Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 1:49 pm
Issues, guys, keep it about the ISSUES.
Please. Thanks.
Please. Thanks.
The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://www.texaschlforum.com/
Yep...again...BrassMonkey wrote:Here we go again...
Thats a little difficult now...And yeah, technically there is not a lot of difference in that regard...1. Ask him - And I have no idea who you are so I can't compare you too
I haven't seen a lot of that, but then again it may be in that other forum...2. People are griping about what information is available to "the man" just pointing that most of that info is available to people not, "the man"
Hey! Looky there! You got that right...3. I have nothing at all to prove, this is an internet forum. Use the information you find as you see fit
Fabulous...4. I participate here because occasionally, I learn something...
Yer welcome, I'm not going anywhere...Thank you, come again...
llwatson wrote:Issues, guys, keep it about the ISSUES.
Please. Thanks.
PC §46.13. MAKING A FIREARM ACCESSIBLE TO A CHILD.
(a) In this section:
(1) "Child" means a person younger than 17 years of age.
(2) "Readily dischargeable firearm" means a firearm that is loaded with ammunition, whether or not a round is in the chamber.
(3) "Secure" means to take steps that a reasonable person would take to prevent the access to a readily dischargeable firearm by a child, including but not limited to placing a firearm in a locked container or temporarily rendering the firearm inoperable by a trigger lock or other means
(b) A person commits an offense if a child gains access to a readily
dischargeable firearm and the person with criminal negligence:
(1) failed to secure the firearm; or
(2) left the firearm in a place to which the person knew or should have known the child would gain access.
(c) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the child's access to the firearm:
(1) was supervised by a person older than 18 years of age and was for hunting, sporting, or other lawful purposes;
(2) consisted of lawful defense by the child of people or property;
(3) was gained by entering property in violation of this code; or
(4) occurred during a time when the actor was engaged in an agricultural
enterprise.
(d) Except as provided by Subsection (e), an offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
(e) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor if the child discharges the firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury to himself or another person.
(f) A peace officer or other person may not arrest the actor before the seventh day after the date on which the offense is committed if:
(1) the actor is a member of the family, as defined by Section 71.003, Family Code, of the child who discharged the firearm; and
(2) the child in discharging the firearm caused the death of or serious
injury to the child.
(g) A dealer of firearms shall post in a conspicuous position on the premises where the dealer conducts business a sign that contains the
following warning in block letters not less than one inch in height:
"IT IS UNLAWFUL TO STORE, TRANSPORT, OR ABANDON AN UNSECURED FIREARM IN A PLACE WHERE CHILDREN ARE LIKELY TO BE AND CAN OBTAIN ACCESS TO THE FIREARM."
Darn, lawful purposes. That spoils my plan to use children as cheap evil minions.(c) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the child's access to the firearm:
(1) was supervised by a person older than 18 years of age and was for hunting, sporting, or other lawful purposes;
Now this can lead to interesting interpretations; the actor, not the child, so you're apparently excused if you were out watering the tomatoes, tending the geraniums, or engaging in some in-closet hydroponics, but not while you're, say, rushing your spouse to the emergency room.(4) occurred during a time when the actor was engaged in an agricultural
enterprise.
Here is what I see happening. You know most people, especially in the summer time, like to run off into stores for a quick minute for whatever reason. What if a parent was "questioned" for some reason for leaving a CHILD (under 17yo) in the car alone; and upon further investigation the LEO ask if you have a firearm in the vehicle. According to the law, you can be charge with PC 46.13 "making a firearm accessible to a child." becauseKD5NRH wrote:[Edited to add:] The wording is also not quite clear on what gaining access to a readily dischargeable firearm would be; if it was left unloaded, it doesn't meet the definition given of readily dischargeable, even if the ammunition is also readily available. The way it is written, the kid could be found holding an empty gun in one hand, and a box of ammo for it in the other, and no violation has been comitted. Does it then become a crime when the child loads the gun, or not, since the gun was not readily dischargeable when the actor failed to secure it?
You are correct. The federal gun free school zone exemption for CHL holders only applies if you hold a permit from the state you reside in.stash wrote:Regarding the discussion earlier in this thread about the 1000' school gun free zone, am I correct in thinking that if a Texas resident carries on another states license (lets say Utah - seems to be popular around here), they would be in violation of that gun zone thing? Seems I read that once but can't remember for sure.
I would argue that reciprocity means that if you have a license issued by another state, you are licensed by the state that grants you reciprocity.mikeloc wrote:It does not say you must have a license from the state you live in, but the state the school zone in located. Therefore, if you drive by a school in another state that accepts your Texas license you're not covered unless you have a license from the state you're visiting.