TexasCHLforum.com

flb_78 wrote:In plain view is anything above the window line. When Im in my van, it sits on the center console. It is below the window line and it's legal. I could keep it in my lap and it would be legal just as long as the handgun stays below the window line.

Huh?


Who came up with that.

That is my opinion on the guidelines, but it also certainly shows that there is no way a person can be held for 72 hours in the US.

Not to be argumentative but the Baker Act adopted by Florida in the 70s allows a person to be involuntarily detained for up to 72 hours for observation in order to determine if they are a threat to themselves or others. And the last time i checked...Florida was still in the US. Nor do i think any criminal charges need to be brought to do so.

Art. 14.06. [217] [264] [252] MUST TAKE OFFENDER BEFORE
MAGISTRATE. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), in each case
enumerated in this Code, the person making the arrest or the person
having custody of the person arrested shall take the person
arrested or have him taken without unnecessary delay, but not later
than 48 hours after the person is arrested, before the magistrate
who may have ordered the arrest, before some magistrate of the
county where the arrest was made without an order, or, to provide
more expeditiously to the person arrested the warnings described by
Article 15.17 of this Code, before a magistrate in any other county
of this state. The magistrate shall immediately perform the duties
described in Article 15.17 of this Code.

pt145ss wrote:

That is my opinion on the guidelines, but it also certainly shows that there is no way a person can be held for 72 hours in the US.

Not to be argumentative but the Baker Act adopted by Florida in the 70s allows a person to be involuntarily detained for up to 72 hours for observation in order to determine if they are a threat to themselves or others. And the last time i checked...Florida was still in the US. Nor do i think any criminal charges need to be brought to do so.

Art. 14.06. [217] [264] [252] MUST TAKE OFFENDER BEFORE
MAGISTRATE. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), in each case
enumerated in this Code, the person making the arrest or the person
having custody of the person arrested shall take the person
arrested or have him taken without unnecessary delay, but not later
than 48 hours after the person is arrested, before the magistrate
who may have ordered the arrest, before some magistrate of the
county where the arrest was made without an order, or, to provide
more expeditiously to the person arrested the warnings described by
Article 15.17 of this Code, before a magistrate in any other county
of this state. The magistrate shall immediately perform the duties
described in Article 15.17 of this Code.

Your quote has nothing to do with your statement. Texas also has a 72 hour involuntary committment, but an emergancy order for a judge is required.

If your quote is Texas law, it has NOTHING to do with what is required to make an arrest. See my previous posts for details.

txinvestigator wrote:How is that ambigious? If it is in plain view, the person committs an offense.

Maybe not so much ambiguous as not well worded; apparently I could legally finger-twirl the gun (while juggling a bowie knife and a PR24 with the other hand) all the way across the parking lot *to* the car, but as soon as it passes into the car, I'd be in violation by having the gun in plain view. (Odd that, apparently, illegal knives and clubs need not be concealed.)

It's another case of a law where any idiot can tell what they meant, (conceal it ASAP when you get to the car) but the wording still leaves it open to abuse.

flb_78 wrote:In plain view is anything above the window line. When Im in my van, it sits on the center console. It is below the window line and it's legal. I could keep it in my lap and it would be legal just as long as the handgun stays below the window line.

I think you need to rethink this one.

Plain view is exactly that. If you are pulled over and an officer can see it then it is in plain view and you are breaking the law. The case law is Coolidge vs New Hampshire ruled on by SCOTUS I think but I am far from a lawyer.

Here is a common sense story to think about. Someone is pulled over for speeding but has a bag of drugs sitting on his lap or console were the officer can see it. Does the officer:

A. Say "Oops. It's not above the window line so I can't do anything about it."
B. Remove the person from the car, secure the drugs and give them a free ride downtown.

Agreeing with txinvestigator:

txinvestigator wrote:

§ 46.02. Unlawful Carrying Weapons.

Statute text
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or
(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control.
(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.

I don't see the confusion. It was written this way so on your own property you are not limited in how you can carry. But in your car it must be concealed.

The question that flb_78's trying to get asked/answered has not been properly asked/defined, IMHO.

The question is: "Who's view?"

The answer is: So the drive in bank teller can't see it and fear for a bank robbery; the same reason that the McDonalds/Wendy's/Jack-In-The-Box, &c. drive through attendant can't see a weapon and fear for a robbery either. Remember that there are a bunch of hoodlums out there that carry for other means than self-protection.

It's a "sheeple" application of the law to placate those who don't like guns and get scared when they see one.

