Open Car Carry In 2016?

[sherlock7]

Starting in 2016 I am unclear regarding the laws while carrying my Glock in my car. Can we all carry our handgun on the front seat in plain sight or must it be covered by something like a newspaper? Or can it be in a holster while still on the front seat or must it always be in a holster strapped on one's waist? I am trying to figure out the most comfortable way to carry while seated in my car with my seatbelt.
All comments and suggestions are welcome. Thanks to all.
I am so looking forward to January!
USMC
Semper Fi

[G.A. Heath]

Open Carry in a vehicle can only be done by a license holder and must be in a belt or shoulder holster. Unlicensed car carry and car carry by a license holder not using a belt or shoulder holster still has to be concealed after open carry takes effect.

[sherlock7]

G. A. Heath, thank you for your response. So if I understand your answer correctly..... if you have a CHL on or after Jan. 2016, while traveling in your car in the state that you live ( Texas ) you must have your handgun in a belt holster on your waist while driving to be legal. If on the other hand, your handgun is in a holster on the seat of your car it must stay concealed ( covered by a newspaper or something ) at all times, even while driving. Is that how you understand the new laws come Jan. ? If that is the case, it really does not make a lot of since to me. Just my opinion.

[Swissy]

So I have always been curious about this, where does the legality fall for a holster that is mounted below a steering column? Must it still be on my person regardless of open carry?

[JP171]

Swissy, if its attached to your dash, your wrong

[Pariah3j]

The wording of the new law I believe is 'on or about your person' - I would wonder if it was in a 'belt holster' but attached to the steering column/under the dash wouldn't qualify ?

[The Annoyed Man]

G. A. Heath, thank you for your response. So if I understand your answer correctly..... if you have a CHL on or after Jan. 2016, while traveling in your car in the state that you live ( Texas ) you must have your handgun in a belt holster on your waist while driving to be legal. If on the other hand, your handgun is in a holster on the seat of your car it must stay concealed ( covered by a newspaper or something ) at all times, even while driving. Is that how you understand the new laws come Jan. ? If that is the case, it really does not make a lot of since to me. Just my opinion.

I understand your opinion, and even agree with it to some extent, but GA Heath is correct. There's opinion, and then there's the law. It may be hard to agree with, but it isn't hard to understand the complexities, because there are no complexities. Consider the following:

1. MPA is about possession in your vehicle, whether on or off-body, with a specific requirement to conceal.
2. Licensed Open and Concealed Carry are about "carry with a specific requirement that it be carried in an appropriate vessel (i.e. belt/shoulder holster for OC, or holster, purse, pocket, backpack, etc. for CC).

So, when carrying/possessing a firearm in your vehicle under authority of MPA, it must be concealed. Since CHL/LTC does not give authority when the gun is not on your person, it must be carried on-body if that is the sanction under which you wish to operate. If you want to possess it in your vehicle, but not have it on your person, then it falls under MPA, which is a separate sanction and requires concealment. Adding to the complexity, Open Carry comes with a requirement that the gun must be carried in a belt or shoulder holster, which necessarily means that it must be worn on the belt or shoulder. The law is not written so as to allow you to conflate MPA with CHL/LTC, otherwise, UN-licensed people would be able to do so......which might be a good thing, but isn't what the legislature passed.

Therefore, for your handgun to be legally possessed in your car, it can either be:

1. concealed off OR on-body under MPA, which requires concealment;
2. concealed on body under CHL (between now and 1/1/16); or
3. openly carried on-body under LTC (after 1/1/16).

Those are your choices. There doesn't seem to be any exception that I am aware of for now.

The wording of the new law I believe is 'on or about your person' - I would wonder if it was in a 'belt holster' but attached to the steering column/under the dash wouldn't qualify ?

