TexasCHLforum.com

It seems to me that the CHL specific laws should be clarified in the next legislative session to specifically say that a person with a CHL is not barred from having a gun in any place that those without a CHL are legally allowed to have one and it should say which laws take precedence when more than one are in effect in the same location.

ELB wrote:So, I am curious about something. Couple or four questions for both of you:

Those are good questions, and I confess that I'm a little hazy on this myself, so I can only explain what I understand the law to say. If you think I'm not understanding correctly, please feel free to enlighten me.

ELB wrote:Do you both think that if you have a CHL, the CHL statutes completely define the places you are and are not legal to carry a handgun, concealed or not, on your body or not?

What I compare it to is when my wife or I carry off body. She always carries in a purse. I rarely but sometimes carry in a Safepacker or a Versipack. My belief is that, apart from MPA carry in a vehicle, carrying even off-body in a purse or a Safepacker wold be illegal for someone not in possession of a CHL. So how does carrying in a purse or Safepacker differ - for a CHL holder - from carrying in a suitcase or duffel bag? See what I mean?

As to where a CHL holder may not carry, well those seem fairly well defined to me for the most part, but I think that some of the definitions are a bit foggy. I operate on the assumption that the laws don't tell you what you may do; they tell you what you may not do. If a law doesn't limit something, then that something is completely lawful. But the guiding principle is that, under Texas law, carry of a concealed handgun is illegal. That is the default. CHL provides an exception to that law, under defined circumstances, for the CHL holder.

ELB wrote:If it does, does that mean those who are not CHL holders (and also not judges, bailffs, LEOs, DAs, assistant DAs, etc) cannot legally have a handgun at all?

No, of course not. We still have the MPA for instance, and I think the issue is partly one of concealed or not concealed. One can hunt with a handgun, for instance.

ELB wrote:In particular, if a non-CHL traveler goes to a hotel that has a 30.06 sign, but no other signs related to guns or weapons, is he legally barred from bringing a gun up to his room? Let's make it an unloaded handgun, locked in his luggage. Or is he legal to do so?

My gut reaction is to say he is legal, because the 30.06 sign does not apply to him. My question, and it is not rhetorical, I actually don't know and would like to be enlightened, is "would the same apply to the CHL holder for an unloaded handgun, locked in his luggage?"

ELB wrote:If a traveling Texas peace officer arrives at the hotel, and finds a 30.06 sign, is he barred from legally carrying his handgun, (particularly his concealed backup in the ankle holster) to his room in the hotel? (I think the answer is pretty obvious, but for the sake of illustrating a point, let's answer it).

No, he is not barred, because he is carrying under a completely separate legal authority. 30.06 does not apply to him because he is not carrying under authority of a CHL.

The way I see it, CHL holders gain the ability to carry most places that others cannot (LEOs, etc., excepted), but they lose some things in the process too - or rather, I should say they maybe 'trade away' a couple of things that non-CHLers don't have to worry about.

(Edited this morning to clarify a couple of things I wrote last night while half-asleep. ~~ TAM)

Hoi Polloi wrote:It seems to me that the CHL specific laws should be clarified in the next legislative session to specifically say that a person with a CHL is not barred from having a gun in any place that those without a CHL are legally allowed to have one and it should say which laws take precedence when more than one are in effect in the same location.

This is already clear in the law. CHL is an exception to the law so it only applies where carrying would otherwise be illegal. If you are in a place where it is not illegal for anyone to carry (your car, your home, etc.) then CHL does not apply because it cannot come into play.

srothstein wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:It seems to me that the CHL specific laws should be clarified in the next legislative session to specifically say that a person with a CHL is not barred from having a gun in any place that those without a CHL are legally allowed to have one and it should say which laws take precedence when more than one are in effect in the same location.

This is already clear in the law. CHL is an exception to the law so it only applies where carrying would otherwise be illegal. If you are in a place where it is not illegal for anyone to carry (your car, your home, etc.) then CHL does not apply because it cannot come into play.

If you were carrying on your property and an officer asked you for identification, would you be required to give him your CHL? If so, the CHL law trumps the castle doctrine.

Hoi Polloi wrote:

srothstein wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:It seems to me that the CHL specific laws should be clarified in the next legislative session to specifically say that a person with a CHL is not barred from having a gun in any place that those without a CHL are legally allowed to have one and it should say which laws take precedence when more than one are in effect in the same location.

This is already clear in the law. CHL is an exception to the law so it only applies where carrying would otherwise be illegal. If you are in a place where it is not illegal for anyone to carry (your car, your home, etc.) then CHL does not apply because it cannot come into play.

