TexasCHLforum.com

I never tasted hard-boiled Bald Eagle eggs ... my brother has a nest on his property ... I'll ask him if ...

RPB wrote:I never tasted hard-boiled Bald Eagle eggs ... my brother has a nest on his property ... I'll ask him if ...

They taste the same as spotted owl eggs.

This needs to get back on topic.

Sorry LT. OK, back on topic. If you are eating those eggs, don't fail to conceal the fact.

Sorry

Back to private property rights vs State Law

My brother said there are deer on his property if the World Ends on 12/23/2012 Mayan Calendar time ... I asked him if I need a hunting license ...

That's what prompted the Bald Eagle comments ... it was "loosely" on topic regarding private property rights vs State/Federal Law or more specifically if a Property owner can give me permission to violate State Law ...

I'll hush

I know one thing. Tonight I am going to bed at MY bed time & not stay up watchin this one. You night owls can eat eggs & read.

Found it ...
The Yahoo book of Legal Answers (Primary source material accepted by any Court, I'm sure ...) says:
(Unless the world actually ends)

Yes, in Texas you can hunt on private property or on your own property. You still need the proper hunting license (there is a lower-cost license for those who only hunt on their own property), and deer still have to be tagged when shot.

http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/in ... 500AAW955d" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'll let my brother know he can't give me permission to hunt without a license or violate the tag law just because its his private property.

Longshot38 wrote:Charles I have provided more then enough real world examples of how the scope of TPC can be and is limited. Yet you refuse to accept it. You might be a fine attorney who wrote TPC 46 but there is more to the Penal Code then that. And I can promise you that in real world practical application of the law you are dead wrong, I know this because I live it everyday. And I will stand behind what I have said to the point being the first test case. I am confident in this because no officer would charge me, no TX DA would accept the charges, and no jury would convict me. In the world outside the pages of the TPC your argument has no merit.

Hello again Longshot38.

You have provided plenty of anecdotal examples, much like the legendary interpretation of traveling where one could carry a loaded handgun in their car out in plain view if they were traveling across more than two county lines and staying over at least one night. None of that was ever really true or in the PC, but you have not provided even one piece of legislation or ruling to support your theory. That travelling thing was just what one person heard from another person who hear it from another person who heard it from ... kind of stuff.

However, I also think I might understand why you think that this is okay. No one is likely to say anything or call the police in your situation. How many of us haven't shown a friend a new handgun in the privacy their home? Probably not very many can say they haven't. I can't.

In your example of not being able to give someone permission to commit murder on your property, but you can give someone permission to intentionally fail to conceal their handgun, what is the difference? I know there is a HUGE difference, but when you get down to it, what is the difference? They are, of course, both illegal for me to do at your house without your permission, but what makes it legal for you to give me permission to do one and not the other?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: And then, by extension, if I carry that same cased up unloaded handgun into longshot38's house to show off my new acquisition, set it on the coffee table, and open the case, am I guilty of intentional failure to conceal?

Yes, because carrying at a friend's home is not protected by case law or statute. You cannot legally get out of your car at longhot38's home with a handgun unless you have a CHL. Thus, you are carrying pursuant to the authority of your CHL making TPC 46.035(a) (intentional failure to conceal) applicable.
Chas.

This one kind of bugs me. Really? Without a CHL I am still allowed to transport a handgun to and from various places, right? Or is that really limited to the range, my house, and a gunsmith?

What if I am selling a handgun to someone and I take it over to their house to show it to them in a FTF transaction? Still no?

C-dub wrote:

Longshot38 wrote:Charles I have provided more then enough real world examples of how the scope of TPC can be and is limited. Yet you refuse to accept it. You might be a fine attorney who wrote TPC 46 but there is more to the Penal Code then that. And I can promise you that in real world practical application of the law you are dead wrong, I know this because I live it everyday. And I will stand behind what I have said to the point being the first test case. I am confident in this because no officer would charge me, no TX DA would accept the charges, and no jury would convict me. In the world outside the pages of the TPC your argument has no merit.

Hello again Longshot38.

You have provided plenty of anecdotal examples, much like the legendary interpretation of traveling where one could carry a loaded handgun in their car out in plain view if they were traveling across more than two county lines and staying over at least one night. None of that was ever really true or in the PC, but you have not provided even one piece of legislation or ruling to support your theory. That travelling thing was just what one person heard from another person who hear it from another person who heard it from ... kind of stuff.

However, I also think I might understand why you think that this is okay. No one is likely to say anything or call the police in your situation. How many of us haven't shown a friend a new handgun in the privacy their home? Probably not very many can say they haven't. I can't.

