TexasCHLforum.com

bronco78 wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:

bronco78 wrote: While lying to the LEO is a violation

§ 37.08. FALSE REPORT TO PEACE OFFICER OR LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE.
(a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to deceive, he knowingly makes a false statement that is material to a criminal investigation and makes the statement to:
(1) a peace officer conducting the investigation; or
(2) any employee of a law enforcement agency that is authorized by the agency to conduct the investigation and that the actor knows is conducting the investigation.
(b) In this section, "law enforcement agency" has the meaning assigned by Article 59.01, Code of Criminal Procedure.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.

So long as you do not answer at all, or answer with a response that is not a lie...AFAIKT 37.08 does not apply.

Just for arguments sake, if there is no crime to investigate, (IMHO, IANAL, etc, etc) I don't see how this would apply to lying to the LEO.


*** EDITED TO ADD THAT SFJCONTROL BEAT ME TO THE PUNCH....

Agreed, but the opinion that matters on what is a crime at the time of said "investigation" is that of the LEO on sight.
A judge may later decide there was no crime.... but that I "think" is a different issue.

If the LEO is in good faith "investigating a crime" the no lying comes in to play.. regardless of the later determination that no crime took place.

Maybe we should ask Scooter Libby.

JALLEN wrote:

bronco78 wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:

bronco78 wrote: While lying to the LEO is a violation

§ 37.08. FALSE REPORT TO PEACE OFFICER OR LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE.
(a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to deceive, he knowingly makes a false statement that is material to a criminal investigation and makes the statement to:
(1) a peace officer conducting the investigation; or
(2) any employee of a law enforcement agency that is authorized by the agency to conduct the investigation and that the actor knows is conducting the investigation.
(b) In this section, "law enforcement agency" has the meaning assigned by Article 59.01, Code of Criminal Procedure.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.

So long as you do not answer at all, or answer with a response that is not a lie...AFAIKT 37.08 does not apply.

Just for arguments sake, if there is no crime to investigate, (IMHO, IANAL, etc, etc) I don't see how this would apply to lying to the LEO.


*** EDITED TO ADD THAT SFJCONTROL BEAT ME TO THE PUNCH....

Agreed, but the opinion that matters on what is a crime at the time of said "investigation" is that of the LEO on sight.
A judge may later decide there was no crime.... but that I "think" is a different issue.

If the LEO is in good faith "investigating a crime" the no lying comes in to play.. regardless of the later determination that no crime took place.

Maybe we should ask Scooter Libby.

Well i would, but he is a convicted felon, having been charged AND convicted of ACTUALLY lying and perjury..... Not in any way germane to the discussion at hand as far as I can tell.

If you have some connection I missed from a CHL'r remaining silent when questioned or refusing to provide a direct answer to the convicted felon you mention....Please share

recaffeination wrote:I read 46.02 twice and I don't see anything that says "except if their CHL is suspended" or even "except for CHL" in there. What am I missing?

Maybe a bit off topic from the OP, but.......


46.15 (b) (6) states that 46.02 does not apply to a CHL

Hence the problem with the "MPA comes first" theory for a CHL, as MPA is "granted" via 46.02 - which does not apply to a CHL.

Confusing - Yes, Logical - No.

I have had an Asst. DA say that a CHL can't have a handgun in their vehicle under MPA.

So technically, we can never "unconceal" as 46.02 exceptions do not apply to a CHL - as 46.02 in it's entirety does not apply to a CHL

I have to shoot at the public range with my handgun in a paper bag......

And cleaning my handgun while hiding out of sight in the closet is a real pain!

What a mess.........

If 46.02 applies, it applies in its entirety, including MPA.

If 46.02 does not apply, then it's inappicable in its entirety, so it's not an offense to carry.

The 46.15 "exception" to 46.02, like all exceptions to the law, only applies if it's is needed. In other words, it only applies to make carrying legal, if it would otherwise be illegal to carry under those circumstances. Since it is already legal (per 46.02) to carry in a car, the CHL exception granted by 46.15 is not needed, and therefore does not apply.

