Question about daughter carrying in car.

[KBCraig]

Someone under 18 carrying a handgun is illegal as per 18 USC 922(x), with a few exceptions.

Like the misnomered "Gun Free School Zones Act", this law will only ever be prosecuted if the minor shoots up a school.

[KBCraig]

In the scenario above you have, in violation of 46.13, given your "child" (as defined in that statute) unsupervised access to a readily dischargable firearm.

Nope. It wasn't readily dischargeable at all when I gave it to him. He had his own ammo and magazines, so he must have loaded it himself.

[DParker]

No…I do not think so. The possession of the firearm is not limited by age and the minor has not committed a criminal offense by simply being in possession of a loaded firearm. The person giving the minor access to a loaded firearm my be culpable under certain circumstances and may have committed an offense…but the minor has not.

If you try reading my previous posts on this subject again you'll find that I have not only not claimed that the minor has committed any offense, I've been quite explicite about who HAS committed the offense. In other words, you're arguing with something that I've never claimed.

Obviously it must be difficult because I just can’t come to the same conclusion that you come to.

As we see from the previous quote, you have misidentified the conclusion to which I've come. A minor does not need to be chargable with a criminal offense in order for there to be an age-based legal limit on something. If you give a 5 year-old an alcoholic drink and he is found by a LEO to be drinking it he will not be subject to being charged with anything. You, on the other hand, are not so lucky. Does this mean that there is no legal limit on the consumption of alcohol in TX? Of course not. The law prohibits many things for minors, but does not provide for criminal charges for those same minors. We tend to hold adults responsible in those cases.

First, there may very well be an age limitation on selling a firearm to a minor…but selling and possessing are two different things aren’t they?

They are. In fact, I explicitely described them as two seperate restrictions. As such I'm not sure why you're asking this question.

Second, the intent of this law is so that the state can hold someone culpable for allowing a minor to gain possession of a loaded firearm that is then used for unlawful purposes. The age of 17 is put in there as a guide to determine under what circumstances the owner is culpable for allowing access to the firearm.

No, not just "unlawful purposes". For any purpose, with a few minor exceptions. You should read 46.13 again.

Show me a TX statute, that says “A minor of X age or less commits an offense by being in possession of a firearm whether the firearm is used for lawful purposes or not.� If you can show me something like that…then I would agree that there is an age limitation on “possession.�

Under 46.13…the minor has not committed and offense.

See above. You're still arguing against something that no one is claiming.

Some of you people really must love to argue.

Some of us also happen to think that correcting erroneous legal information is a worthwhile thing.

[DParker]

Some of you people really must love to argue.

I have a 19yo daughter that wants to carry a gun in her car.

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You beat me to it. Now I'm more confused than ever.

There's no reason why you should be. The contention has been with regard to those under 17, a group implied by the original claim that there is "no age limit" on the possession of firearms in TX".

I just asked a simple question.......or at least I thought. Thanks to those that gave constructive input.

And you received several simple answers, one of which was overly broad in its implications. Since you're not the only person reading this thread there is the possibility that someone else might have read the answer in question and made a bad legal decision based on it. That warranted the factual challenge I made. I assumed that if it was of no interest to you then you were quite capable of ignoring it.

[txmatt]

As we see from the previous quote, you have misidentified the conclusion to which I've come. A minor does not need to be chargable with a criminal offense in order for there to be an age-based legal limit on something. If you give a 5 year-old an alcoholic drink and he is found by a LEO to be drinking it he will not be subject to being charged with anything. You, on the other hand, are not so lucky. Does this mean that there is no legal limit on the consumption of alcohol in TX? Of course not. The law prohibits many things for minors, but does not provide for criminal charges for those same minors. We tend to hold adults responsible in those cases.

Take a look at Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code Title 4 Section 106.04:

A minor commits an offense if he consumes an alcoholic beverage.

However there is no analogous statue pertaining to the possession of a firearm by a minor that I am aware of. It is not illegal. There is no regulation of it. How is this difficult to understand?

It makes no sense to take the fact that it is a Class C misdemeanor to make available a readily discharegable firearm to a minor to imply that there is a restriction of possession by minors. Besides, if a minor is legally carrying a handgun in a car under the current law (not considering traveling exemption) then it has to be concealed. Unless the minor has committed a crime or defended himself it will never be found and there will be no charge for anyone, and if the latter happens it is an exemption to the giving access, so again there will be no charges for anyone.

You are using common sense application of the law with your alcoholic beverage analogy to make your argument in which you then ignore common sense application of the law pertaining to firearm possession by a minor (i.e. that there was no intention to punish adults making a firearm available to a minor unless the minor commits a crime.) Give it up already.

[DParker]

Take a look at Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code Title 4 Section 106.04:

A minor commits an offense if he consumes an alcoholic beverage.

However there is no analogous statue pertaining to the possession of a firearm by a minor that I am aware of. It is not illegal. There is no regulation of it. How is this difficult to understand?

