TexasCHLforum.com

switch wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

switch wrote:Would this apply to passengers?

Probably not, because the vehicle has to be yours or under your control. If you were riding as a passenger in your own car and someone else was driving, then both you and the driver would be covered as it is currently written. Of course, Rosenthal would argue that the driver isn't covered because you own the car and would be the "captain" of the vehicle.

Chas.

How can we fix that? It should apply to my 17 year old son as well as the driver, shouldn't it?

Course, usually, they do not get the passengers out, ask them if they have guns (I think).

This is a huge step that is going to see a big fight to get it passed. I don't see blanket protection for everyone in the car getting passed. Also, I'm not sure we want it changed. If a gun is found in the car, along with a passenger who is prohibited from possessing handguns, I'm not sure we want any argument that we look further than the driver. If the protection would apply to everyone in the vehicle, then prosecutors would be justified in arguing that any penalty (such as making a firearm available to a felon) should apply to anyone in the vehicle.

If the gun is in your car, then you should be fine. If the passenger speaks up and say, "oh, that's mine" then perhaps he or she should have kept quite.

Chas.

switch wrote:Would this apply to passengers?

Probably not, because the vehicle has to be yours or under your control. If you were riding as a passenger in your own car and someone else was driving, then both you and the driver would be covered as it is currently written. Of course, Rosenthal would argue that the driver isn't covered because you own the car and would be the "captain" of the vehicle.

Chas.

stevie_d_64 wrote:I like how it is reiterated so many times:

under the "persons control"...