Re: Which Applies: CHL or MPA?
Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:50 pm
Motorist Protection Act
The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
I did not mention any sign in my question, but thanks..ralewis wrote: I don't believe you will have violated the law. That was what i was trying to say with my first post. Carrying concealed is not legally prohibited as a result of a "guns must be unloaded sign". Not a 30.06-compliant sign......
So you are saying that the MPA takes precedence over my CHL, in that there is no penalty to failure to conceal in the range or the gunshop? If I had no CHL, I would naturally agree. My question was based on the fact I have a CHL, and I wanted to know if in any way I was still held to 46.035 when I un-concealed at the range or gunshop.glock27 wrote:what is the acronym for MPA?
Motorist Protection Actglock27 wrote:what is the acronym for MPA?
Other way around everyone. MPA is the acronym for Motorist Protection Act.Chityworker wrote:Motorist Protection Actglock27 wrote:what is the acronym for MPA?
You can believe whatever you want but according to that argument you are committing a crime when you intentionally fail to conceal at a shooting range, or when handgun hunting, or when you clean your handgun inside your own home.C-dub wrote:Also, IMO, the CHL trumps the MPA and if one has a CHL they cannot carry in their vehicle without their CHL and claim MPA.
Folks have been able to do those things long before MPA or CHL. Those are expected activities in an expected place on private property the owner allows. And if you are hunting, you had better have a hunting license.Bart wrote:You can believe whatever you want but according to that argument you are committing a crime when you intentionally fail to conceal at a shooting range, or when handgun hunting, or when you clean your handgun inside your own home.C-dub wrote:Also, IMO, the CHL trumps the MPA and if one has a CHL they cannot carry in their vehicle without their CHL and claim MPA.
I didn't say or intend to say either one of those things.Bart wrote:I read the actual law. I can't find anything in MPA that excludes CHL, security guards, or anyone except criminals. I can't find anything in the CHL law that denies you the ability to shoot at a range etc. if you are issued a CHL, whether or not you have your CHL with you.
If I missed it, quotes and cites can prove me wrong.
andFolks have been able to do those things long before MPA or CHL. Those are expected activities in an expected place on private property the owner allows. And if you are hunting, you had better have a hunting license.
Just like flipping the acronym thing around, you flipped the MPA vs. CHL around. I didn't say the MPA excluded a CHL. I based my opinion on the statute that says anyone carrying under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411 must have their plastic with them whenever actually carrying. I know the penalty has been removed for not displaying it when asked for ID, but it is also just my opinion that it doesn't mean the penalty has been removed for not being able to display it because it was forgotten at home. This will probably have to answered by the courts if someone is ever put in this situation and takes it to court.Moving along ... the MPA doesn't trump the CHL. If you carry a loaded concealed handgun as would if you had a CHL outside of your home, car, or your business then you are UCW. However, you may carry an unloaded handgun in a case or bag or whatever just like when transporting a gun to and from a range or gunsmith if you don't have a CHL.
Bart wrote:I can't find anything in the CHL law that says only some parts of 46.02 apply if you were issued a CHL but don't have it with you.
Sec. 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY. (a) Sections 46.02 and 46.03 do not apply to:Sec. 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
...(3) is engaging in lawful hunting, fishing, or other sporting activity on the immediate premises where the activity is conducted, or is en route between the premises and the actor's residence or motor vehicle, if the weapon is a type commonly used in the activity;
You got me. Failure to conceal is covered by 46.035 for a CHL. I find nothing in 46.15 that mentions non-applicability of any section of 46.035.C-dub wrote:I guess I've been up too long today. I'm not following the argument about 46.02. What is it about what I said or implied that seems to go against 46.02?
Where in 46.15(b)(3) do you see relief from 46.035? It specifically says Section 46.02 doesn't apply, it does not say section 46.035 does not apply. 46.02 is "UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS" by a non-license holder. Under my CHL, I am lawfully carrying, so 46.035 is "UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF A HANDGUN BY A LICENSE HOLDER" which is where intentional failure to conceal is covered.Beiruty wrote:If there is range, then you are covered under 46.15.(b)(3).