No CHL required to carry under certain circumstances

[flb_78]

I don't even know what this thread is supposed to be about.

[psehorne]

You did Paul, in your opening statement when you quoted PC 46.02(a). See also PC 42.01(a)(8). See also 46.035(a)

Ok. One down and 2 to go. Care to comment on the other 2 that I pointed out? We ARE discussing open carry, are we not?

46.01(a)(8) states:

46.01(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
...
(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;

46.01(a)(8) does not invalidate my previous statements.


PC 46.035 begins with

UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER

applies only to CHL holders.

[stealthcrf]

Yes psehorne, you can OC while traveling if you wish. You will be hassled, and traveling is not defined so its a roll of the dice. I agree with you, just would be afraid of LEOs not understaning the law and that the PREVIOUS version of traveling (in car) has been removed.

[psehorne]

just would be afraid of LEOs not understaning the law

and that's the rub...

[psehorne]

PC 46.035 begins with

UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER

applies only to CHL holders.

I realize that it does not make sense for CHL holders to have restrictions that the general Texas citizenship do not have. Our Legislature realizes that also, and that is why the 30 day suspension was removed for failure-to-display. A non-CHL holder is not in violation for failure-to-announce that they are carrying; so why should a CHL holder be? As other laws that have this affect are brought to the attention of our legislators you can expect them to make corrections. Laws are complex and, often it is not obvious at the outset of the unwarranted, but unnoticed, side affects.

[Beiruty]

Anyone is willing to test the traveling exception for OC or CC?

[psehorne]

We ARE discussing open carry, are we not?

The subject is more generic than open carry. The title is "No CHL required to carry under certain circumstances".

Yes, in my, admittedly extreme, example of the Greyhound bus trip I did mention open carry, but the real message is that the exception in 46.15 "is traveling" does not say "does not apply if the person is traveling and the handgun is concealed". It just says that 46.02 does not apply if you are traveling. PERIOD. I'm sure this is an oversight (omitting the concealed restriction), not the intended meaning of the law.

I'm not planning on open carrying, and I'm suggesting anyone else do either. I am interested in knowing my rights to carry concealed before I receive my CHL (mainly because since 'discovering' concealed carry a few weeks ago I am on the edge of paranoia, having lived 60+ years in a "can't happen to me" mode . Of course, I've stated that everyone should do a self risk assessment. I don't work the night shift and enter a dark parking lot every workday, don't frequent bars, etc. So I've considered myself at low risk. On the other hand, I did visit a Luby's recently...)

Yes, I'm going through the anxiety that many of you have already passed through... getting comfortable carrying, realizing that everyone is not looking at you, etc.... Thanks to all of you who have shared those feeling of anxiety with the rest of us.

In any event, I don't plan on being the test case.

[psehorne]

since 'discovering' concealed carry a few weeks ago I am on the edge of paranoia, having lived 60+ years in a "can't happen to me" mode.

A few times over the last few week I've thought "If only I had not bought that damned American Handgunner magazine off the magazine rack at Albertson's". One innocent magazine purchase started this whole trip. Now I am too informed to not carry.

[stealthcrf]

It just says that 46.02 does not apply if you are traveling. PERIOD. I'm sure this is an oversight (omitting the concealed restriction), not the intended meaning of the law.

It is not an oversight, its how it was set up in the 19th century reconstruction period. No carry of pistols unless traveling, LEO, sport, etc etc.

The legislature then allowed legal CC under normal circumstances. (modern day)

Traveling is still an exception to UCW. The problem is VERY FEW people (including LE) understand the law especially with it being changed twice recently.

Somebody said something about a test case? I have OCed and CCed while traveling many times. Never been hassled about it. I did avoid OC in big cities for the most part as I knew it might create a hassle. I can see it now: "no officer, its okay because i'm traveling/ no, thats for your car/ no that the MPA, i'm talking about 46.02 traveling exception/ hands behind your back son"

[lonewolf]

No such thing as "too informed". Just be sure that your over riding concern is safety and not fear. Your safety and those you care about. I've found that helps me when the news is so bad everywhere.