If you were carrying on your property and an officer asked you for identification, would you be required to give him your CHL? If so, the CHL law trumps the castle doctrine.

Ditto if you are stopped in your car, and you have a CHL. Although the penalty for failure to show your CHL has been removed, it is still a requirement to do so. A CHL holder cannot, to the best of my understanding, claim MPA in that situation.

I would love to be wrong about that one, by the way.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:

srothstein wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:It seems to me that the CHL specific laws should be clarified in the next legislative session to specifically say that a person with a CHL is not barred from having a gun in any place that those without a CHL are legally allowed to have one and it should say which laws take precedence when more than one are in effect in the same location.

This is already clear in the law. CHL is an exception to the law so it only applies where carrying would otherwise be illegal. If you are in a place where it is not illegal for anyone to carry (your car, your home, etc.) then CHL does not apply because it cannot come into play.

If you were carrying on your property and an officer asked you for identification, would you be required to give him your CHL? If so, the CHL law trumps the castle doctrine.

Ditto if you are stopped in your car, and you have a CHL. Although the penalty for failure to show your CHL has been removed, it is still a requirement to do so. A CHL holder cannot, to the best of my understanding, claim MPA in that situation.

I would love to be wrong about that one, by the way.

Ah, but that's part of the administrative section of CHL law, not penal code section. Completely separate set of statutes. So like srothstein said, in your car, you are not carrying under the authority of the CHL, since it is not illegal to carry in your car, you do not need the CHL exception to 46.02 to do so, the Penal code is satisfied. HOWEVER, under the administrative code, if you are CHL licensed, and have a handgun on or about your person, you are required to show your License.

At least that's how I understand it.

Being that 30.06 is part of the penal code, if it is not illegal to carry a firearm there under penal code, then you do not need the exception to the penal code that CHL grants, so you are not technically carrying 'under CHL' so it would not apply. However, you would still need to show your license if asked for ID under administrative code.

At least this is how I take srothstein's comments, and how I understand the code in administrative vs penal matters. Please feel free to enlighten me if I am mistaken.

I agree though, this area is very undefined, and very uncertain. Depending on the court, the case, the judge, etc, it could be taken multiple different ways.
If you actually read the code, it also says you are only allowed to take weapons from a premises under a person's control TO your vehicle, but not back. Apparently, all of our cars are supposed to be filled with handguns, since, without a CHL, it's illegal to carry them To your residence/hotel room/etc (unless you're on your own property, of course, but this doesn't work for those living in apartments or on hotel property! )

PC §46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits
an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries
on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the
person is not:
(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's
control; or
(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned
by the person or under the person's control.

Not "To or From" but just "to"

So, with all the above, my answer to the hotel question? I really don't know. I agree that Once the handgun is in the hotel room, it's legal there, since it's obviously a 'premises under the person's control'. Question is... how do you get it there, and is it legal?

Hoi Polloi wrote:

srothstein wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:It seems to me that the CHL specific laws should be clarified in the next legislative session to specifically say that a person with a CHL is not barred from having a gun in any place that those without a CHL are legally allowed to have one and it should say which laws take precedence when more than one are in effect in the same location.

This is already clear in the law. CHL is an exception to the law so it only applies where carrying would otherwise be illegal. If you are in a place where it is not illegal for anyone to carry (your car, your home, etc.) then CHL does not apply because it cannot come into play.

If you were carrying on your property and an officer asked you for identification, would you be required to give him your CHL? If so, the CHL law trumps the castle doctrine.

The two sections are completely separate and not relevant. Note that I could be a police officer in uniform and still required to show my CHL if I was asked by another LEO for my ID.

The key is to look at the sections of the law for their specific wording. The Penal Code sections apply first by making something illegal and then by applying the exceptions. So, my first statement applies and the law on which has precedence is clear. But when you look at the Government Code section, it specifies that you will present your CHL when asked for ID if you have a pistol on or about your person. The key here is that it does not ask HOW the gun is being legally carried, and it may even be carried illegally (such as in a school). There are many ways for a person to carry legally without it being under the authority of their CHL and riding in a car (under the MPA requirements) is just one. My being a cop is a second, as is a traveler or being a soldier on active duty.

Many times we tend to think of the laws as one large coordinated block of thought, but this is not true. There may be related sections, but they are separate sections with separate interpretations that may or may not interact with each other.

Is Hilton the only chain that is known for posting?

maximus2161 wrote:I was just curious how the law comes into play regarding your overnight stay in a hotel. Since you are staying there but again its still business and they can do what they want. I was just vague on it.

thanks!

