TexasCHLforum.com

I have seen a few discussions here that section 46.15 stating the prohibition to carrying such does not apply if you have a CHL and licensed under ch. 411 of the gvt code. I ran across the gvt code tonight and it seems to apply to peace officers only. Am I missing something as I have seen several state that this gives usthe right to carry what would otherwise be illegal.
Thanks.

Here is one of those discussions:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=49845#p611569

I don't know about the Peace Officer thing though.

Thomas wrote:Here is one of those discussions:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=49845#p611569

I don't know about the Peace Officer thing though.

Right. The section 46 statesthey must be carrying under gvt code 411. As I was reading it tonight it seems to apply only to licensed peace officers. Someone correct me if I am wrong?

there is a provision for licenssed and trained security guards they carry and use batons or asp batons both of them being illegal for non LEO/SG to carry.

Yep as a Commissioned Security Officer with the proper training I can legally carry my ASP baton and OC spray. Unfortunately the Company that I work for doesn't allow us to carry them. Doesn't make since to me because instead of having two less than lethal options we have to go straight to our pistol with deadly force. That's why I have [Pre-paid legal service] now.

Yup, just pointing this out as I have seen some thinking the section 46.15 allowed anyone with a CHL to carry those items.

In some states, someone with a CHL can carry other classes of prohibited weapons. Those are usually called Concealed Weapon Licenses. As I understand the law, that's not the case in TX.

IANAL, but as I read the law, 46.15 section a (which applies to peace officers, retired officers, certain judges, district attorneys, etc.) gives a full exemption to all of the prohibitions in sections 46.02 and 46.03 (prohibited weapons and prohibited places).

The CHL exemption appears in 46.15 (b) which states:

46.15 (b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:

(6) is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying;


This clearly says that carrying a handgun of the type you qualified with under a CHL is an exception to the general prohibition against carrying a handgun, but it also clearly limits the exemption to the handgun only. There is no mention of an exemption from the prohibitions against carrying other types of prohibited weapons.

Others covered in section (b) such as security officers, animal control officers, etc. have some exemptions regarding other weapons, but CHL's do not.

...now there's a proper use of a hammer and a nail!!!

It says "Section 46.02 does not apply" not "the Section 46.02 prohibition on handguns does not apply" so I think all of Section 46.02 does not apply.

there is no cake wrote:It says "Section 46.02 does not apply" not "the Section 46.02 prohibition on handguns does not apply" so I think all of Section 46.02 does not apply.

Not sure that your saying what I am saying....

Some have said this section gives permission to carry otherwise prohibited items like clubs and larger knives if you have a CHL. However, reading Gvt Code 411 seems to apply only to Peace Officers. Since 46.15 specifies those licensed under Gvt Code 411 and Gvt Code 411 specifies Peace Officers, I am trying to understand how some are trying to place CHL holders in general under this.

there is no cake wrote:It says "Section 46.02 does not apply" not "the Section 46.02 prohibition on handguns does not apply" so I think all of Section 46.02 does not apply.

I'd suggest checking with an attorney before you act under that interpretation.

wgoforth wrote:

there is no cake wrote:It says "Section 46.02 does not apply" not "the Section 46.02 prohibition on handguns does not apply" so I think all of Section 46.02 does not apply.

Not sure that your saying what I am saying....

Some have said this section gives permission to carry otherwise prohibited items like clubs and larger knives if you have a CHL. However, reading Gvt Code 411 seems to apply only to Peace Officers. Since 46.15 specifies those licensed under Gvt Code 411 and Gvt Code 411 specifies Peace Officers, I am trying to understand how some are trying to place CHL holders in general under this.

GC 411 subchapter is "LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN".

Excaliber wrote:In some states, someone with a CHL can carry other classes of prohibited weapons. Those are usually called Concealed Weapon Licenses. As I understand the law, that's not the case in TX.

IANAL, but as I read the law, 46.15 section a (which applies to peace officers, retired officers, certain judges, district attorneys, etc.) gives a full exemption to all of the prohibitions in sections 46.02 and 46.03 (prohibited weapons and prohibited places).

The CHL exemption appears in 46.15 (b) which states:

46.15 (b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:

(6) is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying;


This clearly says that carrying a handgun of the type you qualified with under a CHL is an exception to the general prohibition against carrying a handgun, but it also clearly limits the exemption to the handgun only. There is no mention of an exemption from the prohibitions against carrying other types of prohibited weapons.

Others covered in section (b) such as security officers, animal control officers, etc. have some exemptions regarding other weapons, but CHL's do not.

I don't see that this is clearly said. Reading exactly what is written in 46.15(b), if a person meets the criteria in (6), then "Section 46.02 does not apply". Contrasting this to 46.15(c), which states "The provision of Section 46.02 prohibiting the carrying of a club...", it is apparent that where the legislature wants to make a specific part of 46.02 not applicable, that specific part is clearly identified.
Further, how would you write 46.15(b)(6) would be written if the intent is that ALL of 46.02 is not applicable to someone carrying a handgun with a CHL?

MasterOfNone wrote:

wgoforth wrote:

there is no cake wrote:It says "Section 46.02 does not apply" not "the Section 46.02 prohibition on handguns does not apply" so I think all of Section 46.02 does not apply.

Not sure that your saying what I am saying....

Some have said this section gives permission to carry otherwise prohibited items like clubs and larger knives if you have a CHL. However, reading Gvt Code 411 seems to apply only to Peace Officers. Since 46.15 specifies those licensed under Gvt Code 411 and Gvt Code 411 specifies Peace Officers, I am trying to understand how some are trying to place CHL holders in general under this.

GC 411 subchapter is "LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN".

I understand. However, 411. 1991 it is about Peace Officers. Since Section 46.15 also mentions peace officers, I would view this as the assumption that the prohibition against the otherwise illegal weapons of 46.02 does not apply to peace officers rather than all CHL holders in general. I sat in the DPS class last week with a Police Officer from Midland and asked him if 46.15 could allow CHL holders to carry otherwise illegal weapons. Without even opening the book, he quickly said "Section 46 is about Peace Officers and only them" saying he had to know it for his Peace Officers license. Upon actually reading it and the context itself, I believe he is correct and was wondering if there is something else I have missed.

MasterOfNone wrote:I don't see that this is clearly said. Reading exactly what is written in 46.15(b), if a person meets the criteria in (6), then "Section 46.02 does not apply". Contrasting this to 46.15(c), which states "The provision of Section 46.02 prohibiting the carrying of a club...", it is apparent that where the legislature wants to make a specific part of 46.02 not applicable, that specific part is clearly identified.

The law would have followed the example of the language in 46.15(c) for security guards if they intended for the CHL nonapplicability to apply only to handguns. The legislature didn't do that, so it clearly exempts us from all of 46.02 if we're carrying our license and a handgun. It's right there in black and white.

In addition, I think it was intentional. I think the legislators were smart enough to realize that if someone is carrying a handgun, it's not a big deal if they're also carrying a club or a knife. I think that's why they followed the example of peace officer nonapplicability for all of 46.02 instead of the security guard nonapplicability for a club only.