I would be very careful about that, and do it in such a way that it is not "in plain sight". No matter how vague the definitions in its current form, the legislative intent is very clear, and that intent is for OC to be on-body. Given the probabilities of a cop being nervous about OC during the first months or years of its enactment, I would avoid providing said LEO with an opportunity for "field interpretation". Mind you, I am in favor of OC's passage, but the law seems very clear to me that on-body carry is the requirement for it. Again, you can't conflate MPA with licensed carry. They are two different laws, with their own sets of requirements. They may overlap in some ways, but they do not overlap in all particulars, and it is a mistake to act as if they do.

[sherlock7]

The Annoyed Man,
Thank you for the information. The law just seems odd to me but I will follow it.
It just seems strange that we CHL holders are trusted to open carry in our car as long as our handgun is in a holster around our waist but cannot be carried in a holster in the seat next to us in plain view. But everything is okay if I cover said holstered gun with a newspaper?
As I stated earlier I am searching for a comfortable way to drive with a holstered weapon and a seat belt and still be able to quickly access my gun if I have to.
I guess I could drive with my Glock in a shoulder holster and then once I get to where I'm going, transfer my weapon to a belt holster around my waist or wear it concealed as I have done for sometime now.
What a pain in the butt!
Such is life; guess I will just have to live with it. Just trying to understand all the rules and their logic behind it all.
Again I appreciate your response.

Semper Fi

[pt145ss]

G. A. Heath, thank you for your response. So if I understand your answer correctly..... if you have a CHL on or after Jan. 2016, while traveling in your car in the state that you live ( Texas ) you must have your handgun in a belt holster on your waist while driving to be legal. If on the other hand, your handgun is in a holster on the seat of your car it must stay concealed ( covered by a newspaper or something ) at all times, even while driving. Is that how you understand the new laws come Jan. ? If that is the case, it really does not make a lot of since to me. Just my opinion.

I understand your opinion, and even agree with it to some extent, but GA Heath is correct. There's opinion, and then there's the law. It may be hard to agree with, but it isn't hard to understand the complexities, because there are no complexities. Consider the following:

1. MPA is about possession in your vehicle, whether on or off-body, with a specific requirement to conceal.
2. Licensed Open and Concealed Carry are about "carry with a specific requirement that it be carried in an appropriate vessel (i.e. belt/shoulder holster for OC, or holster, purse, pocket, backpack, etc. for CC).

So, when carrying/possessing a firearm in your vehicle under authority of MPA, it must be concealed. Since CHL/LTC does not give authority when the gun is not on your person, it must be carried on-body if that is the sanction under which you wish to operate. If you want to possess it in your vehicle, but not have it on your person, then it falls under MPA, which is a separate sanction and requires concealment. Adding to the complexity, Open Carry comes with a requirement that the gun must be carried in a belt or shoulder holster, which necessarily means that it must be worn on the belt or shoulder. The law is not written so as to allow you to conflate MPA with CHL/LTC, otherwise, UN-licensed people would be able to do so......which might be a good thing, but isn't what the legislature passed.

Therefore, for your handgun to be legally possessed in your car, it can either be:

1. concealed off OR on-body under MPA, which requires concealment;
2. concealed on body under CHL (between now and 1/1/16); or
3. openly carried on-body under LTC (after 1/1/16).

Those are your choices. There doesn't seem to be any exception that I am aware of for now.

The wording of the new law I believe is 'on or about your person' - I would wonder if it was in a 'belt holster' but attached to the steering column/under the dash wouldn't qualify ?

I would be very careful about that, and do it in such a way that it is not "in plain sight". No matter how vague the definitions in its current form, the legislative intent is very clear, and that intent is for OC to be on-body. Given the probabilities of a cop being nervous about OC during the first months or years of its enactment, I would avoid providing said LEO with an opportunity for "field interpretation". Mind you, I am in favor of OC's passage, but the law seems very clear to me that on-body carry is the requirement for it. Again, you can't conflate MPA with licensed carry. They are two different laws, with their own sets of requirements. They may overlap in some ways, but they do not overlap in all particulars, and it is a mistake to act as if they do.

