The statute is poorly written and open to several interpretations. I found this language in a Texas Appeals Court case from 2004 indicating the phrase “weapon... commonly used in the activity� applies to hunting and fishing instrumentalities as well as sporting activities:
<<<Even if Rogers had claimed to have been hunting, there is no evidence, as required by Section 46.15(b)(4), that his pistol was a weapon commonly used in hunting snakes or wild hogs." Rogers v. Peeler, 146 S.W.3d 765, Sixth Dist., Texarkana>>>
Rogers and his party were not hunting or fishing, but had gone four wheeling in the Sabine River bottom and only carried weapons for protection from “any snakes or wild hogs that might threaten them.�
So much for bird watching and rock collecting. I don’t really do those things, they were just for example. But I do fish occasionally in the Sabine River below Toledo Bend Reservoir where it borders Texas and Louisiana.
And it looks like open carry while fishing in Texas is headed to the toilet.
Perhaps a simple double barrel shotgun of the appropriate lengths is more fitting to the occasion.
Thanks to all who responded to this thread. And by the way, if you do go into the Sabine River bottom these days, pack something legal for protection. The hogs got game.
Update: Tues. Dec. 11, 2006--Hunter Warned About Meth Labs In Woods: http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_article.a ... ryid=60491
Open Carry While Hunting Or Fishing
Moderator: carlson1
-
casingpoint
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1447
- Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:53 pm
The Sixth Court of Appeals may have misinterpreted TRS 10:46.15(b)(4). in Roger v. Peeler. A second reading of the statutes suggests that handguns, illegal knives and clubs may be legal to carry on or about your person while hunting or fishing.
The phrase “if the weapon is a type commonly used in the activity� applies only to weapons used in “sporting activities� and does not apply to weapons used in hunting or fishing, which are given Under TRS 10:46.02, Unlawful Carrying Weapons, to be handguns, illegal knives and clubs carried on or about one’s person.
However, under TRS 10:46.15(B)(4), the above Unlawful Carrying statute is unenforceable when a person is hunting, fishing, or engaged in another “sporting activity.
As the Legislature did not specify any sporting activities other than hunting and fishing, it likewise did not specify any weapons which might be used in those other sporting activities, but created a special category of unknowns. The wording implies at least some weapons other than handguns, illegal knives and clubs would be legal to carry if they were commonly used in a sporting activity.
Assuming the Legislature knew full well what it was doing when it passed both laws, the exemption from prosecution for carrying handguns, illegal knives and clubs bears directly upon hunting and fishing only, and not on other sporting activities. Otherwise, the Legislature would have merely established thelegal standard for hunting a fishing weapons to be those “commonly used in hunting and fishing.�
The exclusion from prosecution for carrying a sporting activity weapon to and from one’s residence to the field seemingly without the inclusion of weapons used in hunting and fishing appears to be an oversight by the Legislature.
That seems a reasonable assumption. I have heard of such bloopers by the Texas Legislature before.
The phrase “if the weapon is a type commonly used in the activity� applies only to weapons used in “sporting activities� and does not apply to weapons used in hunting or fishing, which are given Under TRS 10:46.02, Unlawful Carrying Weapons, to be handguns, illegal knives and clubs carried on or about one’s person.
However, under TRS 10:46.15(B)(4), the above Unlawful Carrying statute is unenforceable when a person is hunting, fishing, or engaged in another “sporting activity.
As the Legislature did not specify any sporting activities other than hunting and fishing, it likewise did not specify any weapons which might be used in those other sporting activities, but created a special category of unknowns. The wording implies at least some weapons other than handguns, illegal knives and clubs would be legal to carry if they were commonly used in a sporting activity.
Assuming the Legislature knew full well what it was doing when it passed both laws, the exemption from prosecution for carrying handguns, illegal knives and clubs bears directly upon hunting and fishing only, and not on other sporting activities. Otherwise, the Legislature would have merely established thelegal standard for hunting a fishing weapons to be those “commonly used in hunting and fishing.�
The exclusion from prosecution for carrying a sporting activity weapon to and from one’s residence to the field seemingly without the inclusion of weapons used in hunting and fishing appears to be an oversight by the Legislature.
That seems a reasonable assumption. I have heard of such bloopers by the Texas Legislature before.
I always assumed this was intended to cover target shooting and other gun range activities.The exclusion from prosecution for carrying a sporting activity weapon to and from one’s residence to the field seemingly without the inclusion of weapons used in hunting and fishing appears to be an oversight by the Legislature.
-
casingpoint
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1447
- Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:53 pm
It should cover any "weapon" used in any sporting activity. A bow used in bowfishing, if that was ever legalized in Texas, might be an example.
But "weapons" are limited to handguns, illegal knives and clubs by the first statute, so the statutes are inconflict and the meaning of the second is unclear.
How such loose language on such an important issue made it into law is beyond me. There isn't much case history to determine the common law practice in the lower courts.
But "weapons" are limited to handguns, illegal knives and clubs by the first statute, so the statutes are inconflict and the meaning of the second is unclear.
How such loose language on such an important issue made it into law is beyond me. There isn't much case history to determine the common law practice in the lower courts.