a specific means of carry and one which does not. Unless there is something in the law that specifically invalidates the on duty LEOs right to carry at a sporting event, and says that if they have a CHL, then they are always presumed to be carrying under the authority of their CHL, then they are OK to also carry under other authority, even if there is a conflict between the two. The same would hold true if there is a conflict in authority granted under CHL and MPA provisions and someone has both authorities for carry.
Ding dong, the witch is dead

Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”