Displaying at someone's home?

[BrianSW99]

That's true. I think the more relevant offense would be intentional failure to conceal, which IIRC does include any exceptions, so in a strict interpretation, that would include your own home.

[Beiruty]

I all the time, unconceal, unload and secure my concealed carry firearm when at my friends place for some time. Where is the crime? The host gave concent and it is non-of the goverment business.

Some here would like to extend the meanings of the law, Please give us a break we are not gang bangers nor drug dealer where the LEOs would love to lay the book hard on such BGs.

[srothstein]

I all the time, unconceal, unload and secure my concealed carry firearm when at my friends place for some time. Where is the crime? The host gave concent and it is non-of the goverment business.

It may be none of the government's business, but it is the law. And the law specifically forbids your having a gun anywhere except for the specified exceptions. Nowhere does it mention having the permission of the owner as an exception.

Baldeagle had the right approach when he said if it is not forbidden it is permitted. He just missed that 46.02 does forbid it anywhere except for some specific places, such as your premises or while hunting.

Some here would like to extend the meanings of the law, Please give us a break we are not gang bangers nor drug dealer where the LEOs would love to lay the book hard on such BGs.

This is why i am such a strong defender of other people's rights. I may not like gangsters or some other group. I may even wish they could be forbidden guns. But if the law allows their guns to be taken from them, it also allows my guns to be taken. I can only defend my rights by defending everyone's rights. In this case, when we talk about what the law says, we are not extending the meaning, but taking the meaning as it is written.

We all know that in reality, if I am in someone's home and they ask about my guns or say for me to relax and go ahead, I am in no danger of being arrested for it. After all, how would the police know? In the real world, the original poster has nothing to worry about.

But, the question was if this was against the law. The OP even asked it it was a case of technically illegal but no one complaining. And that describes this case perfectly. It is against the law as the law is currently written but there is almost no chance of being arrested for it in the real world.

[tomc]

So, what you are saying is that it is illegal to handle a firearm in a gun store or at a gun show! Clearly, you are not engaging in any lawful hunting, fishing, or other actual sporting activity in any of these places! Wow!

[ScottDLS]

Now wait just a minute. Everyone is quoting 46.02 but 46.02 does not apply as per:

Sec. 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
(6) is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying;

That's true. I think the more relevant offense would be intentional failure to conceal, which IIRC does include any exceptions, so in a strict interpretation, that would include your own home.

OK let me try to clear this up because we are muddying the water...Original poster asked if he could "carry" a handgun in a friend's home and display it as part of showing friend's daughter how to use/handle a handgun.

46.02 generally prohibits "carrying" a handgun whether the handgun is loaded or unloaded, openly carried or concealed. However, there is an exception to the general prohibition in 46.02 for premises you own or "under your control". That's why you can open carry in your house...and arguably in your friend's house with their permission (essentially putting you in "control" of the premises by my estimation).

You can open carry in your house even if you have a CHL...and you are not violating 46.035, because you are not carrying under the authority of your CHL.

PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE
HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.

You don't need the authority of your CHL and the defense provided by PC46.15 NON-APPLICABILITY to 46.02 in your own premises, or premises under your control, because those situations are specifically exempted in the text of 46.02.

So intentional failure to conceal in your own home is not illegal, nor is carrying in your own home while intoxicated (though not recommended), nor carrying a semi-automatic when your CHL says NSA only.

[Hoi Polloi]

If I were a lawyer, and I'm not, I would argue that once invited inside the private property of another which is not a public place that you are no longer carrying under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and therefore Sec. 46.035 does not apply.

Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.

I would say that you were carrying under 46.02 as being formally invited to teach a private class on self-defense and weapons and that places you in a position of control. For instance, if you are hired as a bottom-of-the-barrel factory line worker and are assigned to the drill press and there's a law saying that it is illegal to have a particular wrench on you unless you own or are in control of a drill press, does the fact that you have no claims of ownership to the drill press and have no exclusivity of use or ownership to it negate the fact that while you're at work, the drill press is in your control? In the same way, you have no claims of ownership or exclusivity of control, but providing a class on self-defense under a person's formal request does place the private home, or the part of the home you're in at least, under your control.

As someone above said, I would also argue that you are involved in a "legitimate sporting activity" protected under 46.14 by offering a training in firearms concealment, use, and safety but that does not make 46.035 (the intentional failure to conceal) nonapplicable as 46.15 (nonapplicability) only applies to 46.02 (unlawful carrying of a weapon) and 46.03 (places weapons prohibited). That means that you have to have a different justification for not concealing, which I believe would come from the fact that once inside a private residence and not in a public space that you are not under 30.06 and are then under 46.02 is that justification.

For that reason, I would argue that this is not a technicality where you're breaking the law but will not get caught but that you are not breaking the law at all. Aside from it not having case law to back up my thinking and therefore with people rightfully not wanting to rely on it for their own protection, can anyone point out any actual legal flaws with the above?

