TexasCHLforum.com

esxmarkc wrote:Now wait just a minute. Everyone is quoting 46.02 but 46.02 does not apply as per:

Sec. 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
(6) is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying;

You are correct, 46.02 does not apply to a CHL holder, instead they would be charged as follows:

PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE
HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.

C-dub wrote:Y'all are making my head hurt. The activity described by the OP can't possibly be illegal, can it? That makes no sense. There must be an exception some where for this. Also, I don't understand the distinction between another home owner giving a friend permission to unconceal a weapon and a store owner allowing his employees to OC. I thought that had also been debated and was determined to be legal.

It all comes down to 'premises under their control'... and as I said before, it's quite vague.

Listen, folks, while yes, technically it's illegal, as Steve has said before, it is an officer's discretion on whether to arrest. I don't know of a single officer that would arrest someone for handling a gun in a gun store, or exposing a gun on private property with the property owner's permission.

A very interesting discussion, which I must say points out something quite anomalous here on the forum, if not actually humorous.

I will venture a guess that a majority of active forum commentators here can be expected to jump to the forefront to criticize a court which, in their opinion, "makes law, rather than just interpreting the law."

Other than for those who have expressed their opinion that what the OP suggests is clearly, "technically," if you wish, illegal, but not likely to be enforced, other posters squirm to avoid the clear and unambiguous words of statutes to suggest that they mean something they do not say.

Elmo

PS I mean to express no opinon on the question itself.

Mr. Cotton? Paging Mr. Cotten! We need you Mr. Cotten!

b322da wrote:A very interesting discussion, which I must say points out something quite anomalous here on the forum, if not actually humorous.

I will venture a guess that a majority of active forum commentators here can be expected to jump to the forefront to criticize a court which, in their opinion, "makes law, rather than just interpreting the law."

Other than for those who have expressed their opinion that what the OP suggests is clearly, "technically," if you wish, illegal, but not likely to be enforced, other posters squirm to avoid the clear and unambiguous words of statutes to suggest that they mean something they do not say.
Elmo

PS I mean to express no opinon on the question itself..

I am guessing that I would be included in that number.
Let me be upfront. I don't care what the laws may or may not say. If I am in my house or a guest in someone elses, I am not going to concern myself with public intrusion into what I am doing as long as it does not violate the rights of those that I am interacting with.

lkd wrote:

cbr600 wrote:
Better all around to use a "blue gun" or even an airsoft gun for demonstration.

Precisely. As an NRA instructor, there is an "Absolutely no ammo" rule in classroom training, that includes the instructor. This prevents all sorts of accidental "stupid events", and invariably, violators of this rule wind up with a bullet through a floor (or worse).

All this jabberjawin about the laws for displaying at somebody's home TOTALLY misses the point: DO. NOT. BRING. AMMO.

If you're carrying concealed, remove your weapon in your car WHILE IT'S INSIDE THE HOLSTER and lock it there, or put it in a closeable (and preferably, lockable) carrying case if you must take it in.

And as cbr said, get a blue gun. They're 30 bucks and a TON safer than handling a real gun for initial training. I'll gladly loan you my blue Glock 23 if you want.

PLEASE don't be a statistic.

DO. NOT. BRING. AMMO

10Shooter wrote:

lkd wrote:

cbr600 wrote:
Better all around to use a "blue gun" or even an airsoft gun for demonstration.

Precisely. As an NRA instructor, there is an "Absolutely no ammo" rule in classroom training, that includes the instructor. This prevents all sorts of accidental "stupid events", and invariably, violators of this rule wind up with a bullet through a floor (or worse).

All this jabberjawin about the laws for displaying at somebody's home TOTALLY misses the point: DO. NOT. BRING. AMMO.

If you're carrying concealed, remove your weapon in your car WHILE IT'S INSIDE THE HOLSTER and lock it there, or put it in a closeable (and preferably, lockable) carrying case if you must take it in.

And as cbr said, get a blue gun. They're 30 bucks and a TON safer than handling a real gun for initial training. I'll gladly loan you my blue Glock 23 if you want.

PLEASE don't be a statistic.

DO. NOT. BRING. AMMO

I don't know that I completely agree with these sentiments.

First of all - the blue gun. For holstering and tactics - this is absolutely the way to go. But the OP said "handgun orientation". To me, this would include the operation of a modern SA pistol. If it were me, I would use snap caps and run through the basic operation including operating the slide, checking the chamber, loading, unloading, dry firing, etc. This obviously cannot happen with a blue gun.

Secondly, although I can see the reasons behind the suggestion, I really don't see an issue with carrying the gun into the home and clearing it in a certain area. I would then move the demonstration to another area where there is no ammo present. This would become another part of the demonstration, showing that a loaded gun can be safely cleared, separating the action and area of clearing from the hands-on demonstration. All of this leads to a better understanding of gun safety and changes fear of guns into a healthy respect for guns.

It's similar to the concept of training your own children. When they ask to see your gun again - this has been discussed before. If the time and setting are such, you clear it in front of them and use the opportunity to go over the rules again. Am I wrong?

Here's your loophole:

(j) Subsections (a) and (b)(1) do not apply to a historical reenactment performed in compliance with the rules of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission.

Just make sure someone wears Lincoln's hat - and have whatever alcohol on hand necessary to make the TAB happy. Ok?

