TexasCHLforum.com

I had a question come up in a recent CHL class and I wasn't sure of the answer.

We all know that one doesn't have to be a CHL holder to carry a firearm in one's car. But, we've seen on this forum that a CHL holder licensed for NSA should not keep a semi-auto in the car because the CHL holder is held to a higher standard.

The question that came to me is - what if a CHL holder has a license suspended but has a firearm in their car? It would be perfectly fine for a non-CHL holder. But, is the CHL holder with a suspended license held to a higher standard during their suspension?

I thought it was an interesting question and one for which I couldn't find any information. Your thoughts?

Reason would dictate that a suspended CHL means that you can not carry on your body off your property.... as far as I am concerned, it has no effect on your constitutional right to keep arms and defend property. Other's might not agree here.

Carrying in the car under the Motorist Protection Act has no distinction between NSA or SA.

Suspended CHL (If Felony) cannot carry under MPA.
If not Felony, car carry either NSA or SA or Shotgun or Rifle or Derringer or whatever.

This is strictly MY interpretation. IANAL.

This was all a hypothetical question anyways (since the person asking didn't yet have a CHL at all) but:

- Person has a CHL and it is suspended for 30 days (lets say failure to report change of address)
- During suspension period, the person carries a firearm in their car (Motorist Protection Act)

Now if the person never had a CHL at all, there is clearly no issue with carrying in their car. But is a CHL holder (with a suspended CHL) held to a different standard during their suspension period?

My initial thought was that a CHL holder or not would make no difference. However, other threads on this same forum indicates a CHL holder with a NSA license couldn't keep a semi-auto in their car under the MPA. The CHL was held to a higher standard. I suspect there isn't a definitive answer to the question since the hypothetical question may never have been tested to date.

I read 46.02 twice and I don't see anything that says "except if their CHL is suspended" or even "except for CHL" in there. What am I missing?

Seems clear cut to me. There are two categories of CHL suspensions: a suspension that is also a disqualification to possess a firearm, and simply a CHL license suspension.

The most common federal disqualifiers that come to mind would be someone who is indicted or convicted of a felony, indicted or convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, subject to certaIn kinds of restraining or protective orders, adjudicated a mental defective, etc.

In those kinds of circumstances, obviously the CHL can't carry in the car because the CHL cannot possess a firearm.

Similarly, if the CHL violates any of the conditions imposed by the MPA, the CHL cannot carry under the MPA.

But the other category of CHL suspensions -- failure to change address being a good example -- would have zero impact on someone's right to possess a firearm under MPA.

The easy way to think through this issue (and similar cases) is to ask the question, "What statute would they be charged under?"

I also disagree with the NSA licensee not being able to possess an SA in a car. Forget about all that "higher duty" stuff and ask what crime they would be charged with. The MPA clearly provides justification.

It is my opinion that if a person has a valid CHL they are carrying under their license no matter where the gun is in the car as long as it is not in the possession or say under the seat of a valid CHL holder. MPA does not suspend a CHL holders need to inform a peace officer so MPA does not apply when a person has a CHL. Doesn't matter if the person forgot their license or lost it or whatever.

Suspended CHL is no CHL and the MPA covers the person as long as they are still legal to have the gun. I think most LEOs wouldn't really question if the person was covered under MPA or not so this would never be an issue. If the LEO was out to get someone he/she may use the suspension to harass the person with a suspended CHL. It won't stick but if they are out to get someone it won't matter. Smile, don't get emotional and don't give a LEO a reason to take their problems out on you. Just my opinion.

shootthesheet wrote:It is my opinion that if a person has a valid CHL they are carrying under their license no matter where the gun is in the car as long as it is not in the possession or say under the seat of a valid CHL holder. MPA does not suspend a CHL holders need to inform a peace officer so MPA does not apply when a person has a CHL. Doesn't matter if the person forgot their license or lost it or whatever.

Suspended CHL is no CHL and the MPA covers the person as long as they are still legal to have the gun. I think most LEOs wouldn't really question if the person was covered under MPA or not so this would never be an issue. If the LEO was out to get someone he/she may use the suspension to harass the person with a suspended CHL. It won't stick but if they are out to get someone it won't matter. Smile, don't get emotional and don't give a LEO a reason to take their problems out on you. Just my opinion.

