TexasCHLforum.com

mymojo wrote:never discuss the details of a legal issue on the internet prior to your day in court.

the three rules(as I understand them):

1) SHUT UP.
2) Get a lawyer
3) SHUT UP.

not trying to be a jerk, but I'd hate for this post to comeback and bite ya int he you know what later.

You forgot one, its actually more of a subtext of #1 though.

1)a) Tell your friends/Family members who think they're 'helping' to also SHUT UP.

mr.72 wrote:

Purplehood wrote:It was adequately concealed if the officers searched the vehicle and found nothing, only to be made aware of it by the OP himself. Come daylight, he might have moved it elsewhere.

I guess I interpreted "clearing" in this context to not be referring to a search of the vehicle. It was a 15-passenger van, and they (reportedly) thought he may have been involved in a drive-by shooting. The "clearing" sounds like it was in order to ensure there were not other people in the large vehicle. The "search" after the gun was pointed out resulted in them easily finding the gun in a rather conspicuous location.

Anyway, point is that, while it may have been adequately concealed for most purposes, this all goes out the window once you get stopped and the cops start looking into the vehicle to find things. It's going to be a tough argument to make, that the gun was concealed, when all that it took to reveal it was a flashlight.

The key here is the wording in the MPA:

(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 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

It doesn't say 'concealed', it says 'in plain view'

If the police looked through the vehicle, and did not see the handgun, then it was not 'in plain view'.
Therefore, he did not violate the statute.

Someone more knowledgable than myself may correct me, but I believe that 'plain view' has a legal definition that an officer must be able to see this item WITHOUT actually searching, or even entering, the vehicle. So even if it was found in a search, it could still be considered not in 'plain view'. Eg, if you can't see it from standing outside a window and looking in, then it is not in 'plain view'.

stash wrote:Yes get a lawyer quick. What am I missing here? Does not the MPA apply in this case?

Yes it does. You are missing nothing.

If the OP is 100% truthful in his explanation, The fact that they 'cleared' the vehicle and did not notice the gun in and of itself should prove it was properly concealed.

The could have got him on UCW if he was, in fact, shooting out of the window, as there is a clause in the MPA that invalidates it if you are in the act of commiting a crime, or are a member of a gang.
This is probably why they arrested him on it, as they thought he was the one shooting.

But, as he said, the actual perps were caught later, which proves it was not him, which then restores the MPA. This should have been immediately & completely dropped upon the real perps being caught.
A Good lawyer can probably have it dropped inside of 2 hours.

Lawyer up. Now.

Doesn't matter if you cannot afford it. Liquidate whatever you can, beg, borrow, etc to do so.

As said before, a crappy or public defender will most likely try to make you go for a plea deal. Do not do it.
If your story is 100% true, then you did nothing wrong, and should be acquited on all charges.

Do not take this lightly. This is a serious, life-changing situation. If convicted, it WILL affect the rest of your life,
specifically employment, as every employer that runs a background check will see that you have a WEAPONS Conviction.

No quicker way to have your application/resume tossed in the circular file.

Things like this is why I pay $15 a month into a group legal plan, and am a NRA Member, so I have a lawyer ready to go at zero notice.