Logical? Yes.

sjfcontrol wrote:The 46.15 "exception" to 46.02, like all exceptions to the law, only applies if it's is needed. In other words, it only applies to make carrying legal, if it would otherwise be illegal to carry under those circumstances. Since it is already legal (per 46.02) to carry in a car, the CHL exception granted by 46.15 is not needed, and therefore does not apply.

Logical? Yes.

Preaching to the choir ......but is the law logical?

I don't believe there is any case law on this yet - and I do not intend to be a "test case"......

Seem to be some circular statutes in play here........chicken or egg? (Rooster is the answer!)

I believe CHL should be allowed the exceptions afforded under 46.02 BEFORE CHL allowances come into play - makes sense.....but that was NOT what the Asst. D.A. opined (and he is a "gun guy") I would bet a few LEOs may have marching orders on this as well.


46.15 (b) (6) states that 46.02 "does not apply" to a CHL - Sounds pretty straight forward to me.......so MPA does NOT apply to a CHL.

So the question is "When is a CHL not acting under the authority of CHL?"

No clear answer for that one that I have found. Assumptions, reasonableness, logic - yes - statute/ case law - no.


The hypothetical situation I asked the Asst. D.A. about was as follows:

CHL holder goes shopping (driving and is carrying)

CHL begins to turn into a shopping establishment parking lot, but notices that there is a "proper" 30.06 sign at the entrance to the driveway.

Can the CHL continue into the parking lot and leave his handgun in the vehicle (as a non CHL holder could do under MPA as 30.06 ONLY applies to a CHL) claiming he was NOT carrying under the authority of CHL? (Sub H Ch 411)

Answer was "No".

I even brought up that 30.06 only applies IF a licensee is carrying under the authority of Sub H Ch 411...which implies that a CHL holder is not always under Sub H Ch 411.......still "No".

BTW - 46.15 (b) (3) states 46.02 "does not apply" for hunting, fishing or other sporting activity.....so I can go to a range...but 46.02 does not apply to a CHL.....so I could be charged under Sub H Ch 411 for not concealing?

and 46.15 (b) (2) still allows for "traveling" though 46.02 now spells out the "MPA" approach......? Why?

Maybe a request for clarification to the State Ag's office on these topics?

I'll put my trust in Charles Cotton WAY ahead of some unnamed assistant DA. But you're right that there is no case law. So you should behave in whatever way you are comfortable with.

7GenTex wrote:Maybe a request for clarification to the State Ag's office on these topics?

The State AG can only give legal opinions when requested from:

-the governor
-the head of a department of state government
-the head or board of a penal institution
-the head or board of an eleemosynary institution
-the head of a state board
-a regent or trustee of a state educational institution
-a committee of a house of the Texas Legislature
-a county auditor authorized by law
-the chairman of the governing board of a river authority

Wow! "eleemosynary"!!

sjfcontrol wrote:Wow! "eleemosynary"!!

Interesting, huh? I was just as surprised as you are.

bronco78 wrote:

JALLEN wrote:
Maybe we should ask Scooter Libby.

Well i would, but he is a convicted felon, having been charged AND convicted of ACTUALLY lying and perjury..... Not in any way germane to the discussion at hand as far as I can tell.

If you have some connection I missed from a CHL'r remaining silent when questioned or refusing to provide a direct answer to the convicted felon you mention....Please share

Libby was convicted of lying to the FBI about when he learned the identity of Joseph Wilson's wife. There was no underlying offense in the Libby case, i.e., there was no violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, or otherwise. So, without drifting into a rehash of that sordid matter, it appears that there was later determined to be no underlying crime so "mak[ing] a false statement that is material to a criminal investigation ....to (1) a peace officer conducting the investigation," didn't happen. He was convicted of lying anyway, wrongfully in my opinion, but that is another discussion altogether.

sjfcontrol wrote:I'll put my trust in Charles Cotton WAY ahead of some unnamed assistant DA. But you're right that there is no case law. So you should behave in whatever way you are comfortable with.

Can you point me to Charles Cotton's remarks concerning this?

Never mind - found a good one related to the topic:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=45095&p=548496&hilit=+MPA#p548496" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



(And the ADA would be the one pressing charges!)

Thanks!