TexasCHLforum.com

The MPA only covered you up to the point you got your CHL. Let me ask you a question. If an officer stopped you and saw your weapon, not completely concealed, would you have immunity from any action against your CHL because you are carrying under MPA? No, the incident and any prosecution would be approached from the standpoint of you being a CHL holder.

RJ

(Needless to say, IANAL and my wife has found my arguments to be occasionally specious and often overblown at best)

...if your in-car handgun was not concealed, you wouldn't be covered by either CHL or MPA...you'd be in violation on both...but now you've got me wondering...if I'd left my CHL home and had my handgun on the seat covered by a towel...I wonder if FOR SURE I'd fall under MPA...I don't think we'd lose MPA just because we have a CHL...but I don't know that for a fact...
...in your example, I'd rather be charged for failure to conceal than UCW which I believe they can put on us if we carry in car under MPA and don't conceal the weapon...
...betcha the Boss can clear this up...kinda new for much caselaw...

The MPA only covered you up to the point you got your CHL. Let me ask you a question.

This is where we disagree. The CHL allows me (with several exceptions) to carry a concealed handgun when it would otherwise be illegal without a CHL. If I am carrying a concealed handgun in my car, I am not carrying illegally so the CHL does not come into play.

I am not at all happy with how that is worded, but I can't think of a better way to say it. Hopefully, it is clear enough. :)

3dfxMM wrote:

The MPA only covered you up to the point you got your CHL. Let me ask you a question.

This is where we disagree. The CHL allows me (with several exceptions) to carry a concealed handgun when it would otherwise be illegal without a CHL. If I am carrying a concealed handgun in my car, I am not carrying illegally so the CHL does not come into play.

I am not at all happy with how that is worded, but I can't think of a better way to say it. Hopefully, it is clear enough. :)

It's clear, and right.

Having a handgun in your car, out of plain sight, has nothing to do with having a CHL or not.

Dang some of y'all try to complicate stuff!!

That's cool, I think I understand what you are saying. I am not saying that I disagree with you, only trying to answer with what knowledge I have, for what it is worth. There are people are on the forums who can, and who have tried, to help us understand the difference between MPA and CHL carry, and whether MPA trumps CHL while in the car, or if it is the other way around.

RJ

A-R wrote:for what it's worth, I was driving by this parking garage the other day and it appears the 30.06 signs have been removed - perhaps a "compliance" with new laws stemming from SB 321?

I suspect rather than SB321, that somehow it was brought to the entity's attention that they were in fact a governmental entity and the signs were without effect. (I can't see how an organization set up and overseen by the legislature is not a governmental entity, regardless of whether they get an appropriation or not).

Or someone removed the signs for maintenance purposes and they haven't been (forgotten?) put back up yet.

p.s. my other two cents is that srothstein is correct with his argument about carrying under the "authority" of CHL or MPA or basic statute, as I argued in the question of whether you could carry an unloaded handgun in your luggage to your motel room if the motel was posted 30.06 only (my answer: yes, unless guns in general are prohibited). I don't think it is a case of MPA "trumping" CHL or vice versa, only a case of "is there a legal authority for you to have a concealed handgun in a given situation."