So, are you saying you give up your rights provided by MPA when you get a CHL? If so, I would disagree.

shootthesheet wrote:It is my opinion that if a person has a valid CHL they are carrying under their license no matter where the gun is in the car as long as it is not in the possession or say under the seat of a valid CHL holder. MPA does not suspend a CHL holders need to inform a peace officer so MPA does not apply when a person has a CHL. Doesn't matter if the person forgot their license or lost it or whatever.

Suspended CHL is no CHL and the MPA covers the person as long as they are still legal to have the gun. I think most LEOs wouldn't really question if the person was covered under MPA or not so this would never be an issue. If the LEO was out to get someone he/she may use the suspension to harass the person with a suspended CHL. It won't stick but if they are out to get someone it won't matter. Smile, don't get emotional and don't give a LEO a reason to take their problems out on you. Just my opinion.

Your opinion would be wrong.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=40236&p=483866&hili ... hl#p483866" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and many others.

Thank you for your opinion but I stand by my opinion. Internet consensus or someone else’s opinion isn't going to keep me out of jail. If a CHL holder has a gun in their vehicle they are carrying under that CHL. Otherwise the requirement to inform would be completely removed. It is picking nits but that is how the law concerning CHL holders reads IN MY OPINION.

Internet opinion is just as valuable as the time we spend reading it and the consideration we give it so it doesn't really matter unless we are giving legal advice. Right?

To carry under a CHL a CHL must be valid.
Logically it follows that:
1. A person has a CHL that is suspended.
2. They are carrying in their car (On body or off doesn't really matter unless they get out).
3. They can not be carrying under their CHL as it is suspended.
4. They must be carrying under the MPA or carrying illegally if they do not meet the requirements for MPA.

shootthesheet wrote:Thank you for your opinion but I stand by my opinion. Internet consensus or someone else’s opinion isn't going to keep me out of jail. If a CHL holder has a gun in their vehicle they are carrying under that CHL. Otherwise the requirement to inform would be completely removed. It is picking nits but that is how the law concerning CHL holders reads IN MY OPINION.

Internet opinion is just as valuable as the time we spend reading it and the consideration we give it so it doesn't really matter unless we are giving legal advice. Right?

It wasn't just my opinion, but srothstein's and Charles'. But suit yourself. There is no case law on the subject.
If you're always carrying under the CHL, better keep it concealed at home, and never go to the range -- both would be intentional failure to conceal, and you could be arrested.
And what about police officers with CHLs? They'd have to simultaneously carry both open and concealed. How would they do that?
And if you have a NSA license, better not have any semi-autos at home, that would be a violation of your license.

I was of course referring to car carry only as the topic of the entire thread suggests. You are correct that it is only opinion of even the most knowledgable until case law exists or the AG gives an opinion or the Legislature clarifies the matter by passing another law or it modifies the one that has the requirement to inform when in a car. My opinion is based on what a hostile LEO might do as well as the law as written. It may never affect any CHL holder but the informing while in a vehicle requirement needs to be done away with for me to consider "car carry" the same as carrying on a persons own property or one in which is under their control. It will move us into recognizing rights in our vehicle while on public roads or another persons property which seems to be the purpose of MPA and the "Parking Lot" law. I will consider a CHL being equally covered by MPA if/when that happens.

shootthesheet wrote:I was of course referring to car carry only as the topic of the entire thread suggests. You are correct that it is only opinion of even the most knowledgable until case law exists or the AG gives an opinion or the Legislature clarifies the matter by passing another law or it modifies the one that has the requirement to inform when in a car. My opinion is based on what a hostile LEO might do as well as the law as written. It may never affect any CHL holder but the informing while in a vehicle requirement needs to be done away with for me to consider "car carry" the same as carrying on a persons own property or one in which is under their control. It will move us into recognizing rights in our vehicle while on public roads or another persons property which seems to be the purpose of MPA and the "Parking Lot" law. I will consider a CHL being equally covered by MPA if/when that happens.

You have to inform if you are carrying (concealed or not) in your home or some place under your control. How is that different than being in the car?

3dfxMM wrote:You have to inform if you are carrying (concealed or not) in your home or some place under your control. How is that different than being in the car?

Actually, no you don't. There is nothing in the MPA (or other self-defense laws) that requires a person to voluntarily disclose their possession of a firearm to a police officer unless that person is a CHL holder AND is asked for ID by a Texas Peace Officer AND has a firearm in their possession at the time. Now, if the officer asks if there are any weapons in the vehicle and you tell him/her "no", then, if discovered, you could be charged with lying to a police officer (or whatever the appropriate statute is).