Texas gubernatorial candidate says end CHL law

[The Annoyed Man]

I noticed several things about this.

Number one -- she broke the law. She displayed her pistol (an XD) from within her car. She broke concealment.
Number two -- she didn't appear to me to be all that familiar/comfortable with the pistol. She would remove/replace the magazine and seemed nervous to me.
Number three -- she keeps it in a zippered pouch. "It goes with me everywhere I go." But she wouldn't be able to get to it very quickly.

Number four, she had her finger on the trigger of a (presumably) loaded gun without paying much attention to where it was pointed.

I would agree with marksiwel that she could probably argue that the unconcealing was for the news cameras, but I would further add that it was unwise, and furthermore there is not much you can argue to excuse the unsafe handling of a loaded weapon.

This is why I alluded to "wisdom" in my previous post. When I've previously examined Medina as a candidate, her website says all the right things. But words are just that, and I want to know that a candidate is actually knowledgeable and wise about the ideas behind their pronouncements. Unsafe handling of a loaded firearm on camera, particularly when that firearm is supposed to remain concealed, is indicative of a candidate who is likely to take spontaneous action without having thought out the potential consequences.

Now maybe this is not true about her. But this particular incident, while possibly being small potatoes in the larger scheme of things, is disturbing enough to me to cause me to question her qualifications as a governor. I grant that the reporter in the OP may have deliberately misquoted her on repealing the CHL law, but if he didn't, then her claim that she would repeal CHL without also saying she would replace it with something better further causes me to question her capabilities and qualifications.

If she is a protégé of Ron Paul, I sincerely hope that she has not inherited his tendency to rush in where angels fear to tread.

[Liberty]

The most disturbing thing about the interview is she seems to be hooking with her boogerhook.

[sjfcontrol]

Hmmm, finger on the trigger.
On the still picture, it appears she does, but look at the way the gun is gripped. She has her thumb on the backstrap, and her fingers wrapped completely around the grip. That would make her index finger go completely thru the trigger guard and beyond. I think you are just seeing a part of her finger looking thru the trigger guard. But it's hard to tell.

Other than that, I see a brief moment when holding the gun in her left hand, that it appears her left ring finger might be inside the trigger guard briefly.

[joe817]

This was broadcast on our local news last night.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/texas-news/GOP ... 98277.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I noticed several things about this.
Number one -- she broke the law. She displayed her pistol (an XD) from within her car. She broke concealment.
Number two -- she didn't appear to me to be all that familiar/comfortable with the pistol. She would remove/replace the magazine and seemed nervous to me.
Number three -- she keeps it in a zippered pouch. "It goes with me everywhere I go." But she wouldn't be able to get to it very quickly. The report states she doesn't have a CHL as she feels it government Interference.

Well I have to jump in here and make some comments, you all may not like. Let me say I'm ambivalent about her as a candidate, but a little skittish about the platform she's running on....

In rebuttal to the 3 points mentioned above:
1. Is she really breaking the law? Is showing someone your gun while in your car, parked, ignition off really breaking the law? If so I'm guilty of it about a thousand times over, if not more. If she IS breaking the law, then the people running against her can point that out to the local P.D., have her arrested, and absolutely ruin ANY chance of getting on the ballot. And don't think for a minute that a politician would not do just that...IF she's breaking the law.

2. I didn't detect that she was uncomfortable in handling the gun. IMO, the removing/replacing the mag was for the TV cameras. In addition, an interview in her car indicate that a news crew chased her down when she was trying to leave, and was unprepared to get a little free publicity. She was in cramped quarters, and working around a steering wheel is kind of difficult at best.

3, If she keeps the gun in the zippered pouch on the seat of her car, then it's as readily available as having the gun in the glove compartment, IMO.

Lastly the "finger on the trigger": It appears she may have it on the trigger, but looks can be deceiving. I can't say for certain she had her finger in the trigger well, and I looked at the vid clip 4 times. Cameras have a tendency to flatten the depth of field, so you really can't tell.....or at least I can't.

All in all, I think that she handled herself and the gun ok in the interview. I think it was kind of cheesy to pull out the gun and display it like she did, but that's just me......and my $.02 worth.

[sjfcontrol]

1. Is she really breaking the law? Is showing someone your gun while in your car, parked, ignition off really breaking the law? If so I'm guilty of it about a thousand times over, if not more. If she IS breaking the law, then the people running against her can point that out to the local P.D., have her arrested, and absolutely ruin ANY chance of getting on the ballot. And don't think for a minute that a politician would not do just that...IF she's breaking the law.

If you're not on your own property, I'd say yes, she really broke the law. The law is the law. There aren't any exceptions (that I can find) relating to whether the car is parked, state of the ignition, for the news camera, etc. Look at PC 46.02 that I excerpted above. It's a class A misdemeanor.

(Of course IANAL)

[joe817]

1. Is she really breaking the law? Is showing someone your gun while in your car, parked, ignition off really breaking the law? If so I'm guilty of it about a thousand times over, if not more. If she IS breaking the law, then the people running against her can point that out to the local P.D., have her arrested, and absolutely ruin ANY chance of getting on the ballot. And don't think for a minute that a politician would not do just that...IF she's breaking the law.