Maybe I'm still a little confused, before MPA, a gun in the glove box for a non CHL was against the law (except when traveling). The glove box was considered on or about the person. As a CHL holder pre MPA, there was nothing wrong with having a gun in a glove box. CHL covered you for on or about your person. Is that not correct? If that is the case then CHL is not just about on your person... correct? The new law, for the most part simply strikes the would concealed but retains most if not all the "on or about" language... Right? I'm not sure I see anything that says open carry in a vehicle requires that it be attached to the chl/ltc holder. In fact it specifically says "on or about" and that the only requirement is that it be in a belt holster. Is a belt holster no longer a belt holster when it is sitting in the passenger seat next to you?

(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person
intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or
her person a handgun in a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned
by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:
(1) the handgun is in plain view, unless the person is
licensed to carry a handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code, and the handgun is carried in a shoulder or belt
holster; or
(2) the person is:
(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a
Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance
regulating traffic or boating;

[Pariah3j]

Maybe I'm still a little confused, before MPA, a gun in the glove box for a non CHL was against the law (except when traveling). The glove box was considered on or about the person. As a CHL holder pre MPA, there was nothing wrong with having a gun in a glove box. CHL covered you for on or about your person. Is that not correct? If that is the case then CHL is not just about on your person... correct? The new law, for the most part simply strikes the would concealed but retains most if not all the "on or about" language... Right? I'm not sure I see anything that says open carry in a vehicle requires that it be attached to the chl/ltc holder. In fact it specifically says "on or about" and that the only requirement is that it be in a belt holster. Is a belt holster no longer a belt holster when it is sitting in the passenger seat next to you?

(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person
intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or
her person a handgun in a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned
by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:
(1) the handgun is in plain view, unless the person is
licensed to carry a handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code, and the handgun is carried in a shoulder or belt
holster; or
(2) the person is:
(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a
Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance
regulating traffic or boating;

That was my thought - with the language being 'on or about' meaning that it would have to be within arms reach - I'm not sure if the legal system reads 'on or about' differently then I would expect(wouldn't be the first time to find out legalise isn't what I think) - but a belt holster wouldn't in my mind cease to be a belt hostler just because it isn't attached to the belt, it would be any holster designed to attach itself to the belt. Anyone with a better understanding of the law care to chime in ?

[The Annoyed Man]

.......but a belt holster wouldn't in my mind cease to be a belt hostler just because it isn't attached to the belt......

But now you are trying to stretch the legislative intent. I cannot stress enough how much legislative intent counts, versus what you want it to be. I would challenge you to go ask those legislators that voted for OC to explain what they meant by the specific belt/shoulder holster requirement. It seems very clear to me that they are talking about it BEING on your belt/shoulder, and not waved around in your hand or laying on the dashboard - even in a holster. Otherwise, they are meaningless stipulations. In other words, why would the legislature prefer that you openly hand-carry your gun in a belt holster instead of hand-carrying it in an ankle holster, or wearing it attached to a belt which is wrapped around your head? OF COURSE they did not mean it ANY other way than a belt holster worn on the belt at the waist, or a shoulder holster worn on the shoulder!



Whatever seems "in your mind" or "in my mind" is irrelevant. What IS relevant is what the legislature intended. I'm not sure why people even question this. I'm not talking about questioning the legislative restrictions on your rights.....question that by all means, all you want, and I'll back you on it. I'm just talking about questioning what THEY meant when they wrote and passed the law, and it seems very clear to me what they meant: a belt holster means a holster worn on the belt, and a shoulder holster means a holster worn on the shoulder....... otherwise it is a pointless requirement. Furthermore, that's how the courts are going to interpret the law when you go before a judge for violating it. It's very logical and easy to understand. So when people question this, it sounds very much like they are trying to find a "workaround" to defeat the legislative intent. I wouldn't care about that, except that twisting legislative intent is like twisting the lion's tail. The reaction you get from the legislature (or the courts, when enforcing the legislature's intent) is not very likely to be the one you had hoped for. You're not going to get me to concede that this is a good idea.

