Open carry

[Gunsmoke]

Question: If it is ok with the landowner, can another person open carry on their land?

[chamberc]

Question: If it is ok with the landowner, can another person open carry on their land?

Are you asking about like on a lease? Because if so, yes, because you're leasing the property.

[texasjeep44]

The law says it has to be your premises or a premises under your control. IE: an employee at a gun shop can open carry if the boss says it is ok to, since the boss is effectively giving the employee "control" of the premises. I think it is all going to depend on the situation and circumstances.

If you know someone who owns a camera shop and they say that when you come and visit them at work it is fine with them to OC on their property, I would not recommend doing so.

This post is with the assumption that one would not have a CHL. If you have a CHL and decide to open carry you would be in violation of PC 46.035 unless you can make it fall under the following section. At least that is my take on it. One of the lawyers can certainly correct me if I am wrong.

PC §46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (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.
(a-2) For purposes of this section, "premises" includes real property
and a recreational vehicle that is being used as living quarters, regardless
of whether that use is temporary or permanent. In this subsection,
"recreational vehicle" means a motor vehicle primarily designed as
temporary living quarters or a vehicle that contains temporary living
quarters and is designed to be towed by a motor vehicle. The term
includes a travel trailer, camping trailer, truck camper, motor home,
and horse trailer with living quarters.
(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c), an offense under this
section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(c) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the
offense is committed on any premises licensed or issued a permit by
this state for the sale of alcoholic beverages.

[dicion]

It's one of those areas where it's technically illegal, but you would never have a problem, unless someone complained.

It's like shooting at a range. Technically there's no exemption for carrying, exposing & shooting your handgun at a range in the law. The police just don't arrest for it.
Mainly because it's accepted that you have Permission from the range to do so on their private property.

The end point is, you would probably be fine doing so, unless you're doing it on his front yard in the suburbs, where a neighbor would complain.

[chamberc]

I have open carried on multiple leases from West Texas to South Texas to East Texas, and have had numerous encounters on this land with everything from Sheriff's to Game Wardens... I've never even been asked about it or questioned.

It might not be legal, but I've never had an issue.

[Bird of Prey]

This kinda leads into a question I had.
I'm about to go on a little drive with a buddy. We're going to pass a Border Patrol/DPS check point. I'll have my CHL by then. Can I CC while in someone else's vehicle?

[ScottDLS]

...
It's like shooting at a range. Technically there's no exemption for carrying, exposing & shooting your handgun at a range in the law. The police just don't arrest for it...
...

Actually, there is an exemption. It's found in PC 46.15

PC §46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.
...
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
...
(3) is engaging in lawful hunting, fishing, or other sporting activity on the immediate premises where the activity is conducted, or is en route between the premises and the actor's residence or motor vehicle, if the weapon is a type commonly used in the activity;
...

I believe target shooting at a range is clearly a "sporting activity" and the handgun is a "type (of weapon) commonly used in that activity". This is why you're not likely to see any mass busts at the local range any time soon.

[WildBill]

This kinda leads into a question I had.
I'm about to go on a little drive with a buddy. We're going to pass a Border Patrol/DPS check point. I'll have my CHL by then. Can I CC while in someone else's vehicle?

Yes, but remember if asked for ID by DPS you are required to present your CHL if you are carrying. IANAL

[dicion]

...
It's like shooting at a range. Technically there's no exemption for carrying, exposing & shooting your handgun at a range in the law. The police just don't arrest for it...
...

Actually, there is an exemption. It's found in PC 46.15

PC §46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.
...
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
...
(3) is engaging in lawful hunting, fishing, or other sporting activity on the immediate premises where the activity is conducted, or is en route between the premises and the actor's residence or motor vehicle, if the weapon is a type commonly used in the activity;
...

I believe target shooting at a range is clearly a "sporting activity" and the handgun is a "type (of weapon) commonly used in that activity". This is why you're not likely to see any mass busts at the local range any time soon.

Good call, totally forgot about that in the 46.02 non-applicability section!