In your example of not being able to give someone permission to commit murder on your property, but you can give someone permission to intentionally fail to conceal their handgun, what is the difference? I know there is a HUGE difference, but when you get down to it, what is the difference? They are, of course, both illegal for me to do at your house without your permission, but what makes it legal for you to give me permission to do one and not the other?

Again this has to do with scope of law. Which I have provided all the evidence I need. The most glaring being the DUI example. The TPC does say the it is a crime to drive while intoxicated. However this does not apply to private roadways and property. While I can be arrested for driving down the a public roadway while drunk, I can not be arrested or charged with crime if I drive on the private road in front of my home or in pasture behind my home while intoxicated. Which is the exact point I have been making this entire time. Just because it is in the TPC does not mean it is all encompassing. Rather it is something that has to be taken in context. So back to the original conversation. TPC 46 is designed to allow citizens with a CHL the ability to carry in public areas, private property is allowed to set the rules as they see fit. Hints the 30.06 portion of the law. It allows for those that wish to restrict CHL holders the ability to do so. Which is clear indication that the law was designed in a manner as not to run over the rights of property owners.

Longshot38 wrote:. So back to the original conversation. TPC 46 is designed to allow citizens with a CHL the ability to carry in public areas, private property is allowed to set the rules as they see fit. Hints the 30.06 portion of the law. It allows for those that wish to restrict CHL holders the ability to do so. Which is clear indication that the law was designed in a manner as not to run over the rights of property owners.

I think the word you're looking for is "hence".

Also: How is this not a glaring contradiction? If you think CHL is only designed to deal with public areas, why would private property owners be required to post 30.06? Shouldn't a mere "no guns" sign be sufficient?

It is obvious that there are sections of the TPC that do place restrictions or requirements for behavior on personal property. You may not like it, but it is what it is.

Longshot38 wrote:

C-dub wrote:

Longshot38 wrote:Charles I have provided more then enough real world examples of how the scope of TPC can be and is limited. Yet you refuse to accept it. You might be a fine attorney who wrote TPC 46 but there is more to the Penal Code then that. And I can promise you that in real world practical application of the law you are dead wrong, I know this because I live it everyday. And I will stand behind what I have said to the point being the first test case. I am confident in this because no officer would charge me, no TX DA would accept the charges, and no jury would convict me. In the world outside the pages of the TPC your argument has no merit.

Hello again Longshot38.

You have provided plenty of anecdotal examples, much like the legendary interpretation of traveling where one could carry a loaded handgun in their car out in plain view if they were traveling across more than two county lines and staying over at least one night. None of that was ever really true or in the PC, but you have not provided even one piece of legislation or ruling to support your theory. That travelling thing was just what one person heard from another person who hear it from another person who heard it from ... kind of stuff.

However, I also think I might understand why you think that this is okay. No one is likely to say anything or call the police in your situation. How many of us haven't shown a friend a new handgun in the privacy their home? Probably not very many can say they haven't. I can't.

In your example of not being able to give someone permission to commit murder on your property, but you can give someone permission to intentionally fail to conceal their handgun, what is the difference? I know there is a HUGE difference, but when you get down to it, what is the difference? They are, of course, both illegal for me to do at your house without your permission, but what makes it legal for you to give me permission to do one and not the other?

Again this has to do with scope of law. Which I have provided all the evidence I need. The most glaring being the DUI example. The TPC does say the it is a crime to drive while intoxicated. However this does not apply to private roadways and property. While I can be arrested for driving down the a public roadway while drunk, I can not be arrested or charged with crime if I drive on the private road in front of my home or in pasture behind my home while intoxicated. Which is the exact point I have been making this entire time. Just because it is in the TPC does not mean it is all encompassing. Rather it is something that has to be taken in context. So back to the original conversation. TPC 46 is designed to allow citizens with a CHL the ability to carry in public areas, private property is allowed to set the rules as they see fit. Hints the 30.06 portion of the law. It allows for those that wish to restrict CHL holders the ability to do so. Which is clear indication that the law was designed in a manner as not to run over the rights of property owners.

So, if the manager at my local grocery store says it's okay for me to openly carry while I'm in his store then it's legal?

C-dub wrote:

Longshot38 wrote:

C-dub wrote:

Longshot38 wrote:Charles I have provided more then enough real world examples of how the scope of TPC can be and is limited. Yet you refuse to accept it. You might be a fine attorney who wrote TPC 46 but there is more to the Penal Code then that. And I can promise you that in real world practical application of the law you are dead wrong, I know this because I live it everyday. And I will stand behind what I have said to the point being the first test case. I am confident in this because no officer would charge me, no TX DA would accept the charges, and no jury would convict me. In the world outside the pages of the TPC your argument has no merit.

