TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:All the man wanted to know if his 19 year old daughter could have a pistol in her car.

And that question was clearly answered in the affirmative multiple times.

This is about the biggest thread hijack I've seen in a while.

Really? The ensuing diversion was a relatively minor one that was still quite strongly related to the original topic. When someone asks about giving a handgun to a young person and is given an answer as broad and misleading as "there are no age restrictions" it begs at least some correction, lest someone erroneously conclude that the law says nothing about handing a pistol to your 16 year-old to keep in his/her car. A mistake that has the potential for causing someone a lot of grief.

Interestingly, the diversion in question had not been commented on at all for several days now.

txmatt wrote:Take a look at Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code Title 4 Section 106.04:

106.04a wrote:A minor commits an offense if he consumes an alcoholic beverage.

However there is no analogous statue pertaining to the possession of a firearm by a minor that I am aware of. It is not illegal. There is no regulation of it. How is this difficult to understand?

Very, since it is not true. If it is illegal to sell a firearm to a minor, and illegal to give him (a readily dischargable) one (in most circmstances) then it borders on the ridiculous to claim that there "is no regulation of it." Furthermore, you've also been given a reference to 18 USC 922(x), which specifically makes it a federal crime for a juvenile (under 18) to possess a handgun, or for anyone to provide him/her with one (again, with some exceptions). Needless to say, we in TX are subject to federal law like everyone else.

It makes no sense to take the fact that it is a Class C misdemeanor to make available a readily discharegable firearm to a minor to imply that there is a restriction of possession by minors.

Uhhhh...that's pretty much the only logical implication.

Besides, if a minor is legally carrying a handgun in a car under the current law...

Given 18 USC 922(x), that's not going to be the case (except, again, under certain exceptional circumstances.)

....(not considering traveling exemption) then it has to be concealed. Unless the minor has committed a crime or defended himself it will never be found...

Or if he/she is pulled over and the officer has probable cause to search the vehicle.

...and there will be no charge for anyone, and if the latter happens it is an exemption to the giving access, so again there will be no charges for anyone.

You are using common sense application of the law with your alcoholic beverage analogy to make your argument in which you then ignore common sense application of the law pertaining to firearm possession by a minor (i.e. that there was no intention to punish adults making a firearm available to a minor unless the minor commits a crime.)

Really? How odd then that the law was written with a penalty (albeit a lesser one) for providing the firearm even if the minor does not use it to commit a crime. That's a bit like inferring that the disparate penalties for stabbing someone who survives vs. stabbing someone who dies from the injury means that the state legislature did not intend for stabbing someone to be considered a crime.

Give it up already.

I'll be glad to, once proven wrong.

Mike from Texas wrote:

boomerang wrote:Some of you people really must love to argue.

Mike from Texas wrote:I have a 19yo daughter that wants to carry a gun in her car.

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You beat me to it. Now I'm more confused than ever.

There's no reason why you should be. The contention has been with regard to those under 17, a group implied by the original claim that there is "no age limit" on the possession of firearms in TX".

I just asked a simple question.......or at least I thought. Thanks to those that gave constructive input.

And you received several simple answers, one of which was overly broad in its implications. Since you're not the only person reading this thread there is the possibility that someone else might have read the answer in question and made a bad legal decision based on it. That warranted the factual challenge I made. I assumed that if it was of no interest to you then you were quite capable of ignoring it.

pt145ss wrote:No…I do not think so. The possession of the firearm is not limited by age and the minor has not committed a criminal offense by simply being in possession of a loaded firearm. The person giving the minor access to a loaded firearm my be culpable under certain circumstances and may have committed an offense…but the minor has not.

If you try reading my previous posts on this subject again you'll find that I have not only not claimed that the minor has committed any offense, I've been quite explicite about who HAS committed the offense. In other words, you're arguing with something that I've never claimed.

pt145ss wrote:Obviously it must be difficult because I just can’t come to the same conclusion that you come to.

As we see from the previous quote, you have misidentified the conclusion to which I've come. A minor does not need to be chargable with a criminal offense in order for there to be an age-based legal limit on something. If you give a 5 year-old an alcoholic drink and he is found by a LEO to be drinking it he will not be subject to being charged with anything. You, on the other hand, are not so lucky. Does this mean that there is no legal limit on the consumption of alcohol in TX? Of course not. The law prohibits many things for minors, but does not provide for criminal charges for those same minors. We tend to hold adults responsible in those cases.

pt145ss wrote:First, there may very well be an age limitation on selling a firearm to a minor…but selling and possessing are two different things aren’t they?

