Concealed Carry and Worrysome Family

[chabouk]

My contention is that I can legally open-carry within my brothers residence.

Contend it all you want, it's still illegal.

I dispute that.

Okay, that should be easy to find in the statutes, right?

Texas law in PC 46.02 makes it a crime to have a handgun on or about your person. The law starts with a total ban on handguns.

Then, the law goes on to list exceptions to that ban. Two of those exceptions (having a CHL, or being in a vehicle you own or control) require the gun to be concealed. For every other exception, open/concealed isn't mentioned.

While at your brother's residence, since it's not property you own or control, and you're not engaged in sporting activity, or traveling, or any other exception, you can only possess a handgun by virtue of your CHL. PC 46.035 makes it illegal to intentionally fail to conceal while carrying under authority of your CHL.

There is no exception to either 46.02 or 46.035 of "with the property owner's permission".

If you can find such an exception, please give us a citation.

[Charles L. Cotton]

My contention is that I can legally open-carry within my brothers residence.

Contend it all you want, it's still illegal.

I dispute that.

Okay, that should be easy to find in the statutes, right?

Texas law in PC 46.02 makes it a crime to have a handgun on or about your person. The law starts with a total ban on handguns.

Then, the law goes on to list exceptions to that ban. Two of those exceptions (having a CHL, or being in a vehicle you own or control) require the gun to be concealed. For every other exception, open/concealed isn't mentioned.

While at your brother's residence, since it's not property you own or control, and you're not engaged in sporting activity, or traveling, or any other exception, you can only possess a handgun by virtue of your CHL. PC 46.035 makes it illegal to intentionally fail to conceal while carrying under authority of your CHL.

There is no exception to either 46.02 or 46.035 of "with the property owner's permission".

If you can find such an exception, please give us a citation.

Just one clarification; prior to Sept. 1, 2007, TPC §46.02 did constitute a total ban on possession of handguns, with numerous "not applicable" provisions. These amount to defenses to prosecutions, not exceptions. However, as of Sept. 1, 2007, the Motorist Protection Act (HB1815) made landmark changes to TPC §46.02. No longer is it illegal to possess handguns on your own property or property under your control, or in your car or a car under your control. This is not an insignificant difference in terminology; it's a sea-change difference in Texas jurisprudence.

If the property is not yours and it is not under your control, then it is unlawful to have a handgun on or about your person, unless you are otherwise authorized under Texas law. This can be in the form of a CHL, or meeting one of the other "not applicable" provisions set out in TPC §46.15. If you are legally carrying in your brother's home only because you have a CHL, then you violate TPC §46.035(a) by intentionally failing to conceal your handgun. Permission from your brother or host does not change Texas law. For example, let's say your brother says it's okay to carry openly, but your sister-in-law calls the COPS. You cannot be prosecuted for violation of TPC §46.02 because you have a CHL, but you can be prosecuted for intentionally failing to conceal (TPC §46.035(a)).

Chas.

[Purplehood]

I was wondering when the Lawyers would jump on that!

[Keith B]

I was wondering when the Lawyers would jump on that!

Troll.

[Pete92FS]

My contention is that I can legally open-carry within my brothers residence.

Contend it all you want, it's still illegal.

I dispute that.

Okay, that should be easy to find in the statutes, right?

Texas law in PC 46.02 makes it a crime to have a handgun on or about your person. The law starts with a total ban on handguns.

Then, the law goes on to list exceptions to that ban. Two of those exceptions (having a CHL, or being in a vehicle you own or control) require the gun to be concealed. For every other exception, open/concealed isn't mentioned.

While at your brother's residence, since it's not property you own or control, and you're not engaged in sporting activity, or traveling, or any other exception, you can only possess a handgun by virtue of your CHL. PC 46.035 makes it illegal to intentionally fail to conceal while carrying under authority of your CHL.

There is no exception to either 46.02 or 46.035 of "with the property owner's permission".

If you can find such an exception, please give us a citation.