Hello again Longshot38.

You have provided plenty of anecdotal examples, much like the legendary interpretation of traveling where one could carry a loaded handgun in their car out in plain view if they were traveling across more than two county lines and staying over at least one night. None of that was ever really true or in the PC, but you have not provided even one piece of legislation or ruling to support your theory. That travelling thing was just what one person heard from another person who hear it from another person who heard it from ... kind of stuff.

However, I also think I might understand why you think that this is okay. No one is likely to say anything or call the police in your situation. How many of us haven't shown a friend a new handgun in the privacy their home? Probably not very many can say they haven't. I can't.

In your example of not being able to give someone permission to commit murder on your property, but you can give someone permission to intentionally fail to conceal their handgun, what is the difference? I know there is a HUGE difference, but when you get down to it, what is the difference? They are, of course, both illegal for me to do at your house without your permission, but what makes it legal for you to give me permission to do one and not the other?

Again this has to do with scope of law. Which I have provided all the evidence I need. The most glaring being the DUI example. The TPC does say the it is a crime to drive while intoxicated. However this does not apply to private roadways and property. While I can be arrested for driving down the a public roadway while drunk, I can not be arrested or charged with crime if I drive on the private road in front of my home or in pasture behind my home while intoxicated. Which is the exact point I have been making this entire time. Just because it is in the TPC does not mean it is all encompassing. Rather it is something that has to be taken in context. So back to the original conversation. TPC 46 is designed to allow citizens with a CHL the ability to carry in public areas, private property is allowed to set the rules as they see fit. Hints the 30.06 portion of the law. It allows for those that wish to restrict CHL holders the ability to do so. Which is clear indication that the law was designed in a manner as not to run over the rights of property owners.

So, if the manager at my local grocery store says it's okay for me to openly carry while I'm in his store then it's legal?

No, first off he is more then likely not the property owner. And secondly, a grocery store is a public area. If lets say a discount club were to enact that policy then that would fall outside the purview of the law because it is a private club which can restrict access and membership. Just as my home is not a public area and thus falls outside the scope of TPC 46.

Longshot38 wrote: Again this has to do with scope of law. Which I have provided all the evidence I need. The most glaring being the DUI example. The TPC does say the it is a crime to drive while intoxicated. However this does not apply to private roadways and property. While I can be arrested for driving down the a public roadway while drunk, I can not be arrested or charged with crime if I drive on the private road in front of my home or in pasture behind my home while intoxicated. Which is the exact point I have been making this entire time. Just because it is in the TPC does not mean it is all encompassing. Rather it is something that has to be taken in context. So back to the original conversation. TPC 46 is designed to allow citizens with a CHL the ability to carry in public areas, private property is allowed to set the rules as they see fit. Hints the 30.06 portion of the law. It allows for those that wish to restrict CHL holders the ability to do so. Which is clear indication that the law was designed in a manner as not to run over the rights of property owners.

Your DWI assertion is anecdotal just like:
Examining other "offenses" and private property/roads

The law says you can not hunt deer without a license and must follow certain requirements.
You still must if you are on your own property.
And, you can be charged with public indecency, even on your own private property ... even inside your own house with your door open and window shades up.

Are you thinking you can't be charged with Public Intoxication or disorderly conduct on a private road?

I've heard of Disorderly Conduct arrest of someone on their own private front porch waving a gun around in a manner calculated to alarm others.
You can't give permission for your visitor to go onto your front porch and commit disorderly conduct.... well, if you do ... let me know how that works out for the poor visitor who gets arrested later.

The government even controls what you can bury on your own "private property" which is subject to the laws in the State.
League City: Man charged with burying mother in back yard
viewtopic.php?f=108&t=56124&hilit=bury" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Longshot38 wrote: No, first off he is more then likely not the property owner. And secondly, a grocery store is a public area. If lets say a discount club were to enact that policy then that would fall outside the purview of the law because it is a private club which can restrict access and membership. Just as my home is not a public area and thus falls outside the scope of TPC 46.

Correct, the manager is probably not the property owner, but he is in control of the store when there. It is private property, just like my property for our purposes, and I can be ordered to leave. If I do not I can and probably will be arrested for trespassing. I'm okay with your answer here, but don't understand your distinction.

Especially to the difference in your ability to give me permission to violate one law, but not another.

C-dub wrote: In your example of not being able to give someone permission to commit murder on your property, but you can give someone permission to intentionally fail to conceal their handgun, what is the difference? I know there is a HUGE difference, but when you get down to it, what is the difference? They are, of course, both illegal for me to do at your house without your permission, but what makes it legal for you to give me permission to do one and not the other?