[AJ80]

...
It's like shooting at a range. Technically there's no exemption for carrying, exposing & shooting your handgun at a range in the law. The police just don't arrest for it...
...

Actually, there is an exemption. It's found in PC 46.15

PC §46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.
...
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
...
(3) is engaging in lawful hunting, fishing, or other sporting activity on the immediate premises where the activity is conducted, or is en route between the premises and the actor's residence or motor vehicle, if the weapon is a type commonly used in the activity;
...

I believe target shooting at a range is clearly a "sporting activity" and the handgun is a "type (of weapon) commonly used in that activity". This is why you're not likely to see any mass busts at the local range any time soon.

Good call, totally forgot about that in the 46.02 non-applicability section!

But isn't it 46.035(a) that says failure to conceal is illegal? 46.02 is just about possession isn't it?

I don't see any exception for exposing a handgun at a shooting range in 46.035(a).

Maybe I just read things too literally. Bleh... Law just confuses me

[texasjeep44]

But isn't it 46.035(a) that says failure to conceal is illegal? 46.02 is just about possession isn't it?

I don't see any exception for exposing a handgun at a shooting range in 46.035(a).

Maybe I just read things too literally. Bleh... Law just confuses me

46.035 covers places for CHL holders not covered by 46.02 and 46.15 (which I forgot about in my earlier post)

If it is legal for non CHL holders it is also legal for CHL holders.

[AJ80]

But isn't it 46.035(a) that says failure to conceal is illegal? 46.02 is just about possession isn't it?

I don't see any exception for exposing a handgun at a shooting range in 46.035(a).

Maybe I just read things too literally. Bleh... Law just confuses me

46.035 covers places for CHL holders not covered by 46.02 and 46.15 (which I forgot about in my earlier post)

If it is legal for non CHL holders it is also legal for CHL holders.

Maybe so, but my brain just can't seem to logically understand that.
Every time I read it, I get the idea that any intentional failure to conceal no matter where or when is illegal.
46.035(a) makes no mention of places covered under 46.02 being an exception, and I can't find 46.035(a) referenced in the law anywhere else, so in my mind 46.035(a) is a stand alone law with no exception created by any law anywhere else in the penal code.

Of course I'm not a lawyer or DA or LEO so I guess it doesn't really matter how my mind deciphers the law.

Edit: Forgot to mention that when I read 46.035 in its entirety, I still don't see 46.035(b) as having any affect on 46.035(a), since, for example, Wal-Mart is not mentioned in 46.035(b), yet 46.035(a) covers unconcealing intentionally in Wal-Mart. Does anyone else, when reading it completely literally and ignoring probable intent, see it that way? Or am I just missing something?

[AJ80]

Maybe what I'm overlooking is where 46.035 says "under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code"

So does that mean that when in a place listed in 46.02 you are no longer carrying "under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code"?

And if so, where does it say so in the law? I actually haven't read all of "Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code" so maybe it says so in there?

[ScottDLS]

But isn't it 46.035(a) that says failure to conceal is illegal? 46.02 is just about possession isn't it?

I don't see any exception for exposing a handgun at a shooting range in 46.035(a).

Maybe I just read things too literally. Bleh... Law just confuses me

46.035 covers places for CHL holders not covered by 46.02 and 46.15 (which I forgot about in my earlier post)

If it is legal for non CHL holders it is also legal for CHL holders.

Maybe so, but my brain just can't seem to logically understand that.
Every time I read it, I get the idea that any intentional failure to conceal no matter where or when is illegal.
46.035(a) makes no mention of places covered under 46.02 being an exception, and I can't find 46.035(a) referenced in the law anywhere else, so in my mind 46.035(a) is a stand alone law with no exception created by any law anywhere else in the penal code.

Of course I'm not a lawyer or DA or LEO so I guess it doesn't really matter how my mind deciphers the law.

