MPA Carry By a CHL

[ScottDLS]

OK I made few posts in another topic that were starting to drift from the original thread. Here's the "thought experiment".

- You have a NSA non-semi auto (revolver) only CHL in your wallet in your back pocket.
- You are carrying a semi-auto 9mm concealed in your jacket
- You are in your car and not engaged in criminal activity
- You and you are not a member of a "criminal street gang"

If you are stopped are you required to show your CHL? I say no, because you are not carrying under the authority of your CHL. I know there is no penalty even if you were, but I say you don't have to.

[Teamless]

the law states, if a peace officer asks for your ID, you must present both, your DL (or State Issued ID) and CHL.
It does not state that this is only if you are stopped in your car..... it is anytime.

so even if you are not carrying under your CHL, you are required (without penalty for not doing so) by law to present it

[longtooth]

Splitting legal hairs like that will probably cause a financial hemorage (sp) way beyond my means. Maybe not yours.

All that has to take place is the officer ask you to step out of the vehicle please & you are unquestionably in violation of the law & in big trouble for illegal possession of prohibited weapon. Wrong gun for license.
Even if you win in court you are w/o carry for a looong time as that event continues to unfold.
My oppinion is worth about 02cent & some think about half that.
LT

[C-dub]

I am, of course, no authority on the matter what so ever. I just think that having the CHL changes the rules. Why would someone have an SA and not have qualified with it? Would it have been obtained afterward?

[RPB]

I can see that situation going well:

"Yes officer, I'll step out of the vehicle if I may have your permission to first take off my jacket and leave it in the car, so complying with your order does not cause me to violate the law restricting me to not carry the kind of gun I have in my jacket when outside my vehicle"


I think you are probably required to show the CHL, just like when/if a Game Warden asks for your Driver's license along with fishing license and you are fishing off the shore, nowhere near a vehicle, you gotta show it.

[jamisjockey]

If you have a CHL, you are always carrying under the authority of it. You accept a certain set of rules and responsibilities when you get one.
Splitting legal hairs is a great way to go broke.

[ex_dsmr]

If you have a CHL, you are always carrying under the authority of it. You accept a certain set of rules and responsibilities when you get one.
Splitting legal hairs is a great way to go broke.

This is pretty much the way that I understand it. You cant simply cast off being a CHL holder when it is convenient for you. And regardless of your endorsement, if you step out of the vehicle with that pistol on your person your now in violation either of illegally carrying a weapon (if you choose to leave your CHL at home) or violating your CHL endorsement (If you have your license and are trying to hide behind MPA)

My thoughts? Dont poke the bull with a stick. If your NSA carry NSA. If you want to carry SA then take the necessary steps to do it LEGALLY.

[Keith B]

If you have a CHL, you are always carrying under the authority of it. You accept a certain set of rules and responsibilities when you get one.
Splitting legal hairs is a great way to go broke.

Actually, there is debate on that. MPA applies to anyone who can legally posses a gun, so there have been some folks who are much better at the law than I am state that MPA would override CHL as it applies to unlicensed carry. However, since there is no test case or AG opinion on that, it is still just speculation as far as I know. And as always, it is another gray area in the law.

[ScottDLS]

-----
OK as I respond, please understand that I started this thread to foment discussion, rather than just publish a treatise on what I thought. So by responding I'm trying to make some points that I wanted present to you all and offer my opinion, not pick a fight. It's in that spirit that I continue the discussion....
------

Another option, perhaps.

If you don't want to upgrade the CHL license to SA (for whatever reason) - but you absolutely have to have a semi-auto - keep the pistol concealed in the car, not on your body. If you're asked to exit the vehicle, you're still legal as far as I can see.

I wouldn't want to be the one putting himself in that situation, tho - dancing on the razor's edge of the law can get you badly cut.

Right. That is what I originally was going to put. So I agree you must disarm if you are to step out of the car, and the best way would be just to have it in the console or glove box.


EDIT TO ADD: I've always had my SA license since I first got a CHL in 1996. Why wouldn't anyone? I just wanted to see people's thoughts on MPA.

[MoJo]

If the semi auto is in your pocket you are in violation of BOTH CHL and MPA. MPA says the gun must be concealed in the vehicle and not on your person. Sorry Charlie, you get the free ride downtown. I hope you have a good attorney and lots of discretionary money.

[ScottDLS]

-----
OK as I respond, please understand that I started this thread to foment discussion, rather than just publish a treatise on what I thought. So by responding I'm trying to make some points that I wanted present to you all and offer my opinion, not pick a fight. It's in that spirit that I continue the discussion....
------

the law states, if a peace officer asks for your ID, you must present both, your DL (or State Issued ID) and CHL.
It does not state that this is only if you are stopped in your car..... it is anytime.

so even if you are not carrying under your CHL, you are required (without penalty for not doing so) by law to present it

You are absolutely right. I had thought that you are only required to display when carrying under CHL authority, but it doesn't say that, only that if you have a handgun on or about you.

[ScottDLS]

-----
OK as I respond, please understand that I started this thread to foment discussion, rather than just publish a treatise on what I thought. So by responding I'm trying to make some points that I wanted present to you all and offer my opinion, not pick a fight. It's in that spirit that I continue the discussion....
------

If the semi auto is in your pocket you are in violation of BOTH CHL and MPA. MPA says the gun must be concealed in the vehicle and not on your person. Sorry Charlie, you get the free ride downtown. I hope you have a good attorney and lots of discretionary money.

Nope. Law says on or about his/her person. Unless you exit the vehicle you are OK.

(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;

[Keith B]

If the semi auto is in your pocket you are in violation of BOTH CHL and MPA. MPA says the gun must be concealed in the vehicle and not on your person. Sorry Charlie, you get the free ride downtown. I hope you have a good attorney and lots of discretionary money.

Sorry MoJo, I have to disagree. 46.02, which was modified in 2007 states:

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.

It states ON or ABOUT your person, so you CAN carry it on you without a CHL if you are in your vehicle, it just must be concealed. The one issue is that you must disarm before getting out of the vehicle unless en-route directly to your property or business, and you potentially may unconceal the firearm during that time which would be a violation.

EDIT TO ADD: Scott beat me to it.

[ScottDLS]

-----
OK as I respond, please understand that I started this thread to foment discussion, rather than just publish a treatise on what I thought. So by responding I'm trying to make some points that I wanted present to you all and offer my opinion, not pick a fight. It's in that spirit that I continue the discussion....
------

If you have a CHL, you are always carrying under the authority of it. You accept a certain set of rules and responsibilities when you get one.
Splitting legal hairs is a great way to go broke.

This is the crux of the issue...and why I believe that the above statement is not correct.

- If you have a CHL, must you conceal in your house?
- Can you use a SA pistol at the range if you only have NSA license?
- Must you conceal at the range?
- May a peace officer with a CHL carry openly in or out of uniform while on duty?

- If you are carrying a SA in your car and have only a NSA license, what would you be charged with?