Open carry on personal property?

[seamusTX]

... I'm not going to go around for my life being scared of the big bad LEO.

I'm not afraid. I'm just careful.

Yeah, I may be in the wrong place with the wrong officer in the wrong mood at the wrong time, and I may get a beating. But I guaranty you that me or my wife and loved ones (if something especially tragic were to happen) will make sure that goes on tv and there will be a hellstorm on the agency at fault.

I'm sure you saw the tremendous fairness and sympathy that the media showed to Joe Horn, and he was never arrested or charged with a crime.

It has been a while, but ISTR that Gordon Hale got the same treatment, plus significant legal bills that no one helped him pay.

That is what any "gun nut" case is going to get, even if the police reports are not biased or outright falsified.

And I don't think those suits in the courts and whatever would have won over the public opinion without the public's knowledge of the suffering by those "little people" who stood up for their rights and suffered the (unfair) consequences. IMHO.

Protests like the March to Montgomery worked because, for almost the first time in history, nationwide TV audiences could see the abuses that formerly had taken place at night and in remote locations. That was a strategy, not an accident.



- Jim

[anygunanywhere]

One of the reasons that the civil rights movement was successful is because the movement rapidly became the darling of the media and still is today. I am not implying that this is wrong. This is one of the few issues the media has done right in supporting.

Don't hold your breath if you ever expect the media to support any public demonstration of your RKBA even though it is a right. As I have stated before we are the evil and we must be put in our place.

Barry and his worshippers are indeed the rulers to lead this charge.

Just to keep this pertinent to this topic, when Barry is through, you will be lucky to be able to keep a Louisville Slugger as a self defense weapon and carry it on your private property.

Anygunanywhere

[seamusTX]

O ye of little faith. The Supreme Court has ruled that possessing weapons for personal protection is a right. And that part of the ruling was a 9:0 decision.

(The dissents were based on some of the arguments used and whether government at any level had the power to regulate possession of semi-automatic firearms or other characteristics of specific firearms.)

Any new federal law that infringes the 2nd amendment is going to have a big roadblock in its way, and I suspect a few older laws will fall when someone gets around to litigating them.

- Jim

[SlowDave]

... I'm not going to go around for my life being scared of the big bad LEO.

I'm not afraid. I'm just careful.

Careful is not breaking laws. Afraid is not doing things that are legal for fear of illegal reprisal by The Man, IMHO.

I'm sure you saw the tremendous fairness and sympathy that the media showed to Joe Horn, and he was never arrested or charged with a crime.

That is what any "gun nut" case is going to get, even if the police reports are not biased or outright falsified.

Well, we know all about Joe Horn, and the lady at Luby's, and a bunch of others, and we are supporting them. Glenn Beck has taken up Joe Horn's case, as I understand, and he was no-billed. The police didn't come beat him up and he didn't accidentally bump his head into a police flashlight or nightstick. He didn't disappear from existence having been killed by the police in a back alley somewhere. Yeah, he got some flack and severe disruption in his personal life. And he's now the enemy of many and the hero of many others. So, it used to be "Give me liberty or give me death." I guess it's now "Give me liberty as long as it's not gonna involve some flack or monetary cost or hassle in my personal life." I respect your opinion, but disagree on this one.

Protests like the March to Montgomery worked because, for almost the first time in history, nationwide TV audiences could see the abuses that formerly had taken place at night and in remote locations. That was a strategy, not an accident.
- Jim

And now there's nationwide TV, talk radio, and the web. There's not much that goes "unreported" anymore. It might well go unreported on mainstream tv coverage, but people will know. I think by strategy or by chance, it's gonna hit the fan and there will be discussion. Then I'll hope my fellow citizens support me if I were to ever be in this type of situation and am in the right. If not, then I gave it a shot (pardon the pun) and did my best.

[will381796]

This question brings up an interesting situation that occurred last month to one of my friends (a CHL holder). He was OCing in the front yard of his girl friend's house while doing some yard work. Apparently a neighbor was unappreciative of this and called San Antonio PD. They sent one patrol car to do a quick drive by, which my friend noticed. The police officer drove by, saw him carrying, and then drove off. My friend assumed the situation was resolved.

To his surprise, less than five minutes later, several police cars sped up to the property with lights and sirens blaring. Police got out, guns pointing at him, and yelled for him to drop to the ground. Of course, he immediately complied and was disarmed. Long story short, he was arrested and charged with Criminal Trespassing with a Deadly Weapon, despite the fact that he was open carrying on the property of his girlfriend with her consent and the fact that his girlfriend was there telling them that he had her permission. Not only was he arrested and charged, but his handgun was confiscated as evidence, his vehicle (which was parked on his girlfriend's property) searched and impounded (and a digital camera sitting inside of the vehicle stolen as a result).