So, by all means, push the limits, and accept your fate without complaining if it blows up in your face. For my part, I'll comply with the law, both as it is written, and as it clearly seems to be intended.

That's the beauty of a free society. You do you, and I'll do me, and we'll all be happy whether or not we have the freedom to walk around because the Graybar Hotel won't open the door.

[Pariah3j]

.......but a belt holster wouldn't in my mind cease to be a belt hostler just because it isn't attached to the belt......

But now you are trying to stretch the legislative intent. I cannot stress enough how much legislative intent counts, versus what you want it to be. I would challenge you to go ask those legislators that voted for OC to explain what they meant by the specific belt/shoulder holster requirement. It seems very clear to me that they are talking about it BEING on your belt/shoulder, and not waved around in your hand or laying on the dashboard - even in a holster. Otherwise, they are meaningless stipulations. In other words, why would the legislature prefer that you openly hand-carry your gun in a belt holster instead of hand-carrying it in an ankle holster, or wearing it attached to a belt which is wrapped around your head? OF COURSE they did not mean it ANY other way than a belt holster worn on the belt at the waist, or a shoulder holster worn on the shoulder!



Whatever seems "in your mind" or "in my mind" is irrelevant. What IS relevant is what the legislature intended. I'm not sure why people even question this. I'm not talking about questioning the legislative restrictions on your rights.....question that by all means, all you want, and I'll back you on it. I'm just talking about questioning what THEY meant when they wrote and passed the law, and it seems very clear to me what they meant: a belt holster means a holster worn on the belt, and a shoulder holster means a holster worn on the shoulder....... otherwise it is a pointless requirement. Furthermore, that's how the courts are going to interpret the law when you go before a judge for violating it. It's very logical and easy to understand. So when people question this, it sounds very much like they are trying to find a "workaround" to defeat the legislative intent. I wouldn't care about that, except that twisting legislative intent is like twisting the lion's tail. The reaction you get from the legislature (or the courts, when enforcing the legislature's intent) is not very likely to be the one you had hoped for. You're not going to get me to concede that this is a good idea.

So, by all means, push the limits, and accept your fate without complaining if it blows up in your face. For my part, I'll comply with the law, both as it is written, and as it clearly seems to be intended.

That's the beauty of a free society. You do you, and I'll do me, and we'll all be happy whether or not we have the freedom to walk around because the Graybar Hotel won't open the door.

TAM - I am not trying to twist words - yes legislative intent does play into things... But words have meaning by themselves. Words in laws like Shall vs Should or May - make a huge difference, and so 'on or about your person' to me does as well. While I think you were being ironic/absurd to make a point, I think the example of wearing a belt around your head and having a belt holster attached to that would be legal as the wording of the law is currently written (as I understand it)- now I whole heartily admit I am but a lay man when it comes to the law, but it does fascinate me, so I have done my best to have an above avg level understanding of the law.

All this said, I'm not trying to attack you or stir anything up other then a healthy debate and gain a better understanding oh how this law could be enforced. And I'm not saying that pushing these laws and their meanings wouldn't end you up in jail or court. For me, most of it is more or less, just food for thought...

[The Annoyed Man]

All this said, I'm not trying to attack you or stir anything up other then a healthy debate and gain a better understanding oh how this law could be enforced. And I'm not saying that pushing these laws and their meanings wouldn't end you up in jail or court. For me, most of it is more or less, just food for thought...

Pariah3j, Please believe me..... I didn't take your previous post as an attack at all, so if that's how I came off, I apologize. When I write on this forum, it isn't always just a direct exchange between me and a correspondent. I am also writing for a larger audience, hoping they might learn something constructive from it. I may not always be successful at it, so I realize that I might come off as pedantic sometimes, but if/when I do, it isn't really directed at the person I'm exchanging posts with, it is directed at the reader who may not have the understanding of the law that members of this forum have.