Edit: Forgot to mention that when I read 46.035 in its entirety, I still don't see 46.035(b) as having any affect on 46.035(a), since, for example, Wal-Mart is not mentioned in 46.035(b), yet 46.035(a) covers unconcealing intentionally in Wal-Mart. Does anyone else, when reading it completely literally and ignoring probable intent, see it that way? Or am I just missing something?

PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER, (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.

You've got to look at the elements of the offense in 46.035. By my reading, the key phrase is "under the authority of...".

If you're carrying in your house...or carrying at the range (sporting activity)...or carrying while handgun hunting...
you are not carrying "under the authority of (your CHL)", so 46.035 does not apply. If it did, then 46.02 could be applied to police officers who also have a CHL (many do) and it would mean you have to conceal in your house because you have a CHL?

[AJ80]

But isn't it 46.035(a) that says failure to conceal is illegal? 46.02 is just about possession isn't it?

I don't see any exception for exposing a handgun at a shooting range in 46.035(a).

Maybe I just read things too literally. Bleh... Law just confuses me

46.035 covers places for CHL holders not covered by 46.02 and 46.15 (which I forgot about in my earlier post)

If it is legal for non CHL holders it is also legal for CHL holders.

Maybe so, but my brain just can't seem to logically understand that.
Every time I read it, I get the idea that any intentional failure to conceal no matter where or when is illegal.
46.035(a) makes no mention of places covered under 46.02 being an exception, and I can't find 46.035(a) referenced in the law anywhere else, so in my mind 46.035(a) is a stand alone law with no exception created by any law anywhere else in the penal code.

Of course I'm not a lawyer or DA or LEO so I guess it doesn't really matter how my mind deciphers the law.

Edit: Forgot to mention that when I read 46.035 in its entirety, I still don't see 46.035(b) as having any affect on 46.035(a), since, for example, Wal-Mart is not mentioned in 46.035(b), yet 46.035(a) covers unconcealing intentionally in Wal-Mart. Does anyone else, when reading it completely literally and ignoring probable intent, see it that way? Or am I just missing something?

PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER, (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.

You've got to look at the elements of the offense in 46.035. By my reading, the key phrase is "under the authority of...".

If you're carrying in your house...or carrying at the range (sporting activity)...or carrying while handgun hunting...
you are not carrying "under the authority of (your CHL)", so 46.035 does not apply. If it did, then 46.02 could be applied to police officers who also have a CHL (many do) and it would mean you have to conceal in your house because you have a CHL?

Sorry, I'm not trying to be hard headed, and I know that it is legal to unconceal in your house, but I just read things ultra literally(and my literal reading of it has my mind convinced that it IS illegal to unconceal in your own house, although practically, I know it isn't illegal)

I'll have to, at some point, go back and read "Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code" to see what the exact specifications are for carrying "under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code", whether it's being in a place not specified by Penal Code 46.02, having your license and your gun on you, etc.

You all probably think I'm crazy or hard headed.
I'll continue to go to the range to shoot with an unconcealed handgun, no problem, so it really doesn't make much difference. Just these little technicalities eat at me and I want things to be completely specified with no things left undefined.

So I guess when you are in your car with a concealed handgun, you aren't carrying "under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code" because it's legal to do that without having a concealed handgun license, unless you happen to be a passenger in a car that you don't own, at which point you are carrying "under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code"? But where is that specified in the law?

Bleh... I just over think things. That's what I get for having my nose stuck in source code 40+ hours a week.

Edit: I don't think I'm going to find what "under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code" means written in the law. I keep skimming over the Government code and all it talks about is qualifications to get the license, peace officers disarming you, etc. I'll just try to think of the definition of "under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code" as being "anywhere it would otherwise be illegal to carry a handgun without a license" which would be ANYWHERE other than what is specified in 46.02 apparently. So if I were to decide to show a friend a new carry gun in the privacy of their own home, I'd be breaking the law.

Edit Again: I just reread Texas Penal Code 46.15(b)(6) and now my mind is spinning even more. I think I'll quit thinking now and just go with what I believe the intent is instead of trying to figure out the exact literal meaning of it all. And yes I do over think things quite often.