Concern and vigilance keep me out of situations whenever possible. If the worst happens, I'm as ready as I can be.

At first my wife thought I was paranoid, but she watched the news for a few nights and changed her mind. Its not always the "bad" part of town, it's not always "the other folks". Its us, and it happens around us.

Be safe out there, but continue to enjoy your life. Now its a little safer.

[srothstein]

I think we may be discussing two separate points, so I will kick in with my opinions, while trying to clarify which of the two I am referring to.

The first point is an academic discussion of what the law allows. In this, the title of the thread is correct and there are several exceptions to the rules against carrying a weapon. The way the law reads, any person can openly carry on his property or property under his control. Any person can openly carry while traveling. Any person may openly carry while hunting or engaged in any sport where a firearm is normally used. A peace officer may openly carry. A soldier on duty may openly carry. This is all based on the exceptions to 46.02 listed in 46.15.

In addition, any person with a CHL may carry a concealed weapon (with several specific restrictions). A person in a car under his control may carry concealed (with a few restrictions). And, in general any person who may carry openly may also carry concealed (with the notable exception of an armed security guard in uniform).

While carrying openly, under any of these circumstances, you may be charged with disorderly conduct for carrying a weapon in a manner calculated to alarm. As we saw from the incident in Round Rock, this can even be applied to peace officers. The DA declined to prosecute those charges, but the officers were investigated for it.

On the second side, we get into the real world tactics of carrying. This is the area where I get to make recommendations but they are just my opinion. I recommend against open carry because it will panic people in some cases. It will cause you to be hassled by the police in many cases. This is not necessarily the case of police not understanding the law, but more the fact that they respond to calls from citizens. If you are in the field hunting, you may get away with it without too much problem (game wardens generally are more lax on firearms since they are always dealing with armed suspects). If you are on your own property but in public view, one of your neighbors will probably call the police on you.

The problem with traveling is that the law never did define what traveling is. So, the preeminent court ruling on it said that whether or not a person is traveling is a fact to be determined by the jury. Do you want to take your chances with a jury? There are so many mythical definitions of traveling floating around that I would never want to do so (unless I could get a jury full of basketball referees). Some people think it is overnight, some think it is across so many county lines, some think it is so many miles, and there is a question in some people's minds of whether or not you are traveling when you stop enroute (gas, food, overnight in a hotel).

So, the answer is that the law may really allow things that are generally advised against in daily life.

[surprise_i'm_armed]

srothstein:
If you have your gun in your vehicle, my understanding is that
you may do so even if you are not a CHL, and not a felon, under MPA authorization.

But doesn't MPA (Motorist Protection Act, since 9/1/2007) also state that the weapon
must be concealed?

I believe that even as a CHL, I may possibly be in violation of "concealment" if I lay my
Taurus on the seat while I am doing bidness at a driveup ATM. The only way I could be
written up for failing to conceal is if a LEO walked up to my truck before I left.

What say you, sir/anyone?

SIA

[srothstein]

I'm sorry my post wasn't as clear as it could be, but you are correct. A person carrying under the MP must have the weapon concealed. I did list it as concealed under my list of exceptions (and not under the open carry section) but I was not really specific that those exceptions only applied to concealed and not open.

[surprise_i'm_armed]

OP and everyone:
I appreciate that we can all get together and hash out these legal definitions,
but when I read my CHL laws, and realize the amount of ambiguity that are in them
my eyes glaze over.

I believe that we are all generally knowledgable about our legal responsbilities as CHL's,
but one problem DA could really make things hard on us after a confrontation if we operate
under a skewed idea of what a "good shoot" is.

Try de-escalation whenever possible, but keep extra mags/speedloaders on you too!

SIA

[joe817]

Try de-escalation whenver possible, but keep extra mags/speedloaders on you too!

Good words of wisdom SIA.....on both counts.