I do understand that words have meaning...... sometimes several meanings, which is the problem here. The law recognizes that possibility, and so do the courts. So when it is the case that words in the legal text can have several meanings, the law and courts turn to legislative intent to determine how the law is to be enforced. It's influence on how the law is ultimately enforced is HUGE. It cannot be overstated. I'm certain that you and I and almost anybody else with a CHL/LTC all actually understand the legislative intent. And we understand that, so long as we hew to it, we'll stay out of trouble. My example of wearing a holstered gun on a belt wrapped around your head was deliberately absurd for the purpose of making the point about legislative intent to that larger audience which may be relatively unsophisticated about these matters. So I was not saying you would do it, but it is a fine illustration of how someone might deliberately stretch the interpretation of intent.

Anyway, peace.

[Swissy]

From all this debate, it seems like the safest and legal way will just be for me to carry inside the center console.

I had made fiberglass speaker boxes when I was in highschool/college...I am sure I could pick it back up and make something with a nice fit for the center console with a holster inside...may be a good weekend project (has anyone else seen this done)?

[pt145ss]

All this said, I'm not trying to attack you or stir anything up other then a healthy debate and gain a better understanding oh how this law could be enforced. And I'm not saying that pushing these laws and their meanings wouldn't end you up in jail or court. For me, most of it is more or less, just food for thought...

Pariah3j, Please believe me..... I didn't take your previous post as an attack at all, so if that's how I came off, I apologize. When I write on this forum, it isn't always just a direct exchange between me and a correspondent. I am also writing for a larger audience, hoping they might learn something constructive from it. I may not always be successful at it, so I realize that I might come off as pedantic sometimes, but if/when I do, it isn't really directed at the person I'm exchanging posts with, it is directed at the reader who may not have the understanding of the law that members of this forum have.

I do understand that words have meaning...... sometimes several meanings, which is the problem here. The law recognizes that possibility, and so do the courts. So when it is the case that words in the legal text can have several meanings, the law and courts turn to legislative intent to determine how the law is to be enforced. It's influence on how the law is ultimately enforced is HUGE. It cannot be overstated. I'm certain that you and I and almost anybody else with a CHL/LTC all actually understand the legislative intent. And we understand that, so long as we hew to it, we'll stay out of trouble. My example of wearing a holstered gun on a belt wrapped around your head was deliberately absurd for the purpose of making the point about legislative intent to that larger audience which may be relatively unsophisticated about these matters. So I was not saying you would do it, but it is a fine illustration of how someone might deliberately stretch the interpretation of intent.

Anyway, peace.

I understand and agree that legislative intent is important in the face of unclear or ambiguous code furthermore I believe the intent here is to keep people from walking down the street with a handgun in their hand. Here is something to ponder. One of the arguments for open carry is to allow those in a wheelchair and etc. to have easier access to a handgun for self defense. Drawing from a seated position is difficult in the best of situations much less for those with disabilities. Do you think any of the legislators that voted for 910 would take issue with someone bound to a wheelchair to strap their hand gun in a holster to the side of their wheelchair instead strapping it their hip? Just curious?

Another point about intent. Not too long ago the legislature rewrote some the transportation code. Their intent was to clean the code up and to insure that it was required to have a license plate on the front of a car. The reality was that they forgot to add the penalty language to the newly cleaned up code. The result is that for a while there was not much anyone could do if you did not have a license plate on the front of the car regardless of legislatures intent to make it illegal with a penalty.

You may be proven to be absolutely correct in this regard. The point I'm making is that we are all guessing what the legislature's intent is but it is not until the either the legislature clarifies the code or the courts interpret legislative intent. Until then, we are just trying to have a civil dialog about it.