I don't understand the ammo factor in the demonstration. If I am in a one-room cabin teaching my kids how to handle firearms, I am not going to go outside to separate myself from the ammo. Same thing in a "normal" house.
The lesson that I am teaching is that the ammo has to be removed from the gun and that the handler has to ensure that that has been done. That means clearing the weapon to their satisfaction and mine. The ammo and the pistol are all components of a functional firearm. Taking those components apart make for a non-functional firearm.
I want to teach confidence and competence.

baldeagle wrote:The problem that I have with this whole discussion is that the approach being taken is; if the law doesn't permit it, it's illegal. I think that's the wrong approach. It should be, if the law doesn't forbid it, it's legal. There is no prohibition in the law to displaying a weapon on private property where you have been given consent, therefore it is legal.

And I still think that 46.02 covers being in someone else's house. There is no violation of the law because you are in a premises that you have effective control of because the owner has granted you permission. So 46.02 specifically exempts you from any specific prohibitions that the law provides.

And on the legal issues, I tend to agree with BA. Although, a cop can arrest you for just about anything they want to - so under the right (or perhaps wrong) circumstances - you still might take a ride. Permission from the homeowner should carry the same force as the same action in your own home. Now, that would end as soon as the homeowner tells you to leave or even put it away.

But, IANECTBAL (I am not even close to being a lawyer) ...

Okay, okay, I KNOW ya'll want my opinion on this.

Scenario:

A CHL instructor is invited to give a class at a civic center. Attending are city council members, LEOs and various citizens. He is carrying his CCW and keeps it concealed. However, he has a SA pistol and revolver, cased, for practical demonstrations. As he is demonstrating the proper and safe handling of the firearms, the DA stands up and shouts, "Arrest that person!" It seems that though he was invited by those in control of the civic center to hold a class and had his carry weapon concealed, he "failed to conceal" as soon as he removed the teaching weapon from the case. After all it wasn't a place he owned or controlled...at least that's where the logic leads that I've been seeing here. So a CHL instructor that engages a class in any location they don't own or "control" is breaking the law anytime the display a weapon. A gunsmith breaks the law anytime he displays a weapon he delivers to an individual or meets at the local range. After all a class is not a "sporting event", gun maintenance and repair is not "hunting". But...

We've established the law makes an exception for hunting/sporting events where such a weapon is consistent. Again the devil is in the details...or lack thereof. When we look at the law concerning access to children, we find:

Sec. 46.13. MAKING A FIREARM ACCESSIBLE TO A CHILD.
(c) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the child's access to the firearm:
(1) was supervised by a person older than 18 years of age and was for hunting, sporting, or other lawful purposes;

What are "other lawful purposes"? Instruction, practice at ranges, gun shopping where handling may be appropriate, cleaning and maintenance? If we can engage in open access to a child for "other lawful purposes", why then is it suddenly illegal to extend those "other lawful purposes" to instruction of a friend or friend's child.

I'd rather see wording such as "other lawful purposes" added to other areas of the statute, but I really think it is a stretch to say that such activity is remotely illegal.

Then there is always the fallback of being granted temporary control of the property like a manager in a commercial property.

Added in edit: BTW there is dummy ammo you can use to demonstrate loading and clearing of weapons.

Dragonfighter wrote:Added in edit: BTW there is dummy ammo you can use to demonstrate loading and clearing of weapons.

Holy poop - that stuff is more expensive than FMJ - and even most JHP! But round for round - cheaper than snap caps! And way cheaper than repairing holes in the floor. So still pretty cool.

Stephen is absolutely correct.

No person can give you permission to violate a Penal Code provision, so your friend cannot give you permission to violate TPC §46.035(a) and intentionally fail to conceal your handgun.

When you are in your friend's home, you are carrying pursuant to the authority of your CHL so TPC §46.035(a) applies. Your friend does not transfer control of his home to you merely by granting permission to enter with a gun, or to use the restroom, or to get a drink of water. Sorry, this isn't the least bit ambiguous and the courts would reject that argument summarily. At most, your friend would be "granting" you control over your own firearm, not his home.

As Stephen said, the OP's scenario is one in which a violation of TPC §46.035(a) would occur (intentional failure to conceal), but there is little chance of prosecution because there would be no complaining witness. Let's extend this hypothetical and say your friend's mother in law is Sarah Brady and she comes in and sees you handling your handgun. She panics and calls the police. It won't help for your friend to tell the police "it's okay, I said he could show his handgun" anymore than he could tell them "I gave him permission to bring his cocaine into my home." No one can give another person permission to violate the law.

Chas.

Apologies in advance... I'm really not trying to be difficult, just want to understand this.

Suppose my friend, who has no CHL, buys a pistol at the gun show and brings it, cased, to my house to show to me.

Stipulating that my house is under my control, not his, and that he is not carrying a concealed handgun on his person (only the cased one in his hand) and does not have a CHL, does he violate the law when he opens the case and displays the pistol?

Thanks for your forbearance.

Regards,
Andrew

BobCat wrote:Apologies in advance... I'm really not trying to be difficult, just want to understand this.

Suppose my friend, who has no CHL, buys a pistol at the gun show and brings it, cased, to my house to show to me.

Stipulating that my house is under my control, not his, and that he is not carrying a concealed handgun on his person (only the cased one in his hand) and does not have a CHL, does he violate the law when he opens the case and displays the pistol?

Thanks for your forbearance.

Regards,
Andrew

Yes violates TPC §46.02 when he leaves his car and enters your home, whether or not he opens the gun case. He can have it in his car and going to or from (I know, going from isn't in the statute but it's implied) his car, but it is implicit that he must be going to or coming from a location where he could legally possess a handgun without a CHL.

Chas.

Chas.