|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 25, 2011, 11:23 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 30, 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 566
|
Help me understand the law re: carrying a handgun in a car in Texas
I need to know what the law is concerning carrying a gun in my car in Texas.
I've been reading around online and it's only confused me, so I beg your indulgence. I vaguely recall reading somewhere that, a year or two ago, the law was changed such that your car is considered the same as your house: you can keep a gun in it and you don't need a CHL, but you can't have it "on your person," i.e., within reach, without a CHL. Is this right? Basically, can I leave a handgun locked up in my trunk and drive around wherever I want? Am I breaking the law if it turns out there's a school somewhere over the hill? Might I be asked to prove that I'm driving to or from a range, etc.? Thanks, peoples. |
November 25, 2011, 11:25 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 30, 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 566
|
Oh, and while we're at it: What if I'm carrying the gun in a backpack while I'm riding a motorcycle? Is it the same deal?
|
November 26, 2011, 12:06 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Culled from an earlier post of mine, with minor edits.
Per Section 46.02 of the TX Penal Code, a civilian without a CHL is allowed to carry a concealed handgun only in these places:
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
November 26, 2011, 02:31 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
|
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/texas.pdf
you can carry without a license to carry in TX whether, motorcycle, truck, car, RV. The firearm must be concealed. and you must be legally allowed to own/handle firearms. also see: www.handgunlaw.us click on TX or other states and also U.S.A. for federal laws.
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864 |
November 26, 2011, 07:56 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 30, 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 566
|
Thanks for your help! It's much appreciated.
I'm still confused, but will err on the side of caution. |
November 26, 2011, 11:54 PM | #6 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
FWIW § 541.201 of the TX Transportation Code defines passenger cars, various types of buses, trucks, truck tractors (i.e. 18-wheelers), farm tractors, mopeds, and motorcycles as motor vehicles. However, IMHO the phrase "inside of..." in § 46.02(a)(2) seems to effectively disallow carry on a motor vehicle without an enclosed cabin. Quote:
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
||
November 27, 2011, 09:41 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
|
I wasn't citing the law
chris, thanx for your post. erring on the side of caution is always a good choice but waiting until this is hashed out is a little much in my opinion. motorycles were established as vehicles decades ago...either way I don't think someone is gonna legally hash out adding a motorcycle to this law. most motorcycles have a compartment on the seat but that was a good point. the weapon would have to be concealed and if the law allows concealed on your person then any motor vehicle will suffice. I'm not trying to pick things apart, I just don't see why the OP can't exercise his rights here. If he is a law-abiding citizen, can legally own and/or buy a firearm, and if he travels with it concealed, then he is in the clear. He does not need a CCW in TX to do this. If he has a CCW in TX now or in the future, he must give his CCW permit to the Officer with his license upon being pulled over. any more feedback is appreciated, I enjoyed reading your 1st post.
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864 |
November 27, 2011, 08:34 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 30, 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 566
|
Common sense would suggest that there needs to be a lawful means of transporting a firearm with a motorcycle. In the absence of a compartment, the most reasonable means of doing so would be with a backpack. Yet, I can easily imagine a police officer deciding that this amounts to carrying a concealed weapon without a permit.
|
November 27, 2011, 09:00 PM | #9 | ||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,910
|
Quote:
The new law says that as long as the handgun is concealed you can have it in the passenger compartment and readily accessible to you. There's nothing in the law that suggests you can't have it in a concealed holster, so you could even wear it as long as it's concealed. Quote:
For example, a person carrying in a car WITHOUT a CHL can drive into a 30-06 marked parking lot legally while a person carrying in a car WITH a CHL can not. Where's the common sense there? I don't know exactly how motorcycles are treated, from a legal standpoint. That said, motorcycle carry with a backpack seems like it could be legally problematic. ASSUMING that it's legal to treat a motorcycle exactly like other vehicles even though it doesn't have an enclosed cabin, then you could carry in a compartment in the motorcycle or concealed on your person, or in a backpack while you're actually on (in?) the motorcycle. HOWEVER, if you don't have a permit and you get off (out of?) the motorcycle (other than to walk up the drive to your house or to some other place you're legally able to carry concealed--i.e. private property where you can legally possess a concealed firearm) then you're breaking the law. So if you have to stop for gas, take a restroom break, get something to eat, etc., you would have to leave the backpack on (in?) the motorcycle to remain legal. Without a CHL, your best best would probably be to carry it in a compartment on the motorcycle.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
||
November 28, 2011, 10:25 AM | #10 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
|
|
November 28, 2011, 11:42 AM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2011
Posts: 140
|
Quote:
§ 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. |
|
November 28, 2011, 02:57 PM | #12 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
Section 30.05 of the Texas Penal Code spells out what is criminal trespass for everyone else. Under that section if: (1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or (2) received notice to depart but failed to do so. then you are guilty of criminal trespass. Notice is defined as "(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner" (as well as several other methods of notice that aren't applicable to this discussion). Unlike Sec. 30.06, there isn't any specific requirement for written communication, so presumably, ANY written notification that meets the criteria would be effective notice. However, I don't see how you could possibly walk into court and say "I saw the 30.06 sign; but I am not a CHL holder so I didn't have effective notice that entry was forbidden." If the sign meets the 30.06 requirements, I would be willing to bet a court will consider it effective notice to someone with a firearm in the car without a CHL. |
|
November 28, 2011, 10:38 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Nutshell summary...