If you're not on your own property, I'd say yes, she really broke the law. The law is the law. There aren't any exceptions (that I can find) relating to whether the car is parked, state of the ignition, for the news camera, etc. Look at PC 46.02 that I excerpted above. It's a class A misdemeanor. (Of course IANAL)

Well I'm no attorney either to be sure. IMO PC 46.02(2) does not apply because she WAS in her own vehicle. PC 46.02(a-1) doesn't apply either as (IMO) she was not "recklessly" carrying the gun while it was in plain view. It was "on or about her person" though.

[sjfcontrol]

1. Is she really breaking the law? Is showing someone your gun while in your car, parked, ignition off really breaking the law? If so I'm guilty of it about a thousand times over, if not more. If she IS breaking the law, then the people running against her can point that out to the local P.D., have her arrested, and absolutely ruin ANY chance of getting on the ballot. And don't think for a minute that a politician would not do just that...IF she's breaking the law.

If you're not on your own property, I'd say yes, she really broke the law. The law is the law. There aren't any exceptions (that I can find) relating to whether the car is parked, state of the ignition, for the news camera, etc. Look at PC 46.02 that I excerpted above. It's a class A misdemeanor. (Of course IANAL)

Well I'm no attorney either to be sure. IMO PC 46.02(2) does not apply because she WAS in her own vehicle. PC 46.02(a-1) doesn't apply either as (IMO) she was not "recklessly" carrying the gun while it was in plain view. It was "on or about her person" though.

Correct, more or less.
Its 46.02 (a-1)(1) that gets her "The handgun is in plain sight"

46.02(a-1) does apply since she was "Intentionally and Knowingly" carrying in a motor vehicle.

She "intentionally" and "knowingly" carried on or about her person, a handgun in a motor vehicle at a time in which the handgun was in plain sight.

The fact that it wasn't also reckless doesn't matter. The conjunction is "or", not "and"

[Keith B]

UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:

(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or

(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control.

(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:

(1) the handgun is in plain view; or

(2) the person is:

(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic;

(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or

(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.

(a-2) For purposes of this section, "premises" includes real property and a recreational vehicle that is being used as living quarters, regardless of whether that use is temporary or permanent. In this subsection, "recreational vehicle" means a motor vehicle primarily designed as temporary living quarters or a vehicle that contains temporary living quarters and is designed to be towed by a motor vehicle. The term includes a travel trailer, camping trailer, truck camper, motor home, and horse trailer with living quarters.

(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(c) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed on any premises licensed or issued a permit by this state for the sale of alcoholic beverages.

Per the penal code she was in strict violation by not concealing the handgun, period (see above in red.) The statute is VERY clear that the you must keep the handgun concealed from plain view at all times while in a vehicle. That is a Class A misdemeanor and I would not be surprised to see someone go after her on this infraction.

Edited to add: IMO this woman is a loose cannon and is going to create a real issue for gun owners with her brazen disrespect for the laws that exist. Like them or not, she can't break them. Disagree with them if she wants, but abide by them until you can get them changed.

[Liberty]

It looked to me like she was in the process of travelling. she was in her car getting ready to go on the road.
The travelling preemption doesn't say anything about concealment. The travelling premption stautes don't say anything about cars roads or explain to clearly what traveling is all about either. If I was on the jury I would insist she was travelling. Reasonable doubt and all. Other judges, jurrors and lawyers don't put as much stock in reasonable doubt I suppose.

[chabouk]

If this was a violation of the law, it's a good example of why we should stop fine-tuning the law, and start repealing huge chunks of it instead.

And that is one of her issues: get rid of the restrictions on carrying.

[joe817]

I love the diversity of opinion expressed on this forum. Thank you all for stating them.

Any takers who want to bet the police will use that tape in her prosecution for those infractions of the law? Not me.

[WarHawk-AVG]

The more I dig info on her and the more I look into what she stands for and proposes the more I like her.

She wants to get rid of the CHL Licencing in lieu of granting full open carry and much looser (or any at all) gun control laws for the law abiding.

Dumping the property tax is a good thing even though that means TX will now have a state tax...but after all if you buy a home in TX you NEVER really own it...stop paying property tax after you buy your house and watch how long it takes for the state to come take your home!!!

My dad is in a battle right now over that and boy howdy is he not a happy camper!

I think I just might vote for her..but I am going to make a educated decision and not a knee jerk one...we all see what that has gotten us!

[sjfcontrol]

The more I dig info on her and the more I look into what she stands for and proposes the more I like her.

She wants to get rid of the CHL Licencing in lieu of granting full open carry and much looser (or any at all) gun control laws for the law abiding.

Dumping the property tax is a good thing even though that means TX will now have a state tax...but after all if you buy a home in TX you NEVER really own it...stop paying property tax after you buy your house and watch how long it takes for the state to come take your home!!!

My dad is in a battle right now over that and boy howdy is he not a happy camper!

I think I just might vote for her..but I am going to make a educated decision and not a knee jerk one...we all see what that has gotten us!

It was my understanding she wanted to eliminate the property tax to be replaced by a SALES tax, not an income tax.

[Mikel]

I kinda like her but the CHL requirements are not unreasonable now. I actually like the way the CHL rules/laws are now though. It seems taking the CHL away opens up the ability to carry to people who should not be allowed to AND opens up the debate for doing away with concealed carry-THAT SCARES ME.
It would be interesting to get a wide range of opinions on this subject.

[boomerang]

It was my understanding she wanted to eliminate the property tax to be replaced by a SALES tax, not an income tax.

That would be great. Tax consumption, not saving.