TexasCHLforum.com

And sorry, I missed this part:

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Texas GC 411.205 (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... GV.411.htm):

Sec. 411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license.

So given the above statute, how do you arrive at a requirement to display both IDs if you're not carrying a handgun under authority of your CHL, but rather under the authority of MPA or some other legal device? In the statutes, I mean.

It's logic according to the quote above.
1) Are you a licence holder, do you hold a CHL? Yes/No
2) Do you have a handgun on or about your person? Yes/No

If yes to both the above, produce ID & CHL when asked for ID.

There is no exception to the above. No 'Are you carrying under CHL' requirement. Simply that you have been issued a CHL, and that you have a handgun on or about you.

I think you confuse 'not carrying under its authority' with 'not carrying' at all.

by 'Not carrying under its authority' I mean that you have a handgun on you, but you are carrying it in a way, or place, that does not require you to have a CHL to do so.

For example, if you are on your property, you do not need a CHL to carry a handgun, as property you own, or under your control is an exemption of 46.02. You are not carrying under the authority of CHL, as a CHL is an exception to 46.02. An exception you do not need, because it is not illegal under 46.02. However, were you asked by LE for ID, you would be required to show your CHL, because you meet the requirements of having a CHL, and carrying a handgun.

Another example, you are driving in your car. You have a handgun on you, but once again, MPA is not illegal under 46.02, hence no exception needed. It's not illegal.
However, were you asked for ID, once again, you had the 2 things specified by law that require you to show your CHL, a handgun, and a CHL.

Third example. A LEO Crusing down the street on duty. He is also exempted from 46.02. However, if he were asked for ID by another LEO, technically, under law, if he had a CHL, and a handgun on him, he would be technically required, by law, to show that CHL, even though he is not carrying under it.

TrueFlog wrote:

Abraham wrote:O.K.

Anyone here seen a 30.06 posted garage?

If so, where/name of business?

Several businesses in the metro area have their employee parking lots posted with 30.06. We had them when I worked at Raytheon in Garland. We all know these signs don't apply to employees, but there are a lot of non-employees who use these lots - repair men, delivery men, wives and kids coming for a visit, employees from other companies, job applicants, etc.

Keith B wrote:You can be arrested for trespass in a vehicle. You don't have to exit the vehicle. Where I believe the argument on being able to bypass the 30.06 sign with a gun in your car is that 30.06 does not apply to MPA and you would not be carrying under the authority of your CHL until you exit your car. 30.05 would still apply to you for criminal trespass, even in your vehicle, if the location was posted with a general no trespass sign or you refused to leave when requested since your CHL would not be applicable to carrying at that time, MPA would.

So this begs an interesting question - is there any sign that carries legal weight that would prevent an individual from carrying under the MPA? (And I mean one that's specific to firearms, not a general no trespassing sign.) For example, suppose I own several acres in rural Texas and my house sits well off the road such that my driveway is a few hundred yards long. Is there any sign I could post at the entrance to the driveway to prohibit someone from having a gun in their car as they drive up to my house?

Yes, any Anti-gun sign will work, for long guns. There is no exemption for long guns in 30.05. Just like any no-guns sign will work right now for carrying a long gun openly in public.

Any Anti-gun sign will work for handguns too, unless they have a CHL on their person, in which case they are exempted from 30.05.

You are all forgetting that 30.05 has a part that reads as follows:

(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and

(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was carrying.

So, walk with me here. If you're in your car, and see a 30.06 sign on a parking lot:

-30.06 applies while carrying under CHL
-CHL is an exception to 46.02
-46.02 doesn't apply in your car due to MPA, therefore you are not carrying under CHL, and 30.06 does not apply. You are currently carrying under the exception to 46.02.

So, we fall down to general trespass, 30.05 in this case.

-30.05 says it does not apply if "the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden" and
-The person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was carrying.

Note, not under it's AUTHORITY, simply that you are carrying both on your person. That is an important difference. It's the same verbiage that requires you to show your CHL to an officer, even if you're not carrying under it's authority. So therefore, 30.05 doesn't apply in that case either.

Now, 30.05 Will instantly apply if they ask you to leave, or post a sign that you are not allowed, for ANY other reason, but not for the reason of carrying a handgun. Eg, a 'No White Cars' sign, with you driving a white car WOULD apply.

It's a weird situation where there is absolutely no way they can ask you to leave for simply the handgun, because the law does not allow them to.

See the link in my signature for the opinion of another LEO on this forum from back in time.
Summary: While under MPA, 30.06 doesn't apply.