TexasCHLforum.com

fishman wrote: I sure would'nt want to see anything happen to the deer feeders! And this year especially, neither would the deer.

I can't afford corn this year with the cost so high. I am gonna load them with pea gravel and just let the ting-a- linga-ling lure them in. Sort of Pavlov's theory.

puma guy wrote: If I am understanding what you guys are saying - A passenger not in control of the vehicle with full knowledge that a loaded concealed weapon is in the vehicle and can be easily accessed in not a violation in any way as long as they are not prohibited? That's not the way I have been interpreting the law.

That is correct. As long as the passenger is not prohibited from possessing a weapon, there wouldn't be any legal issue with them being alone in the passenger compartment of the vehicle.

I'm assuming you were on 183 since you were near Luling and heading toward New Braunfels. Also, slow moving vehicles running on the shoulder of two lane roads in the country is common. I'm not sure why people would be worried about you passing other vehicles. I've passed many vehicles driving a semi on two lane US highways. I also understand why you'd be exceeding the speed limit, because you want to get around the vehicle and back into your own lane asap.

I think it's important for you to put this experience in perspective. It's best not to assume the worst about other people. You have no way of knowing what was on the officer's mind. She may have been on the lookout for a criminal and felt stopping you for speeding was an inconvenience. She may have had indigestion. She might have just dealt with an angry spouse or boyfriend and didn't feel much like talking.

I take the officer's lack of concern about your friend getting back in the vehicle as an indication that she already judged you and your friend as non-threatening. People make those sorts of judgments all the time, and officers are especially adept at them because they deal with people so frequently. Chalk it up to a bad day and move on with your life.

KC5AV - At least i learned something new. Passengers are protected under MPA.

baldeagle - I was on I10 heading west not on 183. I agree slow moving vehicles are common on the lesser traveled highways and FM's. This guy had plenty of opportunities to exit and perhaps if I'd not been speeding she may have intercepted him. No way of knowing what the outcome would have been. Maybe she'd had a bad morning, no lunch or who knows. She did her job of issuing a citation to a violator. But 3 tickets in 50 years of driving ain't bad. And Yeah, I agree you have to speed up to pass a vehicle otherwise it would be called "overtaking". I see a lot of "overtaking" vehicles in the number one lane on I45 in the "Left Lane for Passing Only" zones.

Only thing worse for me than making excuses for getting caught is bringing up the bad behavior of others as a defense.

Sounds like being mad at getting a ticket.

From a CHL/MPA standpoint, it seems like it was as amicable a stop one could expect. Your CHL seems to have been respected by the LEO.

Ron

gigag04 wrote:Only thing worse for me than making excuses for getting caught is bringing up the bad behavior of others as a defense.

Sounds like being mad at getting a ticket.

I don't know how to say it any plainer, but as I itterated in my follow-up post I am not irritated nor mad that I got a ticket. I admitted was speeding (at least 80). If I had gone to court the defense I would have offered is my driving record of 50, actually 51 years with two tickets neither of which show up on my driving record. I probably would have questioned whether it is appropriate or even legal for police to exceed the speed limit to enforce the law with no emergency lights. I got that question answered instead here in this forum. I accept that. As I originially stated the financially prudent course was plead guilty and take DD anyway. My question was whether some of the behaviors of the trooper were typical. From the responses here apparently they are not unusual. You can read whatever you want to into that I guess.

rtschl wrote:From a CHL/MPA standpoint, it seems like it was as amicable a stop one could expect. Your CHL seems to have been respected by the LEO.

Ron

Yes it was.

The trooper's refusal to be drawn into a conversation regarding the circumstances of the violation should not be interpreted as disinterest or lack of courtesy. It is a tactic used to avoid arguments and prolonged discussions, many of which can lead to complaints about what the officer did or did not say.

I don't know if this is a training point at the DPS academy, but if you're the one doing 20 or 30 stops daily, after a few negative experiences when conversation was engaged, this quickly starts to looks like a better and better approach.

During the couple of times I've been stopped by TX DPS troopers, they avoided all discussion as well. I knew what they were doing and why they were doing it, and just let them do their job and make their decisions based on the circumstances they observed.

KC5AV wrote:

puma guy wrote: If I am understanding what you guys are saying - A passenger not in control of the vehicle with full knowledge that a loaded concealed weapon is in the vehicle and can be easily accessed in not a violation in any way as long as they are not prohibited? That's not the way I have been interpreting the law.

