Handgun in car, no permit, pulled over by police

[arthurgarzajr]

I'm not concerned with those that have a license, this is a question pertaining to those without a CHL/LTC license and legally have a handgun in their car. Are they required to let the officer know there is a gun in the car?

[ScottDLS]

There is no law that says they must, which is why they removed the penalty for CHL not disclosing, although it's still "required" of CHL's when they are armed.

So... that stated. The short answer is NO. It may be beneficial, however, to inform LEO if you are going to reach in the general direction of the gun while getting your license/insurance/etc.

[arthurgarzajr]

Thanks!

[stingeragent]

No you don't have to tell them. However if it's in your glovebox , and your about to open it to get your insurance, I would let them know beforehand

[Breny414]

Good question, I've wondered the same thing.

I have a similar question that is somewhat off topic but is related since it has to do with non-CHL holders, traveling and vehicles:

Section 46.15 - Non-Applicability, (b) (2), which says that 46.02 does not apply to a person who "is traveling." Can someone shed some light on that for me? For example, if a person is traveling from one city to another, does this allow the person to conceal carry while in travel status? Can they enter a convenient store or restaurant as such?

[Pawpaw]

Good question, I've wondered the same thing.

I have a similar question that is somewhat off topic but is related since it has to do with non-CHL holders, traveling and vehicles:

Section 46.15 - Non-Applicability, (b) (2), which says that 46.02 does not apply to a person who "is traveling." Can someone shed some light on that for me? For example, if a person is traveling from one city to another, does this allow the person to conceal carry while in travel status? Can they enter a convenient store or restaurant as such?

You can actually forget about that. This is what you're looking for.

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 or watercraft that is owned
by the person or under the person’s control.
(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; 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;
(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or
(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.

The part I highlighted is known as the MPA (Motorist Protection Act) and was passed to provide specifics instead of the undefined "traveling" exemption in 46.15.

[Breny414]

Good question, I've wondered the same thing.

I have a similar question that is somewhat off topic but is related since it has to do with non-CHL holders, traveling and vehicles:

Section 46.15 - Non-Applicability, (b) (2), which says that 46.02 does not apply to a person who "is traveling." Can someone shed some light on that for me? For example, if a person is traveling from one city to another, does this allow the person to conceal carry while in travel status? Can they enter a convenient store or restaurant as such?

You can actually forget about that. This is what you're looking for.

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 or watercraft that is owned
by the person or under the person’s control.
(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; 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;
(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or
(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.

The part I highlighted is known as the MPA (Motorist Protection Act) and was passed to provide specifics instead of the undefined "traveling" exemption in 46.15.

Got it, thanks! So that is the old law which has been superseded by the MPA... and the burden of proof was on the motorist to prove they were traveling. I was hoping the "is traveling" language was something new that afforded someone traveling the ability to CC whether or not they were in a motor vehicle.

[jt88]

Was wondering about this myself while waiting for my permit. I never left home without my gun, but it had to stay in the car.

I was actually last pulled over a few weeks before getting into guns. I was let off with a warning, but during the stop the officer randomly asked if I had any weapons in the car. I told him no and he left it at that and told me to slow down.

It was a few weeks after that when I bought my first gun. I then started to wonder how that situation would play out had I had a gun. I've read the MPA law, but there's a distinct lack of information out there on first hand experiences, and it's pretty fuzzy how an encounter should be handled.

I'm glad that I never had to deal with that potential situation before receiving my permit.

[Pawpaw]

Since the old "traveling" exception was never defined in law, it was left up to the courts to decide what "traveling" really is. I have heard various definitions over the years, including that you must be crossing at least two county lines and have the intent to spend the night.

Legend has it that the illustrious Judge Roy Bean once ruled that if you were sitting or standing in one place, then you weren't "carrying" but if you were walking to the bar to get another drink, you were traveling.

[Breny414]

As the othe posters have said, under the MPA you are not required to declare that you have a weapon when stopped if you are not a CHL holder. If asked, I would certainly tell the officer. But if you decide to voluntarily disclose the fact, I have been informed to be very careful of the language you use... i.e., probably shouldn't say "I have a gun," as that can be misheard or misunderstood, and have bad consequences.