The charges were eventually dropped after the prosecutor realized that there was no law broken. But, my friend still hasn't gotten his handgun back, had to pay to get his car out of impound, had his digital camera stolen out of his car (most likely by a LEO), had to take time off of work to go to court to get the charges dropped, AND had issues develop at work because of this even (he works in a clinical setting so they re-run background checks every year; his check was ran right after his arrest so it showed up = big problems for him at work).

So, while it may be legal to OC, this is just one example of all the problems that you can have as a result of obeying the laws.

[Fangs]

Wasn't a guy arrested in SA for breaking into his own house a couple years ago?

I've also had friends with towed motorcycles give horrible reports of damage after they got their ride back in SA.

I guess I'm lucky that I can OC all day on my own property and no one would ever know from just driving by. Trees are my friend.

[will381796]

Wasn't a guy arrested in SA for breaking into his own house a couple years ago?

I've also had friends with towed motorcycles give horrible reports of damage after they got their ride back in SA.

I guess I'm lucky that I can OC all day on my own property and no one would ever know from just driving by. Trees are my friend.

Not sure but it wouldn't surprise me. You may know the law, the judge may know the law, the prosecutor may know the law...but all of that doesn't matter if a LEO that thinks he knows the law decides to act on it.

[srothstein]

This question brings up an interesting situation that occurred last month to one of my friends (a CHL holder). He was OCing in the front yard of his girl friend's house while doing some yard work. Apparently a neighbor was unappreciative of this and called San Antonio PD. They sent one patrol car to do a quick drive by, which my friend noticed. The police officer drove by, saw him carrying, and then drove off. My friend assumed the situation was resolved.

To his surprise, less than five minutes later, several police cars sped up to the property with lights and sirens blaring. Police got out, guns pointing at him, and yelled for him to drop to the ground. Of course, he immediately complied and was disarmed. Long story short, he was arrested and charged with Criminal Trespassing with a Deadly Weapon, despite the fact that he was open carrying on the property of his girlfriend with her consent and the fact that his girlfriend was there telling them that he had her permission. Not only was he arrested and charged, but his handgun was confiscated as evidence, his vehicle (which was parked on his girlfriend's property) searched and impounded (and a digital camera sitting inside of the vehicle stolen as a result).

The charges were eventually dropped after the prosecutor realized that there was no law broken.

I wanted to point out that there was a law broken and your friend was the one breaking it. The police may have charged him with the wrong violation, but he was unlawfully carrying. As has been pointed out in several discussions in this forum, there is no exception for carrying (openly or concealed) on another person's property, even if they give permission. Unlawfully carrying does not allow another person to give permission for you to violate the law. It exempts you on your own property or property under your control. If this was the girlfriend's house, he was in violation of 46.02.

But, my friend still hasn't gotten his handgun back, had to pay to get his car out of impound, had his digital camera stolen out of his car (most likely by a LEO),

There is no reason for you to believe it was most likely by an LEO. As a matter of fact, the LEO's went through the car to inventory it and then never went back in the car again. The tow truck operator is not an LEO and neither is the impound operator in San Antonio. If the friend was still there, he would have seen the LEO take the camera. If the camera is listed on the inventory sheet (and it certainly would have been if I inventoried the car), the city is liable for the cost but it would serve as evidence to me that the LEOs did not take it.

had to take time off of work to go to court to get the charges dropped, AND had issues develop at work because of this even (he works in a clinical setting so they re-run background checks every year; his check was ran right after his arrest so it showed up = big problems for him at work).

So, while it may be legal to OC, this is just one example of all the problems that you can have as a result of obeying the laws.

Or of breaking them through lack of knowledge of the laws and relying on friends for legal advice. I am curious as to why your friend was carrying openly and who told him he could on his girlfriend's property.

[Aggie_engr]

Seriously? So what about when I visit my uncle's house, or my grandma's house, I have to disarm before entering their property??? From what I have understood, you have no obligation to inform anyone you are carrying, and the only reason to disarm would be if you were discovered carrying on private property and given a verbal warning... Was I just plain wrong the whole time? If I am wrong, how can one carry on say the personal property of a business? (Unless marked 30.06) Wouldn't it be the same thing???

[Aggie_engr]

Might I add my inquery is not meant to be taken as questioning your knowledge of the law Steve, but simply to satisfy my own curiousity and to expand my knowledge of my carrying limits.

[will381796]

I wanted to point out that there was a law broken and your friend was the one breaking it. The police may have charged him with the wrong violation, but he was unlawfully carrying. As has been pointed out in several discussions in this forum, there is no exception for carrying (openly or concealed) on another person's property, even if they give permission. Unlawfully carrying does not allow another person to give permission for you to violate the law. It exempts you on your own property or property under your control. If this was the girlfriend's house, he was in violation of 46.02.

