TexasCHLforum.com

- Topic split off from Political Discussion forum -

I know it comes up periodically, but the topic came to my mind after talking about the 30.06 signs at the Tea Party and the gun shows in Pasadena. The argument was whether it's genuinely legal to OC a handgun (unloaded) at a gun show, or for employees/customers to OC in a gun store, and the like.

My thought on it is, yes, it'd be legal in both occasions. Employees at a gun store are pretty clear-cut, I believe: I would presume that any given employee, if he's carrying a handgun, has the permission of the owner or manager of the premises to throw anyone out for any legitimate reason, without needing to first ask him/her to do it (although they might anyways to be sure). To me, that presupposes "legal control" of the premises, and if they possess legal control of the premises, then 46.02 doesn't apply to them.

For us members of the general public, I would make two arguments for its legality. For gun shows in particular, I can see an application of §46.15(b3): "Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who: is engaging in lawful hunting, fishing, or other sporting activity on the immediate premises where the activity is conducted, or is en route between the premises and the actor's residence or motor vehicle, if the weapon is a type commonly used in the activity." "Sporting activity" isn't defined by the section nor does it reference another, so it defaults to the common dictionary meaning of the term, which would be: "an activity, organized or disorganized, which is done for enjoyment when a person isn't engaged in employment or other obligations." (New Oxford American). A gun show, to the large majority of attendees, seems to me to be an activity done for relaxation and the pursuit of pleasure... we go to them because they're a meeting of like-minded individuals having a good time while buying and selling things. The vast majority of shows I've gone to, I haven't bought or sold a thing; I go to talk to folk, see what I might like to get in the future, drool over things I could never afford, and chuckle about beef jerky.

A more general argument for its legality is not founded statutorily, but constitutionally. Article 1, Sec. 23 - "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime." If you go by a pure, unexpanded, literal reading of PC Chapter 46, there is no exception whatsoever for touching a handgun in a gun store, nor carrying one back to your car after you buy it (and before the MPA, no way to drive it back to your residence). However, Art. 1 Sec. 23 qualifies the power of the legislature to enact restrictions on carrying weapons only if such restrictions are intended to, and actually further the goal of, preventing crime. Because buying a handgun and bringing it home is legal when you comply with the laws regulating the purchase of firearms, no crime is committed inherently, and the state has no constitutional leg to stand on in regard to "preventing crime." Likewise, milling about a gun show with a zip-tied, unloaded, holstered handgun is not done with the intent of furthering any criminal goal (and decades of such activity backs that up, which is strong precedent to quote in court), I don't believe the constitutionality of §46.02 would stand in that situation.

Thoughts and opinions?