Gun in car console - no CHL

[Angus]

I believe I heard or read somewhere that in Texas it is legal to carry a loaded gun in the console of a car without a CHL, is this fact or myth?

[Greybeard]

Lots of discussion on it since passage of House Bill 1815 (Motorist Protection Act), effective Sept. 1, 2007. Yes, legal subject to revised criteria in Penal Code 46.02. http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 01815F.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[tfrazier]

Lots of discussion on it since passage of House Bill 1815 (Motorist Protection Act), effective Sept. 1, 2007. Yes, legal subject to revised criteria in Penal Code 46.02. http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 01815F.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I LOVE it when folks reply with the correct answer and back it up with a link to the docs! Good job, Greybeard!

[The Annoyed Man]

What's interesting about it after having actually read Graybeard's linked PDF is the way the law in general is written from a philosophical standpoint. It has never occurred to me until this moment that much of the laws in general tell you what you MAY NOT do, not what you MAY do. I think that this can often be confusing to people because these days they are looking for a clear affirmation of what they MAY do, rather than what they MAY NOT do.

The reason I find this interesting is that our fundamental structure of government, the Constitution, and our laws started with the  philosophical assumption that the subset of human behavior called MAY is much larger than the subset called MAY NOT, and consequently the language used to define those things in our laws talks about the MAY NOTs, because it is easier to describe the smaller subset of MAY NOTs than the larger subset of MAYs. The problem is that, as our government and its laws have grown more and more intrusive and have come to dominate more and more aspects of our lives, the subset of MAYs has shrunk in size while the subset of MAY NOTs has grown in size. Consequently, individuals begin to doubt whether their own behavior is lawful or not - even when motivated by personally benign factors. In the context of this thread, "benign" means that most people who would keep a gun in their car would do so for reasons of self-protection rather than predation.

The founding fathers would have said, "Of COURSE it is lawful to carry a pistol in your carriage! Why do you even feel the need to ask?" In their times, the language used to define laws was couched in MAY NOT terminology because the subset of MAY was assumed to be vastly much larger than the subset of MAY NOT, and pretty much everybody knew what the MAY NOTs were. These days, it is not so clear anymore, and we (the proverbial "we") often find ourselves asking if something we have in mind is legal instead of simply assuming that it is.

I think that we are not that far down the road from seeing our laws written thusly: "you may do A, B, and C. Everything else is illegal."

There's an old Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times." This is interesting, but I don't like it one bit. Am I a budding libertarian?

[Purplehood]

I would hope that the WHAT YOU MAY DO's outnumber the MAY NOT's. By default, if it is not on the MAY NOT list, you MAY DO it. Seems quite logical to me.

If on the other hand you list only the MAY DO's, you put an absolute limit on them as EVERYTHING else is now a MAY NOT by default.

[The Annoyed Man]

I would hope that the WHAT YOU MAY DO's outnumber the MAY NOT's. By default, if it is not on the MAY NOT list, you MAY DO it. Seems quite logical to me.

If on the other hand you list only the MAY DO's, you put an absolute limit on them as EVERYTHING else is now a MAY NOT by default.

Agreed, and I believe that is exactly what the founders intended. My point is that, as a culture, we're being inculcated with exactly the opposite view because there are so many laws on the books stating what we MAY NOT do, that we are no longer sure of what we MAY do. I hate that.

[BobCat]

There is an old saying about not wanting to live in a society where "anything not compulsory is forbidden". Wish I could recall the source of the quote.

[tfrazier]

On top of that, the civil courts and frivolous law suits that are out of control. Even if something isn't 'against the law' rest assured someone is going to find a way to sue over it.

[seamusTX]

There is an old saying about not wanting to live in a society where "anything not compulsory is forbidden". Wish I could recall the source of the quote.

It's a variation on a line from The Once and Future King, T.H. White's allegorical rendition of the story of King Arthur: "EVERYTHING NOT FORBIDDEN IS COMPULSORY"

It is probably a reference to fascism and communism. The book was written in the 1930s, in the years when the Nazis were coming to power in Germany and Stalin was at his worst.

The only principle on which a free society can function is "Whatever is not prohibited is allowed."