I find that highly unlikely. If it is your own property, then you can give whoever you want permission to do whatever you want to allow them to do on your property. IANAL, but if you have permission to do something from the property owner, then I would argue that the property is "under your control" with regards to OCing. I mean, come on. I can't count on all my fingers and toes the number of times that I've open carried on my Uncle's ranch with his permission. You telling me that if a Sheriff saw this I could be arrested? Highly unlikely...

There is no reason for you to believe it was most likely by an LEO. As a matter of fact, the LEO's went through the car to inventory it and then never went back in the car again. The tow truck operator is not an LEO and neither is the impound operator in San Antonio. If the friend was still there, he would have seen the LEO take the camera. If the camera is listed on the inventory sheet (and it certainly would have been if I inventoried the car), the city is liable for the cost but it would serve as evidence to me that the LEOs did not take it.

The fact that it WAS NOT inventoried by the police department or showed up on any evidence list leads us to believe that it was a LEO. My friend is an EMT, a CHL holder, a member of the Texas State Guard, and holds security clearance. He would not lie about a camera being missing if it wasn't missing.

Or of breaking them through lack of knowledge of the laws and relying on friends for legal advice. I am curious as to why your friend was carrying openly and who told him he could on his girlfriend's property.

His girlfriend, the judge, and the prosecuting attorney that decided to drop the charges and not file any additional ones to name a few. The LEO that actually booked him into jail laughed out of disbelief that he was actually arrested.

[Fangs]

I wanted to point out that there was a law broken and your friend was the one breaking it. The police may have charged him with the wrong violation, but he was unlawfully carrying. As has been pointed out in several discussions in this forum, there is no exception for carrying (openly or concealed) on another person's property, even if they give permission. Unlawfully carrying does not allow another person to give permission for you to violate the law. It exempts you on your own property or property under your control. If this was the girlfriend's house, he was in violation of 46.02.

What about shooting ranges or shooting on a friend's property?

[seamusTX]

Seriously? So what about when I visit my uncle's house, or my grandma's house, I have to disarm before entering their property??? From what I have understood, you have no obligation to inform anyone you are carrying, and the only reason to disarm would be if you were discovered carrying on private property and given a verbal warning... Was I just plain wrong the whole time?

You are correct, but you must keep your handgun concealed.

If it is your own property, then you can give whoever you want permission to do whatever you want to allow them to do on your property.

That is not the case at all. You can't give someone permission to smoke dope on your property, or any other illegal act.

The "on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control" clause of PC 46.02 refers to a person who owns, leases, rents, or is formally assigned to manage property. Probably there is case law about this, but I am not good at finding case law.

Someone's girlfriend's house is not under the control of a visitor.

In this case, the police initially charged the guy with criminal trespass. He did not commit criminal trespass, because he was on his girlfriend's property with her permission.

If they had charged him with intentional failure to conceal by a CHL holder, the charge probably would have stuck. (Steve, he was not guilty of 46.02 UCW because he had a CHL.)

What about shooting ranges or shooting on a friend's property?

PC 46.15 allows you to possess a handgun at a range or while sport shooting or hunting.

Also, as a practical matter, a place where you can legally shoot is going to be well away from roads and buildings. The police would have no reason to take notice of you.

- Jim

[will381796]

I find this discussion thread to do an excellent job of explaining the logic behind my position. (http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum51/13461-3.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) Specifically the statement that: "46.02 in its own draft affords exemption for those on private property, including anyone that is legally authorized to be on that property in that manner. If I allow you on my property, I am allowing you to "USE" that property, meaning that you have some control over that property. I do not have to give you full control for you to have certain control. This meets the criteria of "property under your control"."

If you are allowing someone access to your property and allowing them to use it, then they have some level of control over that property unless you specifically tell them what they can or cannot do. Now of course, this is one person's own opinion. But, I find nowhere in the TX Penal Code any steadfast definition for the word "control" or the phrase "under your control." So if this is not something readily defined in law, it's something that is yet to be argued in court and thus it could go either way. I guess it's just a further ambiguity in the law that needs to be clarified.

But, the question I have is, if he was simply charged with the wrong crime, why couldn't the DA or the PD just go and charge him with the correct crime?

[seamusTX]

... if he was simply charged with the wrong crime, why couldn't the DA or the PD just go and charge him with the correct crime?

I don't know. IANAL.

Prosecutors can always drop charges. Maybe they decided that he hadn't harmed anyone and was not acting with criminal intent. Dropping charges in that case would be called common sense.

Prosecutors have heavy case loads and can't spend time on every picayune technical violation of a law.

I don't want to argue about the definition of control, because neither your opinion nor mine matters unless we're on a jury.

Your own story demonstrates what I was trying to say at the beginning of this thread: If the cops think you are breaking the law, you are going to get busted. It's going to cost you a lot of time, money, and embarrassment. Even if the charges are dropped, you get no consolation.

- Jim