Unlicensed carry convictions

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

That is a good question.

My initial thought is that they were carry SA pistol/s when they were only licensed on a revolver.

[Wisewr]

Did this maybe have something to do with not displaying your CHL card? I know they changed the law, but under the old law would a charge like that have fallen under this category of "unlicensed carry convictions?"

[Bart]

Re-reading the other categories, UNL might refer to "unlawful" - but the question remains.

If it's unlawful they could be referring to section 46.035 but then the question flips around to how can someone without a license be convicted of unlawful carrying of handgun by license holder?

[seamusTX]

This has been a puzzlement for years.

I have taken UNL CARRY HANDGUN LIC HOLDER to refer to PC 46.035, and no one has disagreed vigorously.

I have no idea how someone who does not have a CHL can be charged under 46.035. Maybe people with suspended, revoked, or expired CHLs? It doesn't make sense, but see my conclusion below.

UNL CARRYING WEAPON probably refers to 46.02. There is a separate category, PLACE WEAPONS PROHIBITED, which is 46.03.

A CHL holder is in violation of 46.02 if he has a handgun but does not have his license on his person at the time, or he is carrying a semi-auto when he has an NSA license.

An attorney at DPS told me a couple of years ago that only about 1 or 2% of CHLs are NSA, so probably that is not a significant factor.

Also, some of these convictions may have been for non-firearms weapons. The language of the law, PC 46.15(b)(6), may imply that a CHL holder is entirely immune from 46.02 and can carry an "illegal" knife or club. However, that theory has never been heard on appeal. (I wouldn't take the risk.)

With a lazy or ignorant prosecutor and a defendant with no lawyer or "my cousin Vinny's" dumber brother, any kind of plea bargain my be struck.

- Jim

[srothstein]

There is also the possibility of a plea bargain. As one example, someone without a license may be charged with a felony for carrying at a school. He is willing to plead to a misdemeanor to avoid the trial but will not accept a felony conviction and all that it entails. The D.A. supposedly will find a lesser included offense but sometimes they look for one that is close, even if the laws weren't met. Then, as part of the plea bargain, the offender gives up his right to appeal. So the D.A. finds that Unlawfully carrying at a school is only a class A for a licensed holder and proposes it. almost all of the basic elements are met, and the D.A. gets to claim he prosecutes people who carry guns at schools while at the same time, the offender gets his misdemeanor.

That is just one possible explanation of how our current legal system works to produce statistics that do not make sense at first, such as people without a license being convicted of an offense that only applies to license holders.

[seamusTX]

I'm missing your point.

UNL CARRY HANDGUN LIC HOLDER should be 100% CHL holders. It's only 9 convictions in 2007, out of 160 total convictions of CHL holders.

This is also a victimless crime.

The one that bothers me is deadly conduct.

- Jim

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

It could possibly be that the convicted were wrongly convicted (could not afford a lawyer/plea deal). I could be dead wrong. I do know that SOME LEOs cite the law in a way that it will only benefit them and leave out very important information. I thought that ALL LEOs were here to uphold the law and protect civilians. Not try to arrest anyone and everyone for whatever they want. Please read story below for my personal experience...

A couple months ago my neighbor had a party. The party goers parked their cars partially blocking the diveways of the residents. Enough to where you would have had to manuever around the cars to get out of your own driveway. Also, there were some individuals that were drinking and driving in the neighborhood (they got out of the vehicle with the containers in hand and open). They pulled up right next to our house parked and got out drinking.

Now, there are about 23 children that live on my street and its not that long of a street.

Seeing this I got a bit angry. So I called the SA Sheriff. I knew they could not do anything about them drinking and driving to the party. I just wanted to inform them and hopefully they could send someone out to do a patrol every once in a while to ensure everything was ok. I know there are other events that take priority but on the off chance there was someone in the area with nothing to do...

Now I OC on my own property (NEVER step on sidewalk while OCing. I stay in my yard and/or driveway). I do this for a couple of reasons. 1) Its my right and I am legally able to. 2) I do it as a deterrent. Since we are a new subdivision we have been getting robbed alot. Thugs from the surrounding areas see new people + new houses = new things.

So the Sheriff dept. sends some deputies to chat with me (I am outside doing lawn work as I had been for a while). The female that approached me was very hostile. She talked to me for a good 10-15 min and not once asked about my gun. Obviously she didn't feel threatened. She stated that there was nothing they could do and wanted to know why I wanted them here. Now, I never asked them to come out there to talk to me. Nor did I ask for a patrol. I just simply informed them of what was going on.

After talking to the neighbors she comes back to me and asks if I am a police officer. To which I reply no. She looked very puzzled and asked why I had a gun. I informed her that it was my right to own one and my right to open carry on my property according to TPC 46.02.

We discussed it for a few minutes. She then calls her desk SGT on her cell phone. Talks to him/her for a min or two and hangs up. She proceeds to tell me that she can arrest me because I am in violation of TPC 46.035. She then reads the TPC off to me and completely leaves out the portion of "under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code."

I politely informed her that I was not carrying under the authority of my CHL but of TPC 46.02. She again looked very puzzled and got angry. So I stated that if it that big of a problem I will cover up my gun. I threw my shirt over my 1911 and walked away.

So here I am. A law abiding citizen getting threatened to be arrested for something they could not arrest me for. And as for the neighbors...the Deputies were very polite and friendly to them.

[C-dub]

There must be some kind of error in this report. So, this means that some how 7 people that didn't have a CHL were convicted of unlicensed carry by a license holder? Huh??? What license? Could it be arrests/convictions?

[seamusTX]

XtremeDuty.45, welcome to the real world.

Now, I have to begin by saying that the majority of police officers simply want to keep the peace and follow their oath of office, not harass law-abiding people.

Still, there are some who are on a power trip, basically bullies, or have stereotypes about certain groups, including rednecks and "gun nuts." Some do not ever want to see a weapon in the hands of a non-LEO. Some also have a poor grasp of the law, like the one that you ran into.

- Jim

[bhv]

Could the difference be persons licensed to carry a weapon, but not licensed under CHL such as a security guard, police officer, etc.?

[ScottDLS]

Maybe out of state license? Don't have a TEXAS CHL, but violated PC 30.06?

[seamusTX]

Violations of PC 30.06 are "TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN." That offense is not reported. (Neither is criminal trespass, which I find odd).

I'm convinced at this point that no one has ever, in the history of the universe or any known alternate universe, been convicted under 30.06.

I just noticed an anomaly in these reports. They contain the following footnote:

"Offense" means an offense prohibited under Chapter 411, Subchapter H, Texas Government Code or under Title 5, Chapter 29, Chapter 46, or Section 30.03, Texas Penal Code.

Section 30.03 is burglary of a vending machine. I think that is probably supposed to be 30.06, but the error appears in multiple reports.

- Jim