[GlassG19]

As the othe posters have said, under the MPA you are not required to declare that you have a weapon when stopped if you are not a CHL holder. If asked, I would certainly tell the officer. But if you decide to voluntarily disclose the fact, I have been informed to be very careful of the language you use... i.e., probably shouldn't say "I have a gun," as that can be misheard or misunderstood, and have bad consequences.

I got a question on carrying in car without license & WITHIN OR WITHOUT reach. I've heard legally you can, BUT if (my son) has a small 2 door coupe, & I mean small (Mitsubishi Eclipse) as long as it's concealed, will he be legal even though it's within reach. He drives 6 hours to work offshore & he doesn't have time yet to get LTC & he wants to carry (concealed) but within reach. Can someone shed some light on within or without reach without LTC.
Any responses would be appreciated.

[Breny414]

As the othe posters have said, under the MPA you are not required to declare that you have a weapon when stopped if you are not a CHL holder. If asked, I would certainly tell the officer. But if you decide to voluntarily disclose the fact, I have been informed to be very careful of the language you use... i.e., probably shouldn't say "I have a gun," as that can be misheard or misunderstood, and have bad consequences.

I got a question on carrying in car without license & WITHIN OR WITHOUT reach. I've heard legally you can, BUT if (my son) has a small 2 door coupe, & I mean small (Mitsubishi Eclipse) as long as it's concealed, will he be legal even though it's within reach. He drives 6 hours to work offshore & he doesn't have time yet to get LTC & he wants to carry (concealed) but within reach. Can someone shed some light on within or without reach without LTC.
Any responses would be appreciated.

It has to be concealed, that's the requirement. In a glove box, on his person, whatever... just concealed. Somebody with more knowledge please correct me if I'm wrong.

Can someone tell me if the MPA applies to motorcycles? Apologies for hijacking the above question with my own.

[GlassG19]

I very much appreciate your reply,, but if I go here, to MOTORISTS PROTECTION ACT
http://healylaw.com/SPH_Jan-Feb_2012_MPA.pdf
it specifically says ALSO UCW is usually a charge that a motorist gets charged with "accessibility" to a firearm while in your car. Very confusing. So WITHOUT reach it appears is only legal & if pulled over & it's within reach you could get charged w/ UCW ( unlawful carrying weapon) & have to take the ride. That's the last thing I need or want my son have to do. Please understand though I respect your answer but I need a more clearer response(s).
Thank you

[jimd1981]

Specifically to this point:

I very much appreciate your reply,, but if I go here, to MOTORISTS PROTECTION ACT
http://healylaw.com/SPH_Jan-Feb_2012_MPA.pdf
it specifically says ALSO UCW is usually a charge that a motorist gets charged with "accessibility" to a firearm while in your car. Very confusing. So WITHOUT reach it appears is only legal & if pulled over & it's within reach you could get charged w/ UCW ( unlawful carrying weapon) & have to take the ride. That's the last thing I need or want my son have to do. Please understand though I respect your answer but I need a more clearer response(s).
Thank you

If the handgun is CONCEALED and the actor is not a member of a gang, committing a crime other than a Class C misdemeanor traffic violation, and not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the handgun, then the actor is not violating 46.02 (UCW).
Accessibility is not mentioned in 46.02.

In your referenced document, you'll note that the possible UCW charge occurred because the actor was being charged with a DWI. A DWI is a crime other than a Class C traffic violation, and so the MPA protection would not apply.

MPA and Motorcycles:

I'm not a lawyer. That said, there is no specific definition of "Motor Vehicle" in PC 46.02.

Fortunately, they are defined in the Texas Transportation Code (Section 541.201 VEHICLES) as follows:
...
(9)"Motorcycle" means a motor vehicle (emphasis added!), other than a tractor, that is equipped with a rider's saddle and designed to have when propelled not more than three wheels on the ground.

... and a Motor vehicle as follows:

(11) "Motor vehicle" means a self-propelled vehicle or a vehicle that is propelled by electric power from overhead trolley wires. The term does not include an electric bicycle or an electric personal assistive mobility device, as defined by Section 551.201.

So your motorcycle should be fine for MPA, as long as you can: conceal the handgun, you're not a member of a gang, you aren't committing a crime (other than a Class C traffic violation), and you are not otherwise prohibited from carrying.

Keep on carrying!