The question this raises in my mind is: if a hotel owner can prohibit you from having a gun in your hotel room, because it's a business, can an apartment owner prohibit you from having a gun in your apartment? An apartment property is a business too, and it is less "open" to the public than a hotel, so it seems like an apartment owner should have equal or greater right to prohibit you from having a gun on his property if this power is based on some concept of private property rights.

I am under the impression that an apartment owner cannot prohibit you from having a gun in your apartment, but if he can't, then why can the hotel owner?

VMI77 wrote: I am under the impression that an apartment owner cannot prohibit you from having a gun in your apartment, but if he can't, then why can the hotel owner?

I don't have an answer to your question, but given the apartment example, you are living there under a contractual agreement. Same as with the hotel example, a contractual agreement exists between the hotel owner and the person staying there. This can, but I'm not certain it does, change the legal situation dramatically.

The hotel owner can not prohibit you from having a gun in your room. That room is your residence while you are staying there.

bdickens wrote:The hotel owner can not prohibit you from having a gun in your room. That room is your residence while you are staying there.

The whole question as I perceive the thread, is how does one carry your weapon from your car to your room if the hotel is posted 30.06? Are you now exempt from observing the law?

Purplehood wrote:The whole question as I perceive the thread, is how does one carry your weapon from your car to your room if the hotel is posted 30.06? Are you now exempt from observing the law?

There's case law that predates the CHL law on the difference between carrying a handgun and transporting a handgun.

I am not a lawyer.
Here's my take. It is in no way to be construed as advice for someone else here.

I would probably not choose to stay in a motel/hotel that's posted 30.06, but there could be circumstances where I would. Say I've been driving for 18 hours straight and am dead tired. This is the first place I've found with a vacancy. It's either stay here or face the possibility of having to go on another few hours, assuming I don't die asleep at the wheel, before I find anything else. Been there, done that. Or say my boss, out of the blue, says he needs me in San Antonio tomorrow and he's already booked the hotel. Been there, done that. Or it's a trip, possibly booked through a travel agency, with reservations made way in advance to get all the discounts, that you don't want to change up at the last minute, possibly infuriating your travel companion. In any of those situations, I would make a note to myself to avoid that particular inn in the future, but would probably stay there that time.

Under MPA, I'm legal to carry in my vehicle (or even the boss's vehicle, under my control, although I might be in trouble with the boss if he knew).
I'm pretty sure I'm legal in my hotel room. If I had no CHL, then 30.06 does not affect me at all. Then I'm certain I'd be legal in my hotel room. With a CHL, I think there's a gray area there in the room of a hotel that's posted 30.06.

I believe (though I can't quote the law to back it up) that I can legally transport it from my vehicle to my residence (residence being my hotel room for the time being).

I would take the 30.06 sign to mean that I shouldn't be loitering in the public spaces such as the lobby, restuarant, or by the pool while packing. Which someone without a CHL could not legally do. Basically, the 30.06 sign deprives me of my CHL priviledges, but not of the rights a non-CHL would have in the same place. (And yes, I know the fact that we have to show a CHL to a LEO and tell him if we're carrying, while a non-CHL does not under the MPA, does tend to argue against that, but I'm going with it anyway.)

Whether my weapon was broken down, with the slide in one locked suitcase, the frame in another, and the ammo in another, or if it was loaded and in a holster on my hip, I doubt that makes a difference, legally. It may make a difference in the eyes of the hotel employee who outs you or to the police officer he calls though.

So I'd carry, to and from my room only. I'd be extra extra careful about concealment. (And I'd keep in mind that, if caught, I may face a lengthy and expensive legal battle in what may ultimately be an unwinnable case.)

The Annoyed Man wrote:If you have a CHL and you carry a gun past a 30.06 sign, is it still a violation if the gun is unloaded and concealed in a suitcase. Is it a violation if the gun is concealed in the suitcase, loaded?

There is nothing in Texas law dealing with whether a gun is loaded or unloaded, none. If you're legal with an empty gun, you're legal with a loaded gun. IANAL, but that's one of the few points in all this mess that I'm sure of.

mgood wrote:There is nothing in Texas law dealing with whether a gun is loaded or unloaded, none. If you're legal with an empty gun, you're legal with a loaded gun. IANAL, but that's one of the few points in all this mess that I'm sure of.

The same goes for gun shows that post 30.06 signs. The only place I can find where loaded or unloaded makes a difference is 46.13 but there may be hunting rules. Not that either applies in this case.