TexasCHLforum.com

Since 30.06 specifically addresses carry under the authority of Texas CHL law and having a gun in your vehicle requires no CHL in most instances, one could reasonably assume that a gun in a vehicle could never violate a 30.06 posting.

Is this correct?

The gun is not guilty of anything.

If the person does NOT have a CHL, then 30.06 does not apply to that person who has the gun in his/her car. Why would it, they wouldn't know or car what 30.06 meant.

However if you are a CHL, it is said that you are ALWAYS carrying under the CHL and you can no longer carry under MPA - No this is not statute, but has been speculated many times on this forum, and I tend to fall in line with that train of thought, therefore as a CHL holder, you cannot legally pass a legally enforceable 30.06 sign.

Teamless wrote:The gun is not guilty of anything.

If the person does NOT have a CHL, then 30.06 does not apply to that person who has the gun in his/her car. Why would it, they wouldn't know or car what 30.06 meant.

However if you are a CHL, it is said that you are ALWAYS carrying under the CHL and you can no longer carry under MPA - No this is not statute, but has been speculated many times on this forum, and I tend to fall in line with that train of thought, therefore as a CHL holder, you cannot legally pass a legally enforceable 30.06 sign.

So a police officer who has a CHL violates PC 30.06 if he enters a properly posted premises while carrying?

Teamless wrote:However if you are a CHL, it is said that you are ALWAYS carrying under the CHL and you can no longer carry under MPA

Isn't that like saying walking or riding a bicycle is somehow affected by having a driver's license?

For example, this would be like a driver having their license impacted for walking or cycling drunk.

As I see it, the more inclusive law should apply in the event of a conflict.

A-R wrote:
So a police officer who has a CHL violates PC 30.06 if he enters a properly posted premises while carrying?

Or what about a CHL drinking alcohol while carrying at home?

Given these arguments and others, the CHL trumps MPA argument doesn't make much sense.

Also, Castle Doctrine and the right to be armed at one's home (which a vehicle legally is) comes into play.

rp_photo wrote:Since 30.06 specifically addresses carry under the authority of Texas CHL law and having a gun in your vehicle requires no CHL in most instances, one could reasonably assume that a gun in a vehicle could never violate a 30.06 posting.

A simple "no weapons" sign would prohibit MPA but not someone carrying under the authority of CHL or LEO. If they have a "no weapons" sign and a 30.06 sign, that would prohibit MPA and CHL but not LEO.

Teamless.... your post was the impetus to my reply, not the person to be attacked.. My response is to the words posted, not the person posting them.

Teamless wrote:
However if you are a CHL, it is said that you are ALWAYS carrying under the CHL and you can no longer carry under MPA - No this is not statute, but has been speculated many times on this forum, and I tend to fall in line with that train of thought, therefore as a CHL holder, you cannot legally pass a legally enforceable 30.06 sign.

Who said that? Was it a lawyer? Was it a Lawyer who may have had some insider info or hand in the current CHL laws we have today? Was it the State Attorney General that said that?


Round and round we go with this same topic... .. Some who are not lawyers, not part of the group that was directly involved in writing the current CHL laws, This group speculating on this "Higher Authority" or what ever some want to call it of the concealed hand gun license.

Im not a lawyer either... so I defer legal opinions and information to those that are....

The opinion of those on THIS forum that have the MOST actual information, experience and background to make an informed opinion is, that you are NOT always carrying under the authority that allows a concealed hand gun to be carried. And that MPA applies..

Que the masses that will now, with no legal background, no experience in the law or writing the law coming to post there opinion at how if you have a CHL, it always applies in all situations, ect ect ect.



The Law
Fitness exercise
Exercise physiology
Nutrition

4 areas I see daily that folks make them self's experts, having the "I know" opinions, when they have NO background or training what so ever. But they did read a book, or an internet write up so.......................

come on y'all, I said it very plainly,

Teamless wrote:No this is not statute, but has been speculated many times on this forum, and I tend to fall in line with that train of thought

Y'all need to stop shooting the messenger (put intended LOL)

Like any belief, no it does not have to fix every and all situations, like a cop with a CHL, or other situations.

