TexasCHLforum.com

Texas Penal Code
§ 46.13. MAKING A FIREARM ACCESSIBLE TO A CHILD. (a) In
this section:
(1) "Child" means a person younger than 17 years of
age.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

CompVest wrote:Did the kid have legal possession of the car? Did he have a legal drivers license at 15 years old? If he didn't I don't think he could legally have a gun in the car.

Don't know if the kid had legal possession of the car (meaning whether it was stolen or not). I do not think you need a license to have legal possession of an automobile. If someone (legal owner or in legal possession) allowed him to drive it, I would say he had legal possession.
.

well considering the kid had a gun, im guessing that had something to do with him sporting a 04' cadillac at 4am.

I think the answer here is we do not have all the facts. It will be interesting to see how this case develops. I just hope it doesn't reflect badly on the car carry law or CHL's.

PC § 46.13 defines an offense for the person making the weapon available to a child. It does not make it an offense for the child to have it.

There is no age limit in Texas. The issue comes up almost every legislative session, and it's one of the reasons we get a D- from the Bradys.

- Jim

At the risk of exposing my ignorance, I don't see any way that a 15 year old could legally be in possession of a firearm.

KC5AV wrote:I don't see any way that a 15 year old could legally be in possession of a firearm.

Please show me what law he would be violating.

Every law that creates a ciminal offense contains language like "a person commits an offense if the person" does something. No law explicitly says that a minor commits an offense if he has a firearm.

Of course, if it's a stolen car or the kid is a gang member, having a handgun is an violation. That would be true regardless of age.

- Jim

KC5AV wrote:At the risk of exposing my ignorance, I don't see any way that a 15 year old could legally be in possession of a firearm.

The concept that you are not understanding is the difference between possession and the actual transfer. It is illegal in Texas to transfer a firearm to a person under 18 (PC 46.06(a)(2), which includes selling, giving, renting, or leasing). It is also an offense to make a loaded firearm available to a person under 17 (PC 46.13, which has been mentioned). Both of these laws place the criminal responsibility on the adult making the transfer or firearm available.

There is no criminal offense committed by the juvenile for the possession. There is no limit for age in PC 46.02, so it is my understanding of the law that the 15 year old would be legally possessing the firearm and legally carrying it in the given situation, if the firearm itself is not stolen and the other clauses of 46.02 were met (not a gang banger or committing other offense).

As for the driving, it is possible that it was entirely legal for the child to be driving at this time. He could have a hardship driver's license, and as part of the hardship, he could have an exception to the times for getting home from work, as one possibility.

Dougmyers5 wrote:Texas Penal Code
§ 46.13. MAKING A FIREARM ACCESSIBLE TO A CHILD. (a) In
this section:
(1) "Child" means a person younger than 17 years of
age.

Even if that meant the child could not own it, the age is 17, not 21.

21 is the legal age he can buy a gun, anything less and someone furnished it to him or it is stolen. If it is legal for a child to own a hand gun at 17 years of age and up some one provided it or it is stolen.

In this case he Brandished or pointed it at someone at the very least he was breaking the law because of that and being under age in possession of a hand gun.

Was the kid legal to have the gun I think not, you think what ever you want makes no difference to me.

I think many of us have a picture in our mind of this kid, and it isn't the Eddie Eagle program's poster child.
However, if it isn't illegal for him to have one in his possession, then the kid (legally) had just as much right to carry as the 30-year-old. (Yes, I understand that if/when gang involvement was proven, that would change things.)

Based on the news story alone, it seems justified. However, we don't tend to get the full story from the papers.

Venus Pax wrote:I think many of us have a picture in our mind of this kid, and it isn't the Eddie Eagle program's poster child.
However, if it isn't illegal for him to have one in his possession, then the kid (legally) had just as much right to carry as the 30-year-old. (Yes, I understand that if/when gang involvement was proven, that would change things.)

Correct. And exactly my point.

We do not have all the facts yet.

For all we know, the kid might have been acting in lawful self defense and the 30 year old guy simply ended up as the winner of the gunfight.

Right now, we simply do not know.

KBCraig wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:So other than driving without a license, is the kid illegal carrying a handgun with him in the car?

What's the penalty for driving without a license? If it's higher than Class C, then yes, it would be illegal. If not, then no.

Well, driving with a suspended or revoked license is a class B. Is no license at all the same offense?

Dougmyers5 wrote:Was the kid legal to have the gun I think not, you think what ever you want makes no difference to me.

Those who think it was illegal have been posting their thoughts. Those who think it wasn't, have been posting the law.

By all means, go ahead and think whatever you want. That doesn't change the law, though.

Dougmyers5 wrote:21 is the legal age he can buy a gun, anything less and someone furnished it to him or it is stolen. If it is legal for a child to own a hand gun at 17 years of age and up some one provided it or it is stolen.

No, an 18 year old can buy a rifle or shotgun. And an 18 year old can buy from someone without an FFL.

In this case he Brandished or pointed it at someone at the very least he was breaking the law because of that and being under age in possession of a hand gun.

He may or may not have lawfully possesed the handgun, you have not established any law yet that makes it unlawful for a 15 year old to have possession of it.

And we don't know for a fact if the kid didn't have a justification for pulling it. Remember, the news seldom gets it right. (not defending the kid, just pointing out a few things)

Was the kid legal to have the gun I think not, you think what ever you want makes no difference to me.

Thinking means nothing, the law does.

txinvestigator wrote:

Dougmyers5 wrote:21 is the legal age he can buy a gun, anything less and someone furnished it to him or it is stolen. If it is legal for a child to own a hand gun at 17 years of age and up some one provided it or it is stolen.

No, an 18 year old can buy a rifle or shotgun. And an 18 year old can buy from someone without an FFL.

In this case he Brandished or pointed it at someone at the very least he was breaking the law because of that and being under age in possession of a hand gun.

He may or may not have lawfully possesed the handgun, you have not established any law yet that makes it unlawful for a 15 year old to have possession of it.

And we don't know for a fact if the kid didn't have a justification for pulling it. Remember, the news seldom gets it right. (not defending the kid, just pointing out a few things)

Was the kid legal to have the gun I think not, you think what ever you want makes no difference to me.

Thinking means nothing, the law does.

=======================

He was not 18 and it was not a rifle or a shot gun.

If he bought it from someone then they provided it for him at 15 years of age.