OK, just for grins, I'll wrap this up in a nutshell:
An individual without a TX CHL may carry a concealed handgun:
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak Last edited by carguychris; November 29, 2011 at 10:05 AM. |
November 29, 2011, 01:05 PM | #14 |
Junior member
Join Date: March 25, 2011
Posts: 463
|
That is a pretty broad summary of Texas gun law. Are there any citations available?
|
November 30, 2011, 08:50 PM | #15 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,910
|
Quote:
Here's the wording of the sign. It would take truly heroic measures to twist the wording of the sign apply to anyone other than a "holder of a license to carry a concealed handgun" who is "licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law". "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"Here's the law. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u.../htm/PE.30.htm The law is painfully specific about who it applies to and who commits and offense by disregarding a 30.06 sign. "TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE" " license holder commits an offense " "entry on the property by a license holder " ""License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f)" Perhaps a property owner could post another sign with more general wording that would keep out non license holders, but I don't see how anyone could interpret 30.06 to apply to anyone other than license holders.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
December 1, 2011, 09:20 AM | #16 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
That is a very technical argument. I think it has a chance of succeeding; but I sure wouldn't bet my own money that way. FWIW, I tried to do some research on criminal trespass to see if there were any cases addressing this. Didn't find any; but some of the cases I did find were bizarre. |
|
December 1, 2011, 09:30 AM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 21, 2010
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 941
|
Is it legal to carry concealed in TX without a CHL? If not, no sign would be needed to keep the non CHL holder out, he/she would already be a criminal.
Just my opinion |
December 1, 2011, 10:04 AM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2011
Posts: 140
|
Quote:
That was the original topic of this thread. |
|
December 1, 2011, 03:05 PM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
The debate arises because TX law requires a very specific sign to exclude CHL holders from an otherwise public area, and that sign (the Section 30.06 notice) seems to implicitly allow non-licensed persons to enter a private parking lot with a concealed handgun in his/her vehicle- an act that is generally legal. (If the person were to exit the vehicle carrying a concealed handgun, that is a whole 'nother ball of wax, and one with Not Good legal consequences for the person. ) Non-licensed CCW outside of a vehicle is clearly illegal in most public places in TX except under specific circumstances. Refer to the discussion of the "directly en route" clause in my earlier posts.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
|
December 1, 2011, 11:20 PM | #20 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,910
|
Quote:
First of all, it's extremely specific. Both the carefully specified sign and the wording of the law apply exclusively to license holders. If one can twist the law to apply it to "non-license holders" even when it clearly says it applies to "license holders" then it would be equally reasonable to claim that it prevents anyone from entering the premises with any kind of weapon at all even though it only applies to handguns. If the courts can essentially change the meanings of the words in the laws then we'd only need one law and we'd expand and extend or invert the meaning of whichever words we needed to in order to make our one law apply to the specific case at hand. Second, at the time it was passed, car carry was illegal without a license, so it makes no sense to claim that it was intended to give general notice to those carrying without a license. Saying it's meant to apply to those carrying under the auspices of the car carry law would be like saying that a speeding law passed in the late 1800s preventing anyone from travelling over 40 mph in a horseless carriage was meant to apply to airplanes as well even though airplanes hadn't been invented yet when the law was passed.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
December 2, 2011, 09:36 AM | #21 | ||
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
You would simply be claiming that the 30.06 language satisfies the "Written communication" that the concealed carry of handguns is a condition that prohibits entry under Sec. 30.05. You aren't making any claims about the drafting intent. The counterargument, as you have pointed out, is that the sign very specifically prohibits concealed carry of a handgun by a "concealed handgun license holder." This raises the question of whether a reasonable person would read the 30.06 language and conclude that concealed carry by a non-licensed holder in their vehicle was OK. At best, that is a legal gray area that could very easily bite you if you were ever unfortunate enough to be charged. From the risk-avoidance perspective, the safest thing to do is treat a 30.06 sign in a parkng lot as notice to people carrying in their cars without a license. Quote:
From a practical perspective, it is an area of law that is unlikely to ever get fleshed out though since it only applies in a very narrow circumstance and your chances of getting caught are very minimal, and even after getting caught, you'd still have a decent chance of not getting charged. |
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|