Very, since it is not true. If it is illegal to sell a firearm to a minor, and illegal to give him (a readily dischargable) one (in most circmstances) then it borders on the ridiculous to claim that there "is no regulation of it." Furthermore, you've also been given a reference to 18 USC 922(x), which specifically makes it a federal crime for a juvenile (under 18) to possess a handgun, or for anyone to provide him/her with one (again, with some exceptions). Needless to say, we in TX are subject to federal law like everyone else.

It makes no sense to take the fact that it is a Class C misdemeanor to make available a readily discharegable firearm to a minor to imply that there is a restriction of possession by minors.

Uhhhh...that's pretty much the only logical implication.

Besides, if a minor is legally carrying a handgun in a car under the current law...

Given 18 USC 922(x), that's not going to be the case (except, again, under certain exceptional circumstances.)

....(not considering traveling exemption) then it has to be concealed. Unless the minor has committed a crime or defended himself it will never be found...

Or if he/she is pulled over and the officer has probable cause to search the vehicle.

...and there will be no charge for anyone, and if the latter happens it is an exemption to the giving access, so again there will be no charges for anyone.

You are using common sense application of the law with your alcoholic beverage analogy to make your argument in which you then ignore common sense application of the law pertaining to firearm possession by a minor (i.e. that there was no intention to punish adults making a firearm available to a minor unless the minor commits a crime.)

Really? How odd then that the law was written with a penalty (albeit a lesser one) for providing the firearm even if the minor does not use it to commit a crime. That's a bit like inferring that the disparate penalties for stabbing someone who survives vs. stabbing someone who dies from the injury means that the state legislature did not intend for stabbing someone to be considered a crime.

Give it up already.

I'll be glad to, once proven wrong.

[txmatt]

Really? How odd then that the law was written with a penalty (albeit a lesser one) for providing the firearm even if the minor does not use it to commit a crime. That's a bit like inferring that the disparate penalties for stabbing someone who survives vs. stabbing someone who dies from the injury means that the state legislature did not intend for stabbing someone to be considered a crime.

No, I was pointing out that if the legislature was really concerned about the possession of firearms by minors they would either make it a crime in and of itself or make it more serious than a Class C misdemeanor. Again your analogy is lacking since stabbing someone is a criminal act and it being prohibited has nothing to do with how the knife is acquired and furthermore I'm pretty sure stabbing someone is more than a Class C misdemeanor.

Let me take a stab at this analogy game: Taxing of marijuana before it was outlawed. It was (is, actually) illegal to possess marijuana without a tax stamp, but they didn't give stamps, or made them prohibitively expensive. Was possession of marijuana illegal? No. Was there a legal way to possess it? No. Same thing with minors and dischargeable firearms: it is not illegal for a minor to possess the firearm, but there is no legal mechanism for a minor to acquire the gun in order to possess it in situations beyond those exempted in the statute that you cited. And as I tried to point out the law that makes the gaining access illegal only makes it a Class C misdemeanor, showing that the legislature was not terribly concerned with a minor who does not commit a crime getting access to a gun. And no, I'm not just comparing it to the penalty for a situation in which a crime is committed by the minor. In and of itself the fact that it is a Class C misdemeanor (no jail time, max $500 fine) shows that it is not a serious offense and it was not the intent of the legislature to ensure that no minor was ever given access to a firearm, thus they are not even attempting a backdoor prohibition on possession by minors.

One more thing-
Ok, I went ahead and looked up the federal law you cited and having read that code possession of handguns by minors would likely be allowed if written consent is given (and the minor has the written consent in his possession.) It might require some arguing about whether a course of instruction was underway, but then again, how often is that code enforced when no other crimes have been committed? I'd be willing to be close to never.

[Pinkycatcher]

Hate to de-rail the current topic, but the final conclusion is it's okay for a 19 year old person to have a handgun in their car, and of course it being Texas it really doesn't matter where it is, or if it's loaded. But you'll still probably get hassled by the cop if they search your car, correct?

[Mr.Scott]

This was discussed thoroughly last year: http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... 34&p=88581

There is no age restriction. A 16-year-old licensed driver can legally carry in a vehicle. Police officials sometimes complain about this, and it's one of the reasons for our D grade from the Bradys.

- Jim

I'd like to see if we can make that D an F.

[Charles L. Cotton]

All the man wanted to know if his 19 year old daughter could have a pistol in her car. This is about the biggest thread hijack I've seen in a while.

Chas.

[DParker]

All the man wanted to know if his 19 year old daughter could have a pistol in her car.

And that question was clearly answered in the affirmative multiple times.

This is about the biggest thread hijack I've seen in a while.

Really? The ensuing diversion was a relatively minor one that was still quite strongly related to the original topic. When someone asks about giving a handgun to a young person and is given an answer as broad and misleading as "there are no age restrictions" it begs at least some correction, lest someone erroneously conclude that the law says nothing about handing a pistol to your 16 year-old to keep in his/her car. A mistake that has the potential for causing someone a lot of grief.

Interestingly, the diversion in question had not been commented on at all for several days now.