TexasCHLforum.com

barres wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote: However, 46.02(a-1) (MPA) says it is only an offense to carry a handgun in a car if (1) in plain view, or (2) the person is (A) engaged in criminal activity, (B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, or (C) a member of a criminal gang.

If none of those situations exist, then there is nothing illegal about having a handgun in your car, and therefore you don't need the exception granted by 46.15(b)(6). Therefore, if you meet the requirements for MPA, you are carrying under the MPA, even if you have a CHL.

And logically, it simply doesn't make sense to claim that you lose your rights to carry under the MPA by acquiring a license to carry. The point of a license is to grant additional privileges, not to restrict rights you would have otherwise had.

The only problem with this, as it pertains to the OP, is that this happened in a school zone, which is presumably within 1000 feet of a school, therefore, without a CHL, he was engaged in a criminal activity by violating the Federal Safe Schools Zone.

To the OP, I'm sorry that you had a less than stellar contact with an officer.

Hmm, In general, local LEO's are not concerned with enforcing Federal laws. In fact, I don't think they could arrest for a Federal offense if they wanted to -- not their jurisdiction. Therefore I'm not at all sure that the violation of a Federal law would count toward "engaged in criminal activity", thought I certainly wouldn't want to test it.

Any LEOs/lawyers on this board have an opinion?

speedsix wrote:Mama NEVER swatted my butt before makin' me unload 'em...not since she grabbed me up at about 7 and busted her hand on the "D" cell batteries I had crammed in my pockets...

OldCurlyWolf wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:
And logically, it simply doesn't make sense to claim that you lose your rights to carry under the MPA by acquiring a license to carry. The point of a license is to grant additional privileges, not to restrict rights you would have otherwise had.

I will believe that when I see a court of competent jurisdiction ruled that way and it is upheld in higher courts.

I do not want to be the test case.

That's fine. The line of my post that you quoted was secondary, anyway, to the primary argument. But you're right that there is no case law to back up my statements. As there is little to no case law to back up most of the disputes that arise on this forum. And given the inherent lawfulness of most CHL licensees, that isn't likely to change anytime soon.

When asked for ID by an officer, if you're carrying and have a CHL, you are required to display the CHL to the officer (though there is no punishment if you don't or can't).
That is because 411.205 states "If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person...(he must display)" it does NOT say, "If a license holder is carrying under authority of Ch 411, Subchapter H...". Therefore, you have to display the license even if you're not carrying under it's authority.

However, that does NOT mean you are carrying under the authority of that CHL while in an automobile...

46.15(b)(6) is the section that "excepts" section 46.02 (Unlawful carrying weapons) for CHL holders.
However, 46.02(a-1) (MPA) says it is only an offense to carry a handgun in a car if (1) in plain view, or (2) the person is (A) engaged in criminal activity, (B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, or (C) a member of a criminal gang.

If none of those situations exist, then there is nothing illegal about having a handgun in your car, and therefore you don't need the exception granted by 46.15(b)(6). Therefore, if you meet the requirements for MPA, you are carrying under the MPA, even if you have a CHL.

And logically, it simply doesn't make sense to claim that you lose your rights to carry under the MPA by acquiring a license to carry. The point of a license is to grant additional privileges, not to restrict rights you would have otherwise had.