MPA Carry By a CHL

[jamisjockey]

-----
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?

The CHL license regulates the carrying of a CONCEALED HANDGUN. Therefore, the applciability of the law is to the CONCEALED part.
You are not required to conceal a handgun at the range. That is clearly spelled out in the nonapplicability section of TPC.

The penalty? It is CLEARLY spelled out in 411.187

GC §411.187. SUSPENSION OF LICENSE. (a) The department
shall suspend a license under this section if the license holder:
(1) is charged with the commission of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor
or equivalent offense, or of an offense under Section 42.01,
Penal Code, or equivalent offense, or of a felony under an information
or indictment;
(2) fails to notify the department of a change of address, name, or
status as required by Section 411.181;
(3) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of this subchapter
of a different category than the license holder is licensed to
carry;

[ScottDLS]

....
The CHL license regulates the carrying of a CONCEALED HANDGUN. Therefore, the applciability of the law is to the CONCEALED part.
You are not required to conceal a handgun at the range. That is clearly spelled out in the nonapplicability section of TPC.

The penalty? It is CLEARLY spelled out in 411.187
....

The non-applicability of section of 46.15 for CHL only applies to (makes inapplicable) 46.02. What about 46.035(a)?

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.

All the prohibitions on a CHL holder doing something have the caveat... while carrying under the authority of (CHL)...

So my contention is that I am not carrying under the authority of my CHL when I don't need its authority to carry (concealed or otherwise). Otherwise you get ridiculous results. I can't see the intent of the law to prohibit a CHL holder from doing something that he could do otherwise if he were NOT a CHL.

[4copas]

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.

You must show your CHL, not step out of your vehicle carrying the semi, AND HOPE YOUR NOT IN A OR WENT THROUGH A SCHOOL ZONE. IANL, so I ask, does your CHL exempt you from violation of the 1000 feet law if your carrying a semi instead of the wheel gun?

[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.

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.

My bad, I missed that somehow.

I think if you are carrying under MPA it might be unwsise to have the gun on your person - - - one could forget to disarm and then be in violation. I've had to make more than one trip back to the vehicle because I forgot to disarm when going to hospitals, hospital owned medical buildings, etc.

Thanks for the correction.

[jamisjockey]

Well, if you'd like to test it, feel free. The penalty is a possible suspension or revocation of your CHL. Of course, there is always the possibility of facing off with an ill-informed officer who thinks you are guilty of some other crimes. I prefer not to poke the bear with a stick.

[Rex B]

Why would you disarm going into a hospital? It's only off-limits if it's a school hospital, or if it's correctly 30.06 posted.

As to the original question, as I understand the law, if you do something in compliance with a direction from a police officer that causes a violation, you cannot be held responsible. That's probably not the correct legal terms (IANAL etc)

I'd probably have to say something like "Officer, I am a CHL but am carrying under the Motorist Protection Act. If I exit this vehicle I must disarm first to remain in compliance with the law. I can do that by removing my jacket. How would you like me to proceed?"

[RPB]

Why would you disarm going into a hospital? It's only off-limits if it's a school hospital, or if it's correctly 30.06 posted.

As to the original question, as I understand the law, if you do something in compliance with a direction from a police officer that causes a violation, you cannot be held responsible. That's probably not the correct legal terms (IANAL etc)

I'd probably have to say something like "Officer, I am a CHL but am carrying under the Motorist Protection Act. If I exit this vehicle I must disarm first to remain in compliance with the law. I can do that by removing my jacket. How would you like me to proceed?"

I wouldn't try to guess how many people inside the house who were drunk have been asked by officers "Would you mind stepping outside please if you would" (not an order, just a request) and found themselves arrested for public intox if it was a person who "needed" to go to jail. Some cities have ordinances, no beer drinking on the sidewalk etc etc ... But, that's different than, as you said, being directed by an officer to do something.

[Rex B]

i would also expect not to be intoxicated under those circumstances.

[MoJo]

Why would you disarm going into a hospital? It's only off-limits if it's a school hospital, or if it's correctly 30.06 posted.

Every hospital in my area is properly 30.06 posted that's why

[Pacific Job]

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.

Does that mean if GigAg has a CHL it's illegal to intentionally fail to conceal, even if he's at work and in uniform?

[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.

Does that mean if GigAg has a CHL it's illegal to intentionally fail to conceal, even if he's at work and in uniform?

My argument with the OP is somewhat based on supposition about the intent of the law, and pieces of statutes that insinuate the authority of the CHL. Also, I'm going off of what I was taught by my instructor, Mr. Cotton.
You, however, are starting an argument based in ignorance of what the law says.
Gigag is a Police officer, right?

PC §46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY. (a) Sections 46.02 and 46.03 do
not apply to:(1) peace officers or special investigators under Article 2.122,
Code of Criminal Procedure, and neither section prohibits a peace
officer or special investigator from carrying a weapon in this state,
including in an establishment in this state serving the public, regardless
of whether the peace officer or special investigator is engaged in
the actual discharge of the officer's or investigator's duties while
carrying the weapon;

The section goes on to discuss Baliffs, officers of the court, security gaurds, etc. You should read it sometime.

[ScottDLS]

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.

Does that mean if GigAg has a CHL it's illegal to intentionally fail to conceal, even if he's at work and in uniform?

My argument with the OP is somewhat based on supposition about the intent of the law, and pieces of statutes that insinuate the authority of the CHL. Also, I'm going off of what I was taught by my instructor, Mr. Cotton.
You, however, are starting an argument based in ignorance of what the law says.
Gigag is a Police officer, right?

PC §46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY. (a) Sections 46.02 and 46.03 do
not apply to:(1) peace officers or special investigators under Article 2.122,
Code of Criminal Procedure, and neither section prohibits a peace
officer or special investigator from carrying a weapon in this state,
including in an establishment in this state serving the public, regardless
of whether the peace officer or special investigator is engaged in
the actual discharge of the officer's or investigator's duties while
carrying the weapon;

The section goes on to discuss Baliffs, officers of the court, security gaurds, etc. You should read it sometime.

46.15 (non-applicability) says nothing about 46.035. So under your interpretation of the CHL statute, GigAg is violating the law when he carries (openly) on duty.

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.

[jamisjockey]

Okay, I'll play.
Under that counter argument, what authority then does a LEO have to carry a weapon at all in the performance of their duties?

[alvins]

why go through the hassel of getting a chl and only doing it with a revolver?

[jamisjockey]

why go through the hassel of getting a chl and only doing it with a revolver?

Could be the only firearm a CHL applicant owns at the time that meets the minimum requirements for qualifying for the CHL.