My simple opinion and none other.

kw5kw wrote:
The answer is: So the drive in bank teller can't see it and fear for a bank robbery; the same reason that the McDonalds/Wendy's/Jack-In-The-Box, &c. drive through attendant can't see a weapon and fear for a robbery either. Remember that there are a bunch of hoodlums out there that carry for other means than self-protection.

It's a "sheeple" application of the law to placate those who don't like guns and get scared when they see one.

My simple opinion and none other.

I always thought it was about the police officer also. A police officer is gonna get real jumpy if he approaches a vehicle and first thing he sees is a handcannon laying on a console. Concealing the gun gives the officer a chance to access the situation, and the people, without being distracted by a gun. If an officer approaches a vehicle and the first thing he/she sees is a handgun most are gonna draw on you.

I do a lot of driving. sometimes I take two guns others once, most times just one. While Ive carried on my hip for an 8 hour drive, I usually will stick a holstered gun either between the seat and center console, or in the door side panel. A shop rag or hand towel provides additional concealment. If one wants to assure a single handed draw a holster doesn't need to be used. I don't get out of the car without a gun on my hip.

txinvestigator wrote: "Perhaps you are overthinking it"


An Aggie overthinking? Let's just say the prospects of that happening are "sketchy" at best.

grim-bob wrote:Plain view is exactly that. If you are pulled over and an officer can see it then it is in plain view and you are breaking the law. The case law is Coolidge vs New Hampshire ruled on by SCOTUS I think but I am far from a lawyer.

Let's muddy the waters some more; how would "plain view" and "concealed" apply to something that's (a) disguised, or (b) sufficiently (but not completely) obscured that its nature is not immediately discernible?

Say, for example, a pen gun. (with all the proper AOW paperwork, of course) AFAICT, Texas would consider it a handgun, ("designed, made, or adapted to be fired with one hand") yet even carried openly in a shirt pocket, it would not be discernible to an observer that it is, in fact, a gun.

My instruction course was taught by a man who helped write the CHL laws. The definition of concealed is out of view from a reasonable person. I would hope that if I were to be pulled over and the officer walked up and saw my gun, he would then ask if I had a license for it. I would then expect him to take control of my gun and place it on the roof of the vehicle. I would hope he would not act like a actor from "COPS" and scream "GUN!!!!" and then try to manhandle me to the ground.

"I would hope he would not act like an actor from "COPS" and scream "GUN!!!!" and then try to manhandle me to the ground"

More and more, the way cops to handle suspects today is to have them "take a ride on the taser."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH_qVJfaYZA

flb_78 wrote:I would hope he would not act like a actor from "COPS" and scream "GUN!!!!" and then try to manhandle me to the ground.

If there's a 1% chance of that happening, do you want to take it?

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

flb_78 wrote:I would hope he would not act like a actor from "COPS" and scream "GUN!!!!" and then try to manhandle me to the ground.

If there's a 1% chance of that happening, do you want to take it?

- Jim

Yes I would. There's nothing illegal about car carry, there's nothing illegal about having a gun on the console below the window line.

If I were to go through a drive through, then I would cover it up because it would be failing to conceal to a reasonable person, I chose to enter the drive through so I should conceal my gun from the kid in the drive through, but I try to stay away from drive throughs, I hate drive throughs.

flb_78 wrote:My instruction course was taught by a man who helped write the CHL laws. The definition of concealed is out of view from a reasonable person. I would hope that if I were to be pulled over and the officer walked up and saw my gun, he would then ask if I had a license for it. I would then expect him to take control of my gun and place it on the roof of the vehicle. I would hope he would not act like a actor from "COPS" and scream "GUN!!!!" and then try to manhandle me to the ground.

My CHL instructor explained that its usually better to not to throw surprises at an LEO during a traffic stop or other encounter. That is why if stopped I will present my license and CHL, and let him ask if I'm carrying. Its concidered bad form to pronounce "I have a Gun!" catching an officer off guard is likely to to cause some kind of reaction.

I don't know what the proper response for a police officer is when he comes across a motorist with an exposed gun. I do know that cops are sometimes shot as they approach a motorist during a traffic stop. Some could be understandably nervous. A motorist with a handgun on top of the passenger seat or console is potential hazard. I also know I won't like it if the LEO decides its in his self interest to point his handgun between my eyes.

As far as COPS goes aren't these supposed to be factual re-enactments created from police input?

Liberty wrote:As far as COPS goes aren't these supposed to be factual re-enactments created from police input?

It's supposed to be actual policefolk where the camera crew is just with them riding along, showing how hard it is to be an officer of the law.