Car Carry vs CHL Carry

[mreed911]

Short version: there's a discussion that started in the comments about the parking lot of Southwest Airlines' corporate office. In short, one poster contacted an attorney and was told, essentially, that the letter of the law in terms of PC 30.06 hasn't changed even though an employer's ability to actually restrict carry may have (Labor Code 50.02 prohibits employers from prohibiting carry/storage in vehicles in places not disallowed by state or federal law. e.g. the secured parking lot of a federal prison, etc.).

I disagree simply because a prohibited posting shouldn't have any affect, but more fundamentally, I assert that inside a vehicle I'm not carrying "under the auspices" of my CHL, anyway, since Texas law now explicitly carves out a vehicular exemption. In other words, Labor Code 50.02 doesn't just apply to those carrying under a CHL, it applies to anyone carrying in a vehicle, CHL or not.

In other words, even if a parking lot was posted with proper 30.06 signs (which I still argue don't apply in parking lots), you couldn't reasonably be charged with or convicted for having a firearm in the vehicle, period.

The poster goes on to argue that a simple "no guns" sign would make you eligible to be arrested under PC 30.05, which is also ludicrous... but I digress.

Thoughts? Experiences?

If carrying in your car and ONLY in your car - even when you are issued a CHL - are you carrying "under" your CHL? I believe the answer is no - it defaults to the "most legal" application, which is any citizen can carry in a vehicle they own/control.

[Bill O'Rights]

The poster goes on to argue that a simple "no guns" sign would make you eligible to be arrested under PC 30.05, which is also ludicrous... but I digress.

If you think so, place a visible rifle in a rifle rack and drive into a parking lot with a "no guns" sign.

[oohrah]

So what you're saying is that if you get stopped for a traffic violation, and you're wearing your handgun in your IWB, but you're in your car, so you don't have to show the LEO your CHL or tell him you have a handgun - because you're carrying under MPA? ...right....

[spongeworthy]

So what you're saying is that if you get stopped for a traffic violation, and you're wearing your handgun in your IWB, but you're in your car, so you don't have to show the LEO your CHL or tell him you have a handgun - because you're carrying under MPA? ...right....

That doesn't appear to be what he's saying at all. He's inquiring about which law takes precedence under the parking lot situation he described. I believe MPA would trump CHL in that case, but I'm not sure if there is any case law which set a precedent to be followed. Probably dealt with on a case by case basis thus far.

[Txmarine2]

Mdreed911,

Thanks for continuing the discussion. I had several exchanges with attorneys at [Pre-paid legal service]. The main point they made is that 52.061 does absolutely nothing to the 30.05 or 30.06 criminal trespass law. It says employers can't prohibit employees from lot carry (which may or may not mean they aren't supposed to put the sign up) but it does not change any criminal implications if you do. The additional thing to know is that the parking lot act 52.061-.063 is not enforceable.

All that to say, if driving past a sign was illegal prior to 52.061 then it is still illegal now. So are discussion is about which laws apply for car carry. Attorney said 30.05 and 30.06 postings can be on any"real property" which absolutely includes parking lots or garages.

Your point was that CHL does not apply to car carry therefor I can ignore the 30.06. I disagree and my counter was that if CHL isn't in play for car carry that 30.05 would be. One of the two would have to apply.

As others pointed out, the fact that you have to notify CHL during a traffic stop is a pretty good indication that CHL rule are in effect during car carry.

[Ipconfig]

I was told during class that once you went chl you were always chl and MPA is moot.

[jbarn]

Short version: there's a discussion that started in the comments about the parking lot of Southwest Airlines' corporate office. In short, one poster contacted an attorney and was told, essentially, that the letter of the law in terms of PC 30.06 hasn't changed even though an employer's ability to actually restrict carry may have (Labor Code 50.02 prohibits employers from prohibiting carry/storage in vehicles in places not disallowed by state or federal law. e.g. the secured parking lot of a federal prison, etc.).

I disagree simply because a prohibited posting shouldn't have any affect, but more fundamentally, I assert that inside a vehicle I'm not carrying "under the auspices" of my CHL, anyway, since Texas law now explicitly carves out a vehicular exemption. In other words, Labor Code 50.02 doesn't just apply to those carrying under a CHL, it applies to anyone carrying in a vehicle, CHL or not.

In other words, even if a parking lot was posted with proper 30.06 signs (which I still argue don't apply in parking lots), you couldn't reasonably be charged with or convicted for having a firearm in the vehicle, period.

The poster goes on to argue that a simple "no guns" sign would make you eligible to be arrested under PC 30.05, which is also ludicrous... but I digress.

Thoughts? Experiences?

If carrying in your car and ONLY in your car - even when you are issued a CHL - are you carrying "under" your CHL? I believe the answer is no - it defaults to the "most legal" application, which is any citizen can carry in a vehicle they own/control.

30.06 clearly applies to parking lots. I am interested why you think not.

I agree that even if you posses A CHL you are not carrying under that authority while in your car; therfore, a 30.06 sign at a parking lot does not apply to you WHILE YOU ARE IN YOUR CAR.

Was there another specific question?

[jbarn]

So what you're saying is that if you get stopped for a traffic violation, and you're wearing your handgun in your IWB, but you're in your car, so you don't have to show the LEO your CHL or tell him you have a handgun - because you're carrying under MPA? ...right....