That is correct. As long as the passenger is not prohibited from possessing a weapon, there wouldn't be any legal issue with them being alone in the passenger compartment of the vehicle.

Funny, I thought the MPA only protected the owner or controller of a vehicle. This passenger was obviously neither.

barres wrote:

KC5AV wrote:

puma guy wrote: If I am understanding what you guys are saying - A passenger not in control of the vehicle with full knowledge that a loaded concealed weapon is in the vehicle and can be easily accessed in not a violation in any way as long as they are not prohibited? That's not the way I have been interpreting the law.

That is correct. As long as the passenger is not prohibited from possessing a weapon, there wouldn't be any legal issue with them being alone in the passenger compartment of the vehicle.

Funny, I thought the MPA only protected the owner or controller of a vehicle. This passenger was obviously neither.

The owner / controller in this case was the driver who was still present at the scene although not inside the car the entire time.

Excaliber wrote:

barres wrote:Funny, I thought the MPA only protected the owner or controller of a vehicle. This passenger was obviously neither.

The owner / controller in this case was the driver who was still present at the scene although not inside the car the entire time.

I'm not trying to be obstinate, and I'm not a legal-beagle, but how does the driver being 25-ish feet away (at the back of the trailer) keep him in control of the weapon? And how would the passenger not have a firearm in the console be on or about his person without the protection of a CHL or (in my admittedly limited understanding) the MPA.

I'm not trying to be argumentative; I only want to understand.

barres wrote:

Excaliber wrote:

barres wrote:Funny, I thought the MPA only protected the owner or controller of a vehicle. This passenger was obviously neither.

The owner / controller in this case was the driver who was still present at the scene although not inside the car the entire time.

I'm not trying to be obstinate, and I'm not a legal-beagle, but how does the driver being 25-ish feet away (at the back of the trailer) keep him in control of the weapon? And how would the passenger not have a firearm in the console be on or about his person without the protection of a CHL or (in my admittedly limited understanding) the MPA.

I'm not trying to be argumentative; I only want to understand.

It doesn't state the owner of the vehicle has to be in control of the firearm once it is in the owner's car. They just can't do 1 or 2A-2C. Here is the snippet:

(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; or
(2) the person is:
(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a
Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance
regulating traffic;
(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm;
or
(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as
defined by Section 71.01.

(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; or
(2) the person is:
(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a
Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance
regulating traffic;
(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm;
or
(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as
defined by Section 71.01.

My reading of the section in red is that this section of the penal code doesn't apply to the passenger, because he doesn't own or control the vehicle, therefore, he doesn't get the protections in the MPA. (a1) is a protection from UCW by excluding carrying in a vehicle you own or control (like a rental car) from UCW unless you are in violation of (1) and/or (2) or any subsection thereof. The passenger would be guilty of UCW, because this section doesn't apply. IMHO, IANAL, etc.

BTW, thanks for quoting the law, I didn't have the opportunity to look it up for the exact wording.

barres wrote:

(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; or
(2) the person is:
(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a
Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance
regulating traffic;
(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm;
or
(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as
defined by Section 71.01.

My reading of the section in red is that this section of the penal code doesn't apply to the passenger, because he doesn't own or control the vehicle, therefore, he doesn't get the protections in the MPA. (a1) is a protection from UCW by excluding carrying in a vehicle you own or control (like a rental car) from UCW unless you are in violation of (1) and/or (2) or any subsection thereof. The passenger would be guilty of UCW, because this section doesn't apply. IMHO, IANAL, etc.

BTW, thanks for quoting the law, I didn't have the opportunity to look it up for the exact wording.

I don't believe the passenger was illegal being around the gun, unless they were a felon. But, my interpretation (I'm not a lawyer and didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night) is that the gun being in the car is covered still under the owner of the vehicle, even if he is away form it due to the OR in the blue lettering above. A good example would be that I own a car and have my wife with me. If her name is not on the title, but I leave a gun in there and go inside a store while she waits in the car, it is still covered under MPA because I own the car. And, she is not prohibited from being around the gun, so if it stays put and concealed, it is legal. It doesn't have to stay in my control in the car. Just like the new parking lot law, you can leave the gun in the car and out of your control and just because someone else is near it, if they are not in control of it by messing around, then it is all OK.