But think about a cops point of view, whether it is right or wrong
...................you are caught past a legally enforceable 30.06 sign with a gun in your car
...................you have a CHL
...................you understand what a 30.06 posting means to a CHL holder
...................you tell the cop, "I am here under MPA". While that technically could be true in a court of law, I believe you would be in trouble, or at least have to prove it to the court of law.

Much the same as not wanting to be a test case for a gun show at a government building, I believe it is legal to concealed carry there, but certainly do not have the money, time, or want to be that test case to get them to take down those ridiculous 30.06 signs.

Teamless wrote:come on y'all, I said it very plainly,

Teamless wrote:No this is not statute, but has been speculated many times on this forum, and I tend to fall in line with that train of thought

Y'all need to stop shooting the messenger (put intended LOL)
.

Teamless.... your post was the impetus to my reply, not the person to be attacked.. My response is to the words posted, not the person posting them

I too thought I was very clear..... my reply was about the words posted, not the poster

I don't feel "shot" or otherwise attacked.

Please carry on the healthy debate.

Teamless wrote:come on y'all, I said it very plainly,

Teamless wrote:No this is not statute, but has been speculated many times on this forum, and I tend to fall in line with that train of thought

Y'all need to stop shooting the messenger (put intended LOL)

Like any belief, no it does not have to fix every and all situations, like a cop with a CHL, or other situations.

But think about a cops point of view, whether it is right or wrong
...................you are caught past a legally enforceable 30.06 sign with a gun in your car
...................you have a CHL
...................you understand what a 30.06 posting means to a CHL holder
...................you tell the cop, "I am here under MPA". While that technically could be true in a court of law, I believe you would be in trouble, or at least have to prove it to the court of law.

Much the same as not wanting to be a test case for a gun show at a government building, I believe it is legal to concealed carry there, but certainly do not have the money, time, or want to be that test case to get them to take down those ridiculous 30.06 signs.

The way I see it, if the gun remains in the car, you are fine under MPA. However, once you get out of the car with your gun, now you are in violation of 30.06. JMHO. IANAL

Is there a penalty for carrying under 30.06 other than being asked to leave?

JALLEN wrote:Is there a penalty for carrying under 30.06 other than being asked to leave?

30.06 Penal

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.30.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

Penal

PENAL CODE
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.12.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
TITLE 3. PUNISHMENTS

CHAPTER 12. PUNISHMENTS

SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS


Sec. 12.03. CLASSIFICATION OF MISDEMEANORS. (a) Misdemeanors are classified according to the relative seriousness of the offense into three categories:

(1) Class A misdemeanors;

(2) Class B misdemeanors;

(3) Class C misdemeanors.

(b) An offense designated a misdemeanor in this code without specification as to punishment or category is a Class C misdemeanor.

(c) Conviction of a Class C misdemeanor does not impose any legal disability or disadvantage.

if convicted ...

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.12.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
SUBCHAPTER B. ORDINARY MISDEMEANOR PUNISHMENTS

Sec. 12.21. CLASS A MISDEMEANOR. An individual adjudged guilty of a Class A misdemeanor shall be punished by:

(1) a fine not to exceed $4,000;

(2) confinement in jail for a term not to exceed one year; or

(3) both such fine and confinement.

Also, your CHL is suspended while charges are pending and revoked if you're convicted.

rp_photo wrote:

A-R wrote:
So a police officer who has a CHL violates PC 30.06 if he enters a properly posted premises while carrying?

Or what about a CHL drinking alcohol while carrying at home?

Given these arguments and others, the CHL trumps MPA argument doesn't make much sense.

Also, Castle Doctrine and the right to be armed at one's home (which a vehicle legally is) comes into play.

While it is illegal to be drinking and carrying for a CHL, what if you are not a CHL and driving just under the legal limit of alcohol with a concealed gun in the car? Just curious.