TexasCHLforum.com

Ameer wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:The point is to see where the current law could be improved to mean what was intended. Areas that currently are theoretically problematic.

I think Mr. Cotton said that there are situations that are ambiguous (not bright line) or technically illegal but aren't enforced. However, these don't cause many problems in the real world, so it makes more sense to spend the political capital to change laws that do cause problems.

I agree completely. I'm not suggesting any particular action be taken. For those who are interested, I'm talking about discussing in the theoretical as I believe that the knowledge base it creates in awareness is of benefit in the practical realm. Maybe nothing ever comes of it. Maybe minor tweaks are able to be incorporated in one section which prevents one crazy DA from putting someone through the wringer 10 years from now who, after a lot of time and expense, would get off anyway. Maybe it hits gold and becomes a knowledge base that is really useful in lobbying efforts. I have no idea what the information would be used for, if anything. I think there's worth in the discussion itself.

Maybe it's better for someone to propose a specific problem and then we can discuss solutions or why someone else thinks it's not a problem or why they think the law is clear. etc.

However, the solutions might require actual changes to the law. For example, if the theoretical problem is someone getting arrested for unintentionally unconcealing (like this) the solution might be decriminalizing the exposure.

That's a great place to start, Ameer!

What are topics that come up here that the response is, "That's a gray area." "There's no precedent in case law, so who knows." "It's crazy and no one would enforce it, but it is technically against the law." and similar?

1. Property owned or leased by a governmental entity exemption for 30.06 restrictions. Does that mean leased from and leased to or only one or the other? Proposal: ...leased from or to a governmental entity...

2. Intentional failure to conceal. No exceptions listed. Proposal: Include same exceptions listed in other related statutes.

3. When carrying under the authority of CHL. Not clear when this is the case. On one side. Police are not expected to comply with CHL restrictions when carrying as police. However, those with a CHL who have a gun in the car cannot claim that they're carrying under MPA and not CHL. The CHL statute does not provide any exceptions for when a person with a CHL has a gun on or around him. Proposal: Include some wording that allows those with weapons to carry under the least restrictive applicable statutes that apply to the situation, possibly under the exceptions sections.

What else or what other suggestions?

Its simple. Make it: CHL holders can carry any place an off duty police officer can.

74novaman wrote:Its simple. Make it: CHL holders can carry any place an off duty police officer can.

Which statute are you proposing this would clarify?

Hoi Polloi wrote:That's a great place to start, Ameer!

What are topics that come up here that the response is, "That's a gray area." "There's no precedent in case law, so who knows." "It's crazy and no one would enforce it, but it is technically against the law." and similar?

1. Property owned or leased by a governmental entity exemption for 30.06 restrictions. Does that mean leased from and leased to or only one or the other? Proposal: ...leased from or to a governmental entity...

2. Intentional failure to conceal. No exceptions listed. Proposal: Include same exceptions listed in other related statutes.

3. When carrying under the authority of CHL. Not clear when this is the case. On one side. Police are not expected to comply with CHL restrictions when carrying as police. However, those with a CHL who have a gun in the car cannot claim that they're carrying under MPA and not CHL. The CHL statute does not provide any exceptions for when a person with a CHL has a gun on or around him. Proposal: Include some wording that allows those with weapons to carry under the least restrictive applicable statutes that apply to the situation, possibly under the exceptions sections.

What else or what other suggestions?

1. If it's leased from a government entity, then presumably it's also owned by the lessor (government agency)...if it's leased by a government agency from a private company...well then it's leased by the government agency. I mean how many different ways are there to say it? There will always be someone to sow doubt about the plain language of the statute. Unless someone points to a case where it is interpreted otherwise, I think it's pretty clear. That's why we're carrying at the Fair now.

For 30.06 everyone seems to want... "Written notice is 1 inch letters, and they really have to be 1", not 0.9". An inch is defined as 2.54cm...a cm is 1/100 of a meter, and a meter is the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. Contrasting colors means the difference in the reflective properties of the letters and the background must be a ratio of at least xxx .... well you get the idea.


2. Intentional failure to conceal... there IS an exception in 46.035(a)...clearly implied as part of the definition of the offense... and that is: The failure is NOT intentional)... we have a "case" on this, although not precedent...see "Handog - Cuffed and Stuffed". Or if the person is not Carrying under the authority of CHL (see below).

3. I'm not sure why the construct "carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code" is added to 46.035 other than to say that the law only applies when you don't have some other authority to carry. If you're really worried about it, you could take your license off your person when your carry or manner of carry is not otherwise prohibited to a non-CHL. A number of posts have suggested that carrying under MPA is not "carrying under the authority of CHL" and I agree. Again, if you really want to be safe, throw your CHL in the trunk while carrying under MPA. When you get where you are going, get out (without your handgun) go to your trunk, get license, then conceal handgun about your person.

Regardless of how specific we make the language, somebody will find some doubt. I'm not saying that there aren't some unclear areas, but I'm just saying that in my opinion (which is worth what you paid for it), 30.06 and 46.035 are not them.

Hope everybody takes these "theological" debates in the spirit they are intended... Mrs. ScottDLS and my father (who has been a practicing attorney for 44 years), both think I have lost my marbles.

Ameer wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:The point is to see where the current law could be improved to mean what was intended. Areas that currently are theoretically problematic.

I think Mr. Cotton said that there are situations that are ambiguous (not bright line) or technically illegal but aren't enforced. However, these don't cause many problems in the real world, so it makes more sense to spend the political capital to change laws that do cause problems.

A lot of people said the same thing about the traveling exemption for a long time, then when a couple of areas started abusing it, it took two sessions to get it fixed. A lot of people faced unnecessary arrest and prosecution during that time because nobody bothered to clarify the law before it could be abused.

ScottDLS wrote:

wheelgun1958 wrote:The Heller decision clarified that the 2nd amendment refers to an individual right. The McDonald decision clarified that is applies to the states. Again, how many ways can you define 'shall not be infringed?'

Heller was a great decision, but don't read more into it than is there... There's plenty of work to be done at the state level.

Neither decision dared define 'shall not infringe.' They don't seem to want to go there.

I'd change :

PENAL CODE
TITLE 9. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND DECENCY
CHAPTER 42. DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND RELATED OFFENSES
Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT.

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:

(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

(2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

Reason:
Two weeks ago, my sister-in-law lost her job of 10 years with the school district for raising her hands in the air (like Praise the Lord) because her supervisor found it offensive.

Gestures can be mis-interpreted. And a Victory V or peace symbol with the hands in the USA is an obscene gesture in Korea. When I was young, I once called my sister a witch, but she thought I said something else.

Though I don't use vulgar language/gestures, IMHO, a right recognized by the second amendment should not be infringed due to such, much less by a mis-understood word or gesture.

See: http://www.state.tx.us/txdps/chl/qualifyInfo.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And see : viewtopic.php?f=7&t=32260" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Charles L. Cotton wrote:A Class C Disorderly Conduct "conviction" will result in revocation of your CHL and you will not be eligible to reapply for 7 years. (5 years for the conviction + 2 penalty years.) A "deferred adjudication" is statutorily defined as a "conviction" for CHL eligibility purposes. You may want to consider fighting the ticket.

Chas.