As The Annoyed Man correctly stated, the universe of activities that are allowed is much larger than the set of activities (or omissions) that are prohibited. No sane legal system could cover all the variations of human interaction, religious belief, and creative activities such as writing, invention, and composing music. Only a few deeply flawed, insane regimes like the Khmer Rouge have tried.

Getting back on topic, the Texas Penal Code defines offenses in terms similar to "a person commits an offense if he or she intentionally, recklessly, or with criminal negligence [does X]." We have a few other codes that define offenses such as failing to pay taxes or voting irregularities. Everything else is legal. Among those activities is carrying a concealed handgun in your vehicle, though the conditions are rather strict.

That is why someone who wants to verify or deny some rumor such as hollowpoint ammunition being illegal needs to find a law that makes it illegal. The law generally does not state what is legal.

The United States Code and Code of Federal Regulations are another story.

- Jim

[centex aggie]

I just wish Federal places like Fort Hood/Fort Bliss etc...would let CHL holders carry on post

[stevie_d_64]

What's interesting about it after having actually read Graybeard's linked PDF is the way the law in general is written from a philosophical standpoint. It has never occurred to me until this moment that much of the laws in general tell you what you MAY NOT do, not what you MAY do. I think that this can often be confusing to people because these days they are looking for a clear affirmation of what they MAY do, rather than what they MAY NOT do.

The reason I find this interesting is that our fundamental structure of government, the Constitution, and our laws started with the  philosophical assumption that the subset of human behavior called MAY is much larger than the subset called MAY NOT, and consequently the language used to define those things in our laws talks about the MAY NOTs, because it is easier to describe the smaller subset of MAY NOTs than the larger subset of MAYs. The problem is that, as our government and its laws have grown more and more intrusive and have come to dominate more and more aspects of our lives, the subset of MAYs has shrunk in size while the subset of MAY NOTs has grown in size. Consequently, individuals begin to doubt whether their own behavior is lawful or not - even when motivated by personally benign factors. In the context of this thread, "benign" means that most people who would keep a gun in their car would do so for reasons of self-protection rather than predation.

The founding fathers would have said, "Of COURSE it is lawful to carry a pistol in your carriage! Why do you even feel the need to ask?" In their times, the language used to define laws was couched in MAY NOT terminology because the subset of MAY was assumed to be vastly much larger than the subset of MAY NOT, and pretty much everybody knew what the MAY NOTs were. These days, it is not so clear anymore, and we (the proverbial "we") often find ourselves asking if something we have in mind is legal instead of simply assuming that it is.

I think that we are not that far down the road from seeing our laws written thusly: "you may do A, B, and C. Everything else is illegal."

There's an old Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times." This is interesting, but I don't like it one bit. Am I a budding libertarian?

You make a tremendous amount of sense with everything you say there...IT simply needs to be reversed...The government needs to understand and fear going outside the boundaries set forth in how things are supposed to be done, yet no one calls them on the carpet...

I don't care if you like your guy or gal you elect into office...They should fear the people in good times and bad...They do not have any fear, therefore the situation right now is that there is not enough of us banging on their doors reminding them of that fact...

When a politician sees me coming, their reaction should be, "Oh crap. here comes Steve..." (that is exactly the reaction I want out of them)...On the other hand, when they do something right, I certainly let them know it...

There still may be opportunities to be cordule and finesse elected officials these days, but for the most part they need to know we are watching every cotton-pickin' move, statement and VOTE they make...

If I was in their position, I would expect (and want) people to hold me to the same amount of pressure and scrutiny...That is the only way I roll...

The time for niceties is over for now...This is no longer a hobby for any of us...If you want politicians to listen, it is time to get busy...Nice or not, it is the new norm...

They will either thank you for your participation, or they will hate you for it...

I would prefer to be hated...

[seamusTX]

Everyone except extreme libertarians and anarchists (both of whom are unrealistic) want government to prohibit and compel certain activities. For some it's gambling or nude dancing. For others it's racial discrimination or "gun control." Government at every level oscillates between more liberal and conservative trends. Each group passes the laws that it wants. Their successors find it difficult to repeal existing laws, because those laws have built up a constituency.

The founders warned us that this could happen, but too few people listened. In fact, they fell into the trap as early as the John Adams administration.

- Jim