They are. In fact, I explicitely described them as two seperate restrictions. As such I'm not sure why you're asking this question.

pt145ss wrote:Second, the intent of this law is so that the state can hold someone culpable for allowing a minor to gain possession of a loaded firearm that is then used for unlawful purposes. The age of 17 is put in there as a guide to determine under what circumstances the owner is culpable for allowing access to the firearm.

No, not just "unlawful purposes". For any purpose, with a few minor exceptions. You should read 46.13 again.

pt145ss wrote:Show me a TX statute, that says “A minor of X age or less commits an offense by being in possession of a firearm whether the firearm is used for lawful purposes or not.� If you can show me something like that…then I would agree that there is an age limitation on “possession.�

Under 46.13…the minor has not committed and offense.

See above. You're still arguing against something that no one is claiming.

boomerang wrote:Some of you people really must love to argue.

Some of us also happen to think that correcting erroneous legal information is a worthwhile thing.

pt145ss wrote:

DParker wrote:I'm not looking for a urinary olympiad here. I'm just trying to prevent the erroneous impression that TX law says it's fine for kids of any age to possess firearms under any circumstances. That simply isn't true.

You are correct it is not fine for kids to possess a firearm under ANY circumstance. It is not fine for a kid to posses a firearm when the firearm is used in an unlawful manner. But wait a minute…is that not true for adults as well? So is the limitation based on age? Or is it based on the fact that it was used in an unlawful manner? I believe the latter.

Really? So even though I've posted the full text of the statute that prohibits furnishing a loaded firearm to an unsupervised minor (person under 17 years of age), you don't think there's any age restriction of any sort?

The law does not specify a minimum age at which a minor is in illegal possession of a firearm even if the use of that firearm is for lawful purposes.

Then you're going to have a very difficult time explaining the intent of 46.13, at a minimum. If it is illegal to sell a gun to a minor, and illegal to give him a loaded one to possess while unsupervised...

C'mon. This really isn't that difficult to piece together, is it?

seamusTX wrote:46.13 is prosecuted only when a kid does something stupid with a firearm, like taking it to school or shooting someone, and gets caught.

OK. So we've gone from "there are no age limits" in the law to "well, it's not prosecuted". If I'd known you'd be moving the goalposts I'd have spent more time warming up my kicking leg

I have heard police chiefs complaining in the past that their officers cannot arrest minors who are driving around long guns (before car-carry was completely legal). They would have to applly the same reasoning to handguns now.

Well, I never said anything about arresting the minor. Could you see the officer maybe confiscating the weapon?

On a practical level, I know people who let their unsupervised kids shoot on their own property, and don't give it a second thought. I don't know any who them them drive around with a handgun.

Which makes that a pretty irrelevant anecdote.

I'm not looking for a urinary olympiad here. I'm just trying to prevent the erroneous impression that TX law says it's fine for kids of any age to possess firearms under any circumstances. That simply isn't true.

seamusTX wrote:

DParker wrote:Say your 16 year-old gets pulled over, and when he opens the glove compartment to retrieve his insurance card the officer spots the Glock you gave him to keep in the car on his way to and from work. What do you suppose is going to be the likely outcome?

I can see three likely outcomes:

• The officer understands the law, and nothing happens.
• The officer arrests for UCW, and the DA drops the charge.
• The DA accepts the charge, and the judge dismisses the case on preliminary motion.

It simply is not possible to find someone guilty of an offense that does not exist in the law.

I see you're still not quite understanding what I'm getting at. In the scenario above you have, in violation of 46.13, given your "child" (as defined in that statute) unsupervised access to a readily dischargable firearm. So at a minimum *you* are guilty of an offense that most certainly does exist under the law. So to contend that "nothing happens" if "the officer understands the law" is quite incorrect.

Are you still contending that the officer is (assuming he understands the law) going to simply allow Jr. to drive away with the loaded Glock still in this glove compartment?

seamusTX wrote:This law makes it an offense for the person who allows a minor child access to a loaded weapon. It is not an offense for the child.

How many times do we need to have this argument?

Likely until you get it right. You said the penal code contains no age restrictions on the possession of a firearm. Clearly there are. The fact that the law makes the involved adult the prosecutable offender and not the minor (like most such laws) does not mean that there are "no age restrictions" on possession of the type under discussion. Say your 16 year-old gets pulled over, and when he opens the glove compartment to retrieve his insurance card the officer spots the Glock you gave him to keep in the car on his way to and from work. What do you suppose is going to be the likely outcome? You get arrested but Jr. gets to keep the handgun in his possession?

seamusTX wrote:It's competely legal. Nowhere in the penal code is there an age limitation on possession of a weapon.

In this case it's legal, but there most certainly is an age limitation on unsupervised possession (which this scenario involves) of a "readily dischargable" firearm in the TX Penal Code:

§ 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."

I'm fairly sure that the amendments to 46.02 do not contravene the restrictions of 46.13.