Just one clarification; prior to Sept. 1, 2007, TPC §46.02 did constitute a total ban on possession of handguns, with numerous "not applicable" provisions. These amount to defenses to prosecutions, not exceptions. However, as of Sept. 1, 2007, the Motorist Protection Act (HB1815) made landmark changes to TPC §46.02. No longer is it illegal to possess handguns on your own property or property under your control, or in your car or a car under your control. This is not an insignificant difference in terminology; it's a sea-change difference in Texas jurisprudence.

If the property is not yours and it is not under your control, then it is unlawful to have a handgun on or about your person, unless you are otherwise authorized under Texas law. This can be in the form of a CHL, or meeting one of the other "not applicable" provisions set out in TPC §46.15. If you are legally carrying in your brother's home only because you have a CHL, then you violate TPC §46.035(a) by intentionally failing to conceal your handgun. Permission from your brother or host does not change Texas law. For example, let's say your brother says it's okay to carry openly, but your sister-in-law calls the COPS. You cannot be prosecuted for violation of TPC §46.02 because you have a CHL, but you can be prosecuted for intentionally failing to conceal (TPC §46.035(a)).

Chas.

I hate to throw a wrench in the works, but if you were alone in your brother's house (with his permission) didn't that put you "in control of the property" thus making you legal?

[Keith B]

I hate to throw a wrench in the works, but if you were alone in your brother's house (with his permission) didn't that put you "in control of the property" thus making you legal?

Now you are picking nits.

It may then technically allow you to carry IF you are OFFICIALLY in control of the property. It is not specified in the statutes what actually make you 'in control' but I would say it means you have full rights to make all decisions for that proeprty. If I was a mean prosecutor and wanted to make an example of you for open carrying, then I would try to make the case that you weren't really in control of the property becuase you couldn't make decisons on the sale, repairs and maintenance of the proeprty. Might not stand up in court, but it also might. No matter, even if you are in control, you better cover it back up before they arrive back home!

IANAL

[Pete92FS]

I hate to throw a wrench in the works, but if you were alone in your brother's house (with his permission) didn't that put you "in control of the property" thus making you legal?

Now you are picking nits.

It may then technically allow you to carry (not specified in the statutes) but you better cover it back up before they arrive back home!

IANAL

Just trying to help.

[Keith B]

I hate to throw a wrench in the works, but if you were alone in your brother's house (with his permission) didn't that put you "in control of the property" thus making you legal?

Now you are picking nits.

It may then technically allow you to carry (not specified in the statutes) but you better cover it back up before they arrive back home!

IANAL

Just trying to help.

I updated my response above. Quite a bit of additional.

[chabouk]

I was wondering when the Lawyers would jump on that!

So now that "the Lawyers" have agreed with me, do you still dispute it?

[Purplehood]

I was wondering when the Lawyers would jump on that!

So now that "the Lawyers" have agreed with me, do you still dispute it?

No. You don't recognize a Troll when you see one?

[chabouk]

I was wondering when the Lawyers would jump on that!

So now that "the Lawyers" have agreed with me, do you still dispute it?

No. You don't recognize a Troll when you see one?

If you're intending to display humor, rate yourself a bottom block for communication skills.

[Morgan]

Of course the problem with the anecdote that Purplehood uses (confronting a burglar at his brother's house) is that (I'm assuming PH has a CHL) it's not illegal to break concealment on a handgun to defend one's self. So there's no violation of the statute being discussed. Right? Totally different situation than the OP's.

[drjoker]

it would've not been an issue if they did not see the gun, remember it is a CONCEALED handgun permit. conceal it, please.

[texas1234]

And the winner is drjoker who has the best response thus far. "Conceal it!" Problemo solved and mom's happy!

[Purplehood]

I was wondering when the Lawyers would jump on that!

So now that "the Lawyers" have agreed with me, do you still dispute it?

No. You don't recognize a Troll when you see one?

If you're intending to display humor, rate yourself a bottom block for communication skills.

Thanks for your assessment.