TexasCHLforum.com

I know some people think there's a loophole where carrying a gun with a valid CHL negates all of section 46 of the penal code. From the discussion on that topic, I've decided that I don't want to be the one to test it.

However, I'm curious how hard it would be to get a sentence like, "This section doesn't apply to anyone with a valid CHL (as long as the weapon is concealed - could be added if need be)," stuck to the end of section 46? I mean, we can carry 5 concealed handguns (or more) on us, but not a concealed Bowie knife? That's just wrong in the first place, since this is Texas, but it's also kinda silly.

Would anyone at the capitol want to bother with this in the upcoming legislative session? Would trying to add it have any opposition, since it makes so much sense? Am I just dreaming? Pros and cons, and Mr. Cotton for a reality check, discuss!

I like the idea. I'm not sure it's worth the legislative effort it would require, right now anyway, considering we have (IMO) bigger issues like schools and parking lots to worry about.

It seems logical, but on the other hand, who brings a knife to a gun fight. If I had to defend myself and had a choice between a knife and a gun, I would choose the gun.

Now if I were camping, it would be a different story.

In my opinion absolutely yes. It would allow defense without the use of deadly force.
I would like to be able to carry an expandable baton. You are currently in a serious world of legal hurt if you carry one.
Don't whack 'em; shoot them and you'll be fine...


A baton would also be useful for attacking animals. As it is now, I walk with a stock cane at night in case something needs whacking...

Hmmm, I wouldn't mind carrying a leather slap either, but, that won't be happening. Born too late...

dubya wrote:In my opinion absolutely yes. It would allow defense without the use of deadly force.
I would like to be able to carry an expandable baton. You are currently in a serious world of legal hurt if you carry one.
Don't whack 'em; shoot them and you'll be fine...


A baton would also be useful for attacking animals. As it is now, I walk with a stock cane at night in case something needs whacking...

Disregarding animals:

Hypothetically, if an an attacker came at me with anything other than his fists, I think I'd rather have a gun. I don't want to get into a knife fight, or a baton fencing match with an attacker. If he came at me with his fists, I wouldn't draw but probably use pepper spray. How will I defend myself in court if I shot an unarmed attacker? In that case a baton might be ideal, but I'd still be facing the prospect of defending myself for beating the crap out of an unarmed attacker.

I'm open to other views on this, I am just thinking off the top of my head.

Here in Kentucky, it's a Concealed Carry Deadly Weapons License.

The term includes items such as handguns and other firearms, knives (other than ordinary pocket and hunting knives), police batons, clubs, blackjacks, slapjacks, nunchaku karate sticks, shurikens or death stars, and artificial knuckles made from hard materials. For the actual language of the law, see KRS 500.080.

+1 for Kentucky.

dubya wrote:A baton would also be useful for attacking animals.

dubya wrote:In my opinion absolutely yes. It would allow defense without the use of deadly force.A baton would also be useful for attacking animals. As it is now, I walk with a stock cane at night in case something needs whacking...

That's kind of unwieldy on a bike, and I don't like the idea of trying to shoot a moving dog from a moving bicycle. Also, a baton allows a choice of force anywhere from pushing and blocking a nipping dog to playing dog-skull polo with one that latches on.

I think in Florida their CWP allows it. I would sure appreciate a similar measure here though I think it'd be more of a "because I can" kind of thing. This way I can conceal my AR with a KBAR bayonet on it.

Who should be able to tell you that you cant?

If your read the statute, 46.15(b)(6), you will see that it basically says 46.02 does not apply IF you have your CHL and a concealed handgun of the same category as your license. In other words 46.02 does apply if you do not have your license, handgun, or both. Now to be honest I don't plan to be a test case.

I would like to legally carry a club (ASP baton) where dogs run free. Until then, I will err on the side of caution and shoot any that act too aggressive.

mctowalot wrote:

dubya wrote:A baton would also be useful for attacking animals.

Clown!

Not to attack animals. To use in the case of animals attacking. Coyotes, raccoons, muggers.

G.A. Heath wrote:If your read the statute, 46.15(b)(6), you will see that it basically says 46.02 does not apply IF you have your CHL and a concealed handgun of the same category as your license. In other words 46.02 does apply if you do not have your license, handgun, or both. Now to be honest I don't plan to be a test case.

This has come up before in another thread, but the gist of it that I got from people more knowledgeable than I is that for some reason it only doesn't apply to your gun(s), nothing else.

I'd really like to see Mr. Cotton's opinion on whether it would be worth trying to get this passed. Seems like it'd be pretty easy to sneak in somewhere.

"You wanna let the guys who already carry guns carry a collapsible stick or a big knife? Sure, why not, they already have guns..."