TexasCHLforum.com

RPB wrote:

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;

Sure you can be charged with public intoxication on your own property because you were in view of the public. And sure you can be charged with disorderly conduct on your own property. But NOT DUI. I can drive my vehicle drunk in my yard all day long and the DUI charge does not apply. I never said that the law doesn't have any application on one property but it does have boundaries. To think that we have allowed our government to grow into this monster that reaches so far into our homes is sickening. But no matter how one looks at the law and government has bound and a CHL has nothing to do with what goes on inside my home.

I just thought of something. Please don't take this discussion to mean that I, or we if I may, agree with all of these laws. We're just arguing the legality of them. Not whether they are right or wrong. Regarding the legality or illegality of you giving permission to your friends to openly carry on your property, I wish it were unquestionably legal.

What do you mean quote the law? My girlfriend's brother's neighbor's boss told me and I believe them.

Where is the smiley eating popcorn when you need one?

more on the DWI/DUI example:

I assume you rely upon the words in the Statute > "public place"

Sec. 49.04. DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED. (a) A person commits an offense if the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place.

Are you saying you would be exempt from the following based on the same?

Sec. 49.08. INTOXICATION MANSLAUGHTER. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) operates a motor vehicle in a public place, operates an aircraft, a watercraft, or an amusement ride, or assembles a mobile amusement ride; and

(2) is intoxicated and by reason of that intoxication causes the death of another by accident or mistake.

(b) Except as provided by Section 49.09, an offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

So, are you saying that this is ok also on a private road?

Sec. 49.045. DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED WITH CHILD PASSENGER. (a) A person commits an offense if:

(1) the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place; and

(2) the vehicle being operated by the person is occupied by a passenger who is younger than 15 years of age.

(b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

"Private property" can be a "public Place"


So, is calling an escort service from your living room ok?

(2) solicits another in a public place to engage with him in sexual conduct for hire. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 43.02(a) (Vernon 2003).

§ 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT.

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:

(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace; ....



(c) For purposes of this section:

(1) an act is deemed to occur in a public place or near a private residence if it produces its offensive or proscribed consequences in the public place or near a private residence;

Texas Penal Code - Section 1.07. Definitions
(40) "Public place" means any place to which the
public or a substantial group of the public has access and includes,
but is not limited to, streets, highways, and the common areas of
schools, hospitals, apartment houses, office buildings, transport
facilities, and shops.

C-dub wrote:I just thought of something. Please don't take this discussion to mean that I, or we if I may, agree with all of these laws. We're just arguing the legality of them. Not whether they are right or wrong. Regarding the legality or illegality of you giving permission to your friends to openly carry on your property, I wish it were unquestionably legal.

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.

First off, it would be a DWI in Texas unless you were a minor, then it is DUI. Second, the flaw in your interpretation is that TPC 49.04 (Driving while intoxicated) states it's a crime to drive while intoxicated 'in a public place', so that specifically EXCLUDES private property. In TPC 46, there is not a delineation between public and private property, so it applies to all property.

So, you can try to pick and choose the parts of the penal code you would LIKE to apply to you, but it won't fly. You can try to be an Internet Lawyer all you want, but you are arguing with a REAL lawyer and a certified law enforcement officer who each have more time doing their jobs than you are old, so I think you need to cease and try to buffalo someone else.

I'm just going to agree with TAM on this one and ask "can we please get "Constitutional Carry" and put this mess behind us? That stuff is convoluted, too convoluted. It makes it where a VERY unscrupulous person could pretty much bust folks just cause they want to, if they do it the "right way"...Ayn Rand wasn't correct on everything but she sure got it correct sometimes...this is why I call myself a "conservatarian"...I believe in following the law, most certainly...but the laws should be able to be UNDERSTOOD and to MAKE SENSE...and though I do not doubt that Mr. Cotton and Mr. Rothstein are correct about what the laws say, that doesn't mean I think those laws are good, as they are written. Anyway, this quote from Atlas Shrugged makes things like this so much clearer to me, though that is not necessarily a good thing...

Did you really think we want those laws observed? said Dr. Ferris. We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.
('Atlas Shrugged' 1957)

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.

No, you have provided absolutely nothing other than your unfounded opinions. You haven't answered one of my questions, nor have you provided the statutory or case law to support your "private property rights trumps state law" contention. There's a good reason why you haven't; there isn't any such proof. Everyone including you knows it, but for some reason you simply cannot bring yourself to admit the truth.

Chas.

I am amazed by this discussion. We've pretty well established that the statute prohibits a non-CHL from carrying a handgun into a friend's house, even with his permission. For a CHL, you may carry into your friend's house, but it must remain concealed, even if he's okay with you taking it out.

Based on this, if you're at a friend's house, it is perfectly legal for him to get his handgun out to show you. But you can't pick it up yourself (even if he tries to hand it to you), because then you would be in possession of an unconcealed handgun off your own property.

Now suppose you don't have a CHL and you take your Glock in its case over to your friend's house. As we saw, the law doesn't even allow you to carry your cased handgun into your friend's house. But, with your permission, your friend could come out to your car (assuming it's parked in his driveway), pick up the gun, and carry it into his house. While you're there, it's perfectly legal for your friend to handle your gun (since it's on his property), but it's illegal for you to handle it (since it's not currently on your property).

Finally, suppose you actually do have a CHL and you legally carry your Glock into your friend's house, holstered and concealed beneath your untucked shirt. Your friend knows you carry and would like to see it, but you want to make sure you do everything legally. You can't just remove the gun from its holster and hand it to him. But if you give your friend permission to reach under your shirt and remove the gun from concealment, that should be legal, as long as your friend is the one holding the gun at the instant it's exposed. Or you could go to another room by yourself, hide the gun in a shoebox or wrap it in a towel, etc., and then go back into the room where your friend is and allow him to take the gun out from its container.

Needless to say, this is ridiculous. There's no way the legislature intended this; it has to be an oversight. PC §46.02 needs to be amended by inserting something like the following:

(3) carr'ying at a private residence or place of business, with the consent of the owner or someone with authority to act for the owner.

True enough, it's extremely unlikely one would EVER be arrested, much less charged and tried, for something like this. But that doesn't change the legality vs. illegality of it.

Ya'll are pig rasslin'.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:Ya'll are pig rasslin'.

Anygunanywhere

It's crazy for sure. That's the problem with not reading the laws already on the books before trying to fix something else. We saw that last year during the campus carry debate. Many of the senators didn't know that a CHL holder could already carry on the campus, but not in any of the buildings. Many still don't realize that churches and hospitals are not automatically off limits.

anygunanywhere wrote:Ya'll are pig rasslin'.

Anygunanywhere

You have summed it up very well.
Will try this again.
LOCKED