The section of the government code simply states that if a person is licensed then he must display. It does not addrese under what authority one might be carrying. That means regardless of what authority one might be carrying, MPA, 46.02 on one's own premise or premise under his control, traveling, etc., if he is licensed andncarries his handgun he must display the license to a peace officer upon demand of ID.

The penal code provisions are not the same.

[jbarn]

Mdreed911,

Thanks for continuing the discussion. I had several exchanges with attorneys at [Pre-paid legal service]. The main point they made is that 52.061 does absolutely nothing to the 30.05 or 30.06 criminal trespass law. It says employers can't prohibit employees from lot carry (which may or may not mean they aren't supposed to put the sign up) but it does not change any criminal implications if you do. The additional thing to know is that the parking lot act 52.061-.063 is not enforceable.

They are 100% correct.

All that to say, if driving past a sign was illegal prior to 52.061 then it is still illegal now. So are discussion is about which laws apply for car carry. Attorney said 30.05 and 30.06 postings can be on any"real property" which absolutely includes parking lots or garages.

Again, that is 100% correct.

Your point was that CHL does not apply to car carry therefor I can ignore the 30.06. I disagree and my counter was that if CHL isn't in play for car carry that 30.05 would be. One of the two would have to apply.

Since a 30.06 sign states that it applies to a person who carries a handgun under 411(h) of the Government Code, it does notnapply to people carrying under another a different authority, like the MPA. A 30.06 sign is not a de facto 30.05 sign.

As others pointed out, the fact that you have to notify CHL during a traffic stop is a pretty good indication that CHL rule are in effect during car carry.

Actually, the two have nothing to do with each other, and one does not prove the other. If I am at my home and carrying, and I call the police to report my lawn mower stolen, when the officer arrives if he asks me for my name, I have to display my CHL. Even though at home I am not carrying under my CHL.

[jbarn]

I was told during class that once you went chl you were always chl and MPA is moot.

That is incorrect. If I forget my license at home while car carrying and I am stopped by the police, can I be arrested for a violation of penal code 46.02? Of course not. That is because I am not carrying under the authority of a CHL.

IF I am acting as an armed plainclothes bodyguard and carrying a concealed handgun, and do not carry my CHL, if a Peace Officer finds me sans CHL can he arrest me for a violation of 46.02? Of course not.

If you are not carrying under the authority of a CHL then 30.06 does not apply.

[Wodathunkit]

I struggle with the whole parking lot thing....
My employer parking lot is private property. Employee handbook is detailed around no firearms. Isn't that "effective notice"? I refuse to park where I'm supposed to, so I won't violate company policy.

[baron]

I struggle with the whole parking lot thing....
My employer parking lot is private property. Employee handbook is detailed around no firearms. Isn't that "effective notice"?

Maybe, depending on the actual words used and details about the company site. However, an employee handbook doesn't sound like effective notice for visitors, suppliers, customers, and other non-employees.

I refuse to park where I'm supposed to, so I won't violate company policy.

That's one way to handle it.

[jbarn]

I struggle with the whole parking lot thing....
My employer parking lot is private property. Employee handbook is detailed around no firearms. Isn't that "effective notice"? I refuse to park where I'm supposed to, so I won't violate company policy.

There are two parts of parking lot carry; in the vehicle and out of the vehicle but on your person. There are two components to each of those, CRIMINAL LAW and POLICY.

In the vehicle

Criminal law; car carry is not carry under your CHL. 30.06 does not affect in your car.

Policy; Unless your employer meets listed exceptions, it is a violation of law for them to have a policy prohibiting employees from having lawfully possessed firearms or ammunition in private vehicles on company parking lots.

Out of the vehicle

Criminal law; 30.06 is in full effect.

Policy; if policy meets the language and other requirments of 30.06 you can be terminated or suffer other negative action.

[Txmarine2]

Your point was that CHL does not apply to car carry therefor I can ignore the 30.06. I disagree and my counter was that if CHL isn't in play for car carry that 30.05 would be. One of the two would have to apply.

Since a 30.06 sign states that it applies to a person who carries a handgun under 411(h) of the Government Code, it does notnapply to people carrying under another a different authority, like the MPA. A 30.06 sign is not a de facto 30.05 sign.

Jbarn,

The attorney's statement on this was one could argue that they are not carrying under authority of CHL while in their car. That implies that the law is unclear and that it would be up to the judge or jury. I'm not interested in becoming the case law tester so I'm just going to assume it does apply for now.

Thanks for the feedback! Always good to get multiple opinions from the experts! I appreciate it.

[jbarn]

Your point was that CHL does not apply to car carry therefor I can ignore the 30.06. I disagree and my counter was that if CHL isn't in play for car carry that 30.05 would be. One of the two would have to apply.

Since a 30.06 sign states that it applies to a person who carries a handgun under 411(h) of the Government Code, it does notnapply to people carrying under another a different authority, like the MPA. A 30.06 sign is not a de facto 30.05 sign.

Jbarn,

The attorney's statement on this was one could argue that they are not carrying under authority of CHL while in their car. That implies that the law is unclear and that it would be up to the judge or jury. I'm not interested in becoming the case law tester so I'm just going to assume it does apply for now.

Thanks for the feedback! Always good to get multiple opinions from the experts! I appreciate it.

The law seems clear to me, and so is the AG's opinion on this topic.

Take care...