TexasCHLforum.com

Stevie, thanks for the follow-up. It's so nice to know how things actually turn out after the many predictions made at the time of an event. I'm sure this thread will get used to [re]discuss many of the issues involved, but I am glad to hear the outcome(s) of this case are (relatively) favorable for those involved.

Renegade wrote:

barres wrote:The gun show was posted PC30.06 by the organizers of the event who leased the GRB. But the perp/victim (not sure which to use in this case) was not prosecuted for violating it, either because the GRB is government owned keeping the 30.06 from being enforceable, or because the prosecutor chose not to pursue it, and we all know how Chuck Rosenthal feels about guns in citizens' hands. Does anyone care to point this out to Frankie?

30.06 is not enforceable at a gun show, because you are not carrying under CHL law, but under non-applicability of 46.15, just LIKE YOU WERE BEFORE you had a CHL.

Got that right...Thats why there was only one (1) charge of "deadly conduct" levied...

A misdemeanor...The book that could have been thrown was: 9 months probation, 80 hours C. Service, $200 fine and loss of CHL for 5 years, with an added 2 years on top of that (I am still trying to figure out that part of it, but its not too important at this time)...

stevie_d_64 wrote: Got that right...Thats why there was only one (1) charge of "deadly conduct" levied...

WHat is the specific statute for "deadly conduct"?

§ 22.05. DEADLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.
(b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of:
(1) one or more individuals; or
(2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied.
(c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.
(d) For purposes of this section, "building," "habitation," and "vehicle" have the meanings assigned those terms by Section 30.01.
(e) An offense under Subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the third degree.

Bookmark this site and you, too, can play a lawyer on the Internet: http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/pe.toc.htm
- Jim

Thanks for some reason I could not down load the entire PE for search, and did not find it in 30, 46 or disorderly.

stevie_d_64 wrote:

Renegade wrote:30.06 is not enforceable at a gun show, because you are not carrying under CHL law, but under non-applicability of 46.15, just LIKE YOU WERE BEFORE you had a CHL.

Got that right...Thats why there was only one (1) charge of "deadly conduct" levied...

I don't know how they decided on the charges, but PC 46.15 had nothing to do with it.

PC 46.15 (the "non-applicability" of 46.02 and 46.03 "unlawfully carrying a weapon" sections) does not give an exemption for gun shows.

Like gun shop employees openly carrying, it is technically illegal -- although never enforced -- for a non-CHL to carry a handgun at a gun show, or for a CHL to carry one openly. (For that matter, it's technically illegal to carry it from a gun store to your car.)

Regardless, 46.15 doesn't negate 30.06. Even if 46.15 covered gun shows so that UCW wouldn't apply, the entirely different charge of "Trespass by Holder of License to Carry Concealed Handgun" would still apply. (If proper notice was given in a non-government venue, of course.)

KBCraig wrote: PC 46.15 (the "non-applicability" of 46.02 and 46.03 "unlawfully carrying a weapon" sections) does not give an exemption for gun shows.

Seriously, how do you think it was legal to go to/from a gun show prior to CHL in 1995, or by non-CHLs today?

If you believe this, than cite the relevant portion of the law that allows one to carry a handgun on or about their person to/from/during a gun show and not be in violation of 46.02.... You will not find it, because it is all Case Law interpretation of PC46.15, dating back over 100 years.

30.06 ONLY applies to CHLs when carrying under CHL law. (1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; If you are not carrying under CHL law, it is "negated".

When my FED/LEO friends go to a gun show, even though they are CHL holders, they too are not carrying under CHL law, they are carrying under non-applicability of 46.15..

etc.

When I go to a gun show, I am not carrying under CHL law, that is why I can open carry, and carry inside the gun show. Just like I did in 1990, WHEN THERE WAS NO CHL LAW.

FWIW, gun shop employees are legally carrying under 46.15 also.

I'll have to wade in and agree with ShaggyDog on this one.

I was at this event when the incident occurred, and believe me, the entire area instantly got dead still for about 15 seconds -- like time stopped!

I certainly don't have any inside information on events leading up to and after the ND; however, I believe that this individual should NOT have his CHL so readily returned. He forfetted his right to have a CHL by failing to fulfill his responsibilities of having one.

"I forgot" just ain't good enough, Bubba! Whether he was carrying concealed or if had multiple guns, he was irresponsible in preserving my safety and the safety of the hundreds of other people in the room.

