I would have a big problem with a law written this way. Our current philosophy on laws in the US is that nothing is illegal unless specifically forbidden. Writing a law this way changes it to nothing is legal unless permission is given.CWOOD wrote:Personally, I would have preferred that they change 46.02 to read that it is NOT a violation UNLESS... That would start off with the statement that possession a handgun is not a violation, and then create exceptions for when it IS a violation.
The way we have it now, our laws have to write first what is a violation, then write the exceptions to it. Let's leave it like that so we can keep all of our laws the same.
I started to say that I also have a problem with the restriction on owned cars. The more I think about it, the less I think it is really a problem. Consider how often you go out with a friend. If the friend is driving, how did you get the gun there legally? If you had a CHL, then this law doesn't apply. If you are carrying in your car for protection and go get the friend, you probably will drive your car. If the friend came and got you is the only time the law comes into play. How many people that would carry in this case do not have a CHL? The only other time I could think of, I think the car would actually still be under your control. Of course, that was the taxi cab ride. If I am paying, I have rented the car and driver, thus it is under my control. Proof is that it is going where I said, and I can even specify the route taken if I want to.
Until we do away with all of Chapter 46, I will be happy to see this come in as one small step in the right direction. I don't think it will become a problem for anyone else.