TexasCHLforum.com

seamusTX wrote:The O.P. asked what was legal. I don't make the law. I am not a lawyer. When answering this kind of speculative question, I try to think like the most hard-nosed cop or prosecutor, because that is the worst-case scenario. - Jim

The original post asked if he could bring his handgun to his girlfriend parent's house. He never asked about carrying it or concealing it.

If you called up a friend to tell him about your new handgun that you bought and you took it to his house to show him you would be breaking the law? Not that all laws make sense, but this definitely does not.

craig_o wrote:wondering what the legality on this might be:
assuming I was spending the night with my girlfriend at her parents' house, which she is taking care of, is it legal for me to bring my gun over there for the night?

IANAL but since he is not carrying, I think it is perfectly legal for craig_o to bring and have a handgun at the house. Although I am curious what the forum lawyers and LEOs have to say, I wouldn't hesitate to do so.

Please read PC §46.02 and PC §46.15 and show me how you think a person who does not have a CHL can take a handgun into his girlfriend's parents' house. Ncongruent offered one theory, and I responded to it.

Of course this law is unreasonable. It provides a reason for the police to arrest anyone who has a handgun and does not have a CHL, except at a range. There are some case-law exceptions for taking a handgun home from a store and taking it to a gunsmith.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:Please read PC §46.02 and PC §46.15 and show me how you think a person who does not have a CHL can take a handgun into his girlfriend's parents' house. Ncongruent offered one theory, and I responded to it. Jim

"A person commits an offense if the person [he] intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun ..." I don't see that having a handgun in a house constitutes "carrying on or about their person."

He has to meet the definition of carrying on or about his person to get it there, and to use it if he needs it. When I say "needs it," I don't necessarily mean an immediate need to shoot, but something like knocking on the door at 2 a.m. or the dog going nuts.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:He has to meet the definition of carrying on or about his person to get it there, and to use it if he needs it. When I say "needs it," I don't necessarily mean an immediate need to shoot, but something like knocking on the door at 2 a.m. or the dog going nuts. - Jim

So you are saying that a person can't legally defend themself in another person's home because they would be carrying illegally?

WildBill wrote:So you are saying that a person can't legally defend themself in another person's home because they would be carrying illegally?

They are violating the letter of the law if they use a handgun.

As I said earlier, I've read about cases where someone obviously had to be carrying illegally before defending himself (before car carry was legal). If it was justified self-defense and the defender was not a felon, the authorities overlooked the illegal carry.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:As I said earlier, I've read about cases where someone obviously had to be carrying illegally before defending himself (before car carry was legal). If it was justified self-defense and the defender was not a felon, the authorities overlooked the illegal carry.

This has long been the case in Texas. We have almost always looked first at the use of force, and only addressed unlawfully carrying if the force was also illegal.

But other states do not always do so. NY convicted Bernhard Goetz of unlawfully carrying after finding him not guilty on the assault charges. The jury said the shooting was justified, but he should not have had the pistol.

I am certainly glad to be living in Texas with rulings like that elsewhere.

srothstein wrote:

seamusTX wrote:As I said earlier, I've read about cases where someone obviously had to be carrying illegally before defending himself (before car carry was legal). If it was justified self-defense and the defender was not a felon, the authorities overlooked the illegal carry.

This has long been the case in Texas. We have almost always looked first at the use of force, and only addressed unlawfully carrying if the force was also illegal.

But other states do not always do so. NY convicted Bernhard Goetz of unlawfully carrying after finding him not guilty on the assault charges. The jury said the shooting was justified, but he should not have had the pistol.

I am certainly glad to be living in Texas with rulings like that elsewhere.

I have read about cases like Bernhard Goetz, but we were talking about carry in a friend's house, not on the subway.

With the current laws I could see an arrest for "house carry" maybe in Washington D.C., but haven't read about it there or anywhere else. I realize just because it has not happened doesn't mean it couldn't happen.

Maybe the reason it doesn't happen in Texas is that, on appeal, the courts might find it unconstitutional. I think that it's interesting that the Texas Constitution talks about regulating "wearing" of arms, not bearing or carrying.

Boy, this is really interesting stuff. I'm surprised it ISN'T apparently a cut-and-dried deal.

Is the law really any different (or any more clear, for that matter) if the firearm in question was a shotgun?

WildBill wrote:With the current laws I could see an arrest for "house carry" maybe in Washington D.C., but haven't read about it there or anywhere else. I realize just because it has not happened doesn't mean it couldn't happen.

I'm not saying that the cops will bust down the door and arrest the guy because they telepathically know he has a pistol. It is very unlikely that he would ever come to the attention of the police.

One scenario that ocurred to me is a neighbor seeing a strange man around the house, perhaps also knowing that the owners are on vacation, and calling 911. In that case it would be bad to be caught carrying, even on private property.

If the pistol is out of sight, there should be no problem.

craig_o wrote:Is the law really any different (or any more clear, for that matter) if the firearm in question was a shotgun?

Absolutely. You can have a long gun anywhere not listed in PC 46.03.

- Jim

craig_o wrote:Boy, this is really interesting stuff. I'm surprised it ISN'T apparently a cut-and-dried deal.

The law is an interesting subject - much of it is open to interpretation. That's why there are lawyers and judges.

I know that part of the intent of the law is to prevent someone from bringing "uninvited" handguns into another person's residence. But it is difficult to formulate a law that would serve this purpose and also allow "invited" handguns in. It is also interesting that the law applies only to handguns.

I think one original intent of the law that is now 46.02 was to prevent the assembly of "citizens committees" with violent intent, back in the bad old days.

Some states have or had even stricter laws, forbidding the assembly of armed citizens for any reason.

Handguns have always received harsher treatment than long guns.

- Jim

craig_o wrote:Is the law really any different (or any more clear, for that matter) if the firearm in question was a shotgun?

It is a lot different then. For the most part, you can carry a rifle or a shotgun openly or concealed in Texas and no one can say anything. There are a very few places where all firearms are banned, but it really is just a few. I can carry a shotgun with me when I go visit you, and if you do not verbally tell me to leave with it, I am not breaking any laws. Strictly speaking, if I carry a pistol when i come visit you, I am unlawfully carrying while on your property unless I meet one of the specified exceptions (peace officer, CHL, etc.).

The law is really pretty clear on this, but the application is where it gets confused. I agree with Wildbill that I have never heard of a person being arrested for a case like this, but that does not mean it cannot happen or hasn't. As far as I can tell, the only way you would get caught is if something else happened (either a disturbance of some type or you used the pistol) and in those cases, Texas generally looks at the whole situation.