He was darned lucky -- the large room has a concrete floor, concrete walls and steel beams at roof level. Where did the round end up? Fortunately, it did not hit anyone else, but certainly could have struck any of us.

As a CHL holder, he has the responsibility to comply with 30.06 posted locations (argue the legality of these another day - signs are there, and until someone proves they should not be and they are removed, we're obliged to comply.)

There are large signs at the entrance requiring everyone bringing a weapon into the area for sale, service, or whatever reason, to have them inspected and safed, via a cable tie. How did he miss this step?

Finally, how did he "forget" the very basics of safe weapon handling? I.E., drop the mag, check the chamber, lock the slide open (these three should have been done BEFORE he entered) keep your finger off the trigger and always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction.

Sorry, Folks, but that's at least three strikes that, IMHO, say he should not get his CHL back so easily.

And yes, I've certainly made many mistakes in my years walking this planet, and I've paid the price. I just believe we ignore the responsibilities that lie on the flip side of our rights far to often these days. People need to be held accountable for their actions.

Would we let him off with pain and legal fees if his round had crippled or killed a child or a pregnant woman? I think not.

Renegade wrote:Seriously, how do you think it was legal to go to/from a gun show prior to CHL in 1995, or by non-CHLs today?

It's isn't legal for a non-CHL to carry a handgun to a gun show, whether or not is concealed. It's never prosecuted, but gun shows don't appear in TPC §46.15 "Not Applicable" provisions.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:It's isn't legal for a non-CHL to carry a handgun to a gun show, whether or not is concealed. It's never prosecuted, but gun shows don't appear in TPC §46.15 "Not Applicable" provisions.

Chas.

Couldn't a gun show be considered an "other sporting activity"?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Renegade wrote:Seriously, how do you think it was legal to go to/from a gun show prior to CHL in 1995, or by non-CHLs today?

It's isn't legal for a non-CHL to carry a handgun to a gun show, whether or not is concealed. It's never prosecuted, but gun shows don't appear in TPC §46.15 "Not Applicable" provisions.

Chas.

As I previously wrote,

You will not find it, because it is all Case Law interpretation of PC46.15, dating back over 100 years.

BadCo45ACP wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:It's isn't legal for a non-CHL to carry a handgun to a gun show, whether or not is concealed. It's never prosecuted, but gun shows don't appear in TPC §46.15 "Not Applicable" provisions.

Chas.

Couldn't a gun show be considered an "other sporting activity"?

Yes it could, but it will probably never be decided as such since we have 100+ years oif Case Law making going to a gun show, shop, etc., not a violation of UCW.

Renegade wrote:

BadCo45ACP wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:It's isn't legal for a non-CHL to carry a handgun to a gun show, whether or not is concealed. It's never prosecuted, but gun shows don't appear in TPC §46.15 "Not Applicable" provisions.

Chas.

Couldn't a gun show be considered an "other sporting activity"?

Yes it could, but it will probably never be decided as such since we have 100+ years oif Case Law making going to a gun show, shop, etc., not a violation of UCW.

If its never never been tested in court there is no case law. I don't think the gun show issue has ever been tested.

Liberty wrote:

Renegade wrote:

BadCo45ACP wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:It's isn't legal for a non-CHL to carry a handgun to a gun show, whether or not is concealed. It's never prosecuted, but gun shows don't appear in TPC §46.15 "Not Applicable" provisions.

Chas.

Couldn't a gun show be considered an "other sporting activity"?

Yes it could, but it will probably never be decided as such since we have 100+ years oif Case Law making going to a gun show, shop, etc., not a violation of UCW.

If its never never been tested in court there is no case law. I don't think the gun show issue has ever been tested.

I should not have wrote it that way. I should have written it has not been tested to my knowledge and written store instead of show.

Renegade wrote:

KBCraig wrote: PC 46.15 (the "non-applicability" of 46.02 and 46.03 "unlawfully carrying a weapon" sections) does not give an exemption for gun shows.

30.06 ONLY applies to CHLs when carrying under CHL law. (1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; If you are not carrying under CHL law, it is "negated".

This is why at first, I was a bit confused, but thats all the DA decided to, and could do, in this case...

I'm sure it would have been different if the discharge had hurt or killed someone else obviously...That would have complicated things no matter who it was...