|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 21, 2012, 01:17 PM | #1 | ||
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Unintentional Exposure of a Concealed Handgun Under Texas Law
In a couple of different posts, I have seen people state the belief that accidentally allowing your CHL to be exposed is against the law in Texas. I wanted to take a brief second to go over the actual Texas laws on this subject so that gun owners have a better understanding of these issues.
Under Texas law, there are two statutes under which a person may carry a concealed handgun. The most commonly known statute is those people who are licensed to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411 of the Government Code (Texas CHLs). This process is more costly and requires more paperwork; but offers many advantages over the other statute. The unlawful carry of a handgun by a CHL is governed by Section 46.035 of the Texas Penal Code: Quote:
The second big advantage, is that even if you do display your concealed handgun intentionally, you can avoid conviction if you would have been justified in using deadly force under Section 9 of the Penal Code. The second way you can carry concealed in Texas is without a CHL. The wording of Section 46.02 of the Texas Penal Code actually REQUIRES an unlicensed person to conceal a handgun when relying on the travelling law to carry a handgun in a vehicle (or from your premises to the vehicle). I have bolded the relevant sections of the law. Quote:
As you can see, while the travelling law gives you some leeway in carrying a handgun without a Texas CHL, it also offers you less legal protections if that firearm is exposed. Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; May 21, 2012 at 03:57 PM. Reason: Clarify Sec. 46.02 |
||
May 21, 2012, 01:52 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 566
|
Thanks for the note, Bart.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will. — Mark Twain |
May 21, 2012, 03:40 PM | #3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
GREAT post otherwise, I'm just giving you grief.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak Last edited by carguychris; May 21, 2012 at 03:42 PM. Reason: Minor reword... |
|
May 21, 2012, 03:57 PM | #4 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
|
|
July 20, 2012, 12:39 PM | #5 | ||
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
I wanted to clarify an aspect of this discussion that came up on another forum. In my original post, I stated:
Quote:
In 2007, the legislature attempted to clarify travelling exemptions for firearms; but still did not define travelling. As a result, some jurisdictions (former Prosecutor Chuck Rosenthal in Harris County being one example) stated they would continue to arrest and prosecute citizens travelling with a handgun and allow the jury to sort it out. In response, the Texas legislature drafted the language in Section 46.02 (a-1)(1) that I discussed above. Because this was an effort to clarify the travelling exception, I mistakenly referred to it as "travelling law." Texas still has the additional common law travelling rule in addition to Section 46.02. In fact, Section 46.15 of the Texas Penal Code provides that if you meet the definition of traveller (which is still convoluted and varies from court to court), you are excepted from the requirements of Section 46.02. For the purposes of this post, the quoted language should have read: Quote:
As a practical matter, I still recommend concealing the handgun from plain view if you are carrying under Section 46.02(a-1). While travelling may offer an additional defense to you, a definition that Texas courts cannot agree on doesn't offer a great deal of protection to a motorist who is dealing with an individual officer who may not be an avid reader of Baylor Law Review. |
||
|
|