[ScottDLS]

I all the time, unconceal, unload and secure my concealed carry firearm when at my friends place for some time. Where is the crime? The host gave concent and it is non-of the goverment business.

It may be none of the government's business, but it is the law. And the law specifically forbids your having a gun anywhere except for the specified exceptions. Nowhere does it mention having the permission of the owner as an exception.

Nor is the term "premises under the person's control" in 46.02 specifically defined. I think it could be reasonably argued that the property owner granted you "control of the premises" by inviting you to enter and display your firearm. I believe it is generally a property owner's or leaseholder's right to grant "control of the premises" to whomever he pleases, and the law does not appear to place a requirement on the form that "grant" must take.

[Hoi Polloi]

I all the time, unconceal, unload and secure my concealed carry firearm when at my friends place for some time. Where is the crime? The host gave concent and it is non-of the goverment business.

It may be none of the government's business, but it is the law. And the law specifically forbids your having a gun anywhere except for the specified exceptions. Nowhere does it mention having the permission of the owner as an exception.

Nor is the term "premises under the person's control" in 46.02 specifically defined. I think it could be reasonably argued that the property owner granted you "control of the premises" by inviting you to enter and display your firearm. I believe it is generally a property owner's or leaseholder's right to grant "control of the premises" to whomever he pleases, and the law does not appear to place a requirement on the form that "grant" must take.

It looks like great minds think alike, Scott!

[BrianSW99]

I'm not so sure a person can just choose whether they are carrying under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code to suit their needs at the time. Once you obtain a CHL, you're licensed under that section and I don't see any provisions to choose whether it applies in a given situation or not.

Before the 2009 legislative session, if a CHL holder was pulled over on a traffic stop and failed to display his license to the officer, he would get his license suspended. It didn't matter if he claimed he was carrying under MPA instead of the CHL, his license would still be suspended.

If you couldn't choose to not be carrying under the authority of the CHL in that situation, how can you arbitrarily choose not to be when on someone else's private property, or even your own? The CHL is normally what allows you to legally carry on someone else's private property. The only difference here is that now you have the owners consent to not be concealed, but I don't see a provision for that in the CHL law.

[KD5NRH]

We can debate it until the cows come home, or we can get it fixed:

http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/Senat ... rs.htm#FYI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[OldCannon]

Better all around to use a "blue gun" or even an airsoft gun for demonstration.

Precisely. As an NRA instructor, there is an "Absolutely no ammo" rule in classroom training, that includes the instructor. This prevents all sorts of accidental "stupid events", and invariably, violators of this rule wind up with a bullet through a floor (or worse).

All this jabberjawin about the laws for displaying at somebody's home TOTALLY misses the point: DO. NOT. BRING. AMMO.

If you're carrying concealed, remove your weapon in your car WHILE IT'S INSIDE THE HOLSTER and lock it there, or put it in a closeable (and preferably, lockable) carrying case if you must take it in.

And as cbr said, get a blue gun. They're 30 bucks and a TON safer than handling a real gun for initial training. I'll gladly loan you my blue Glock 23 if you want.

PLEASE don't be a statistic.

[Purplehood]

I don't see what the problem is. You are most definitely allowed to carry and handle a weapon in your home regardless of your CHL status. If I go hunting with a bunch of buddies with a .357 magnum for feral hogs because it is neato, I am relatively sure that all of us are going to get together afterwards and clean our weapons at one or anothers house.
Inside a private residence (yours or one where you have been invited), privacy is generally guaranteed and I interpret this to mean that one can "display" in someone elses home.

[C-dub]

Y'all are making my head hurt. The activity described by the OP can't possibly be illegal, can it? That makes no sense. There must be an exception some where for this. Also, I don't understand the distinction between another home owner giving a friend permission to unconceal a weapon and a store owner allowing his employees to OC. I thought that had also been debated and was determined to be legal.

[dicion]

The problem that I have with this whole discussion is that the approach being taken is; if the law doesn't permit it, it's illegal. I think that's the wrong approach. It should be, if the law doesn't forbid it, it's legal. There is no prohibition in the law to displaying a weapon on private property where you have been given consent, therefore it is legal.

I was not taking that stance. By Texas Statute, Carrying a handgun anywhere, anytime is illegal to start under 46.02. Then there are certain exemptions, both in 46.02 itself, and 46.15.

But you are right, if the law doesn't forbid it, it's legal. However, in this case, the law specifically forbids it right out to begin with.

And I still think that 46.02 covers being in someone else's house. There is no violation of the law because you are in a premises that you have effective control of because the owner has granted you permission. So 46.02 specifically exempts you from any specific prohibitions that the law provides.

And as stated above 'premises under your control' is a vague description. This would be the crux of the arguement in a court case IMO.

[sjfcontrol]

Y'all are making my head hurt. The activity described by the OP can't possibly be illegal, can it? That makes no sense. There must be an exception some where for this. Also, I don't understand the distinction between another home owner giving a friend permission to unconceal a weapon and a store owner allowing his employees to OC. I thought that had also been debated and was determined to be legal.

Debated, yes. Resolved, apparently not!