Carrying otherwise illegal knife club under TPC 46.15

[wgoforth]

I don't see that this is clearly said. Reading exactly what is written in 46.15(b), if a person meets the criteria in (6), then "Section 46.02 does not apply". Contrasting this to 46.15(c), which states "The provision of Section 46.02 prohibiting the carrying of a club...", it is apparent that where the legislature wants to make a specific part of 46.02 not applicable, that specific part is clearly identified.

The law would have followed the example of the language in 46.15(c) for security guards if they intended for the CHL nonapplicability to apply only to handguns. The legislature didn't do that, so it clearly exempts us from all of 46.02 if we're carrying our license and a handgun. It's right there in black and white.

In addition, I think it was intentional. I think the legislators were smart enough to realize that if someone is carrying a handgun, it's not a big deal if they're also carrying a club or a knife. I think that's why they followed the example of peace officer nonapplicability for all of 46.02 instead of the security guard nonapplicability for a club only.

Does anyone know of a case where someone had an otherwise illegal club or knife, pulled over by law enforcement, and cops were ok with it since they had a CHL? I'd like to see law enforcement take on this. I have the feeling someone would do both the ride and the time.

[speedsix]

It says "Section 46.02 does not apply" not "the Section 46.02 prohibition on handguns does not apply" so I think all of Section 46.02 does not apply.

...OK, if that's so, why can't I, if I have a Concealed Handgun Permit rated for revolvers only, because of 46.02 then carry a concealed pistol??? because I wasn't trained, certified, and permitted by the authority over me(in this case the CHL) to carry a pistol...only a revolver...

...as a security guard, I could not legally carry a club...until I was trained, certified, issued, and authorized by my employer to carry it...and then, only the type they specified...not a Prosecutor or Asp which I had not been trained or certified in the use of...

...all the parts of 46.15 are specific to who is exempt from either 46.02 AND/OR 46.03, is it when they are on duty or all the time, is it at this place or that...and have they been trained in the weapon...it's spelled out very carefully...

...so if I (b)(6) am carrying a concealed HANDGUN AND a valid LICENSE issued under the authority of Subchapter H Chapter 4311 GC...WHICH IS ONLY TO: carry a concealed HANDGUN of the same category as the HANDGUN the person is carrying.........then there's NO LOGICAL WAY I can say that that license authorizes me to carry other prohibited weapons which that quoted section of the GC HAS NO MENTION OF OR AUTHORITY OVER...

...no more than I can say that because I hold a Tx DrLic, I can then drive a motorcycle or 18-wheeler...
...no more than I can , being a General Practicioner...assume that I'm OK to do brain surgery...without any training or certification or authorization to do so...

[boba]

Does anyone know of a case where someone had an otherwise illegal club or knife, pulled over by law enforcement, and cops were ok with it since they had a CHL? I'd like to see law enforcement take on this. I have the feeling someone would do both the ride and the time.

People do get arrested for crimes they didn't commit but I don't know any case in Texas where a CHL with a handgun and an ASP baton was successfully prosecuted for UCWing the ASP baton.

[wgoforth]

Does anyone know of a case where someone had an otherwise illegal club or knife, pulled over by law enforcement, and cops were ok with it since they had a CHL? I'd like to see law enforcement take on this. I have the feeling someone would do both the ride and the time.

People do get arrested for crimes they didn't commit but I don't know any case in Texas where a CHL with a handgun and an ASP baton was successfully prosecuted for UCWing the ASP baton.

That could also be interpreted to mean they aren't carrying them. What I am meaning is this. We all know cases where people were pulled over while carrying a handgun with a CHL. Sometimes cops may put it on the hood, or tell them to keep it where it is, but other than aggrevation, usually its fine. I am trying to see if anyone actually knows of a case where someone was carrying an otherwise illegal weapon with a CHL when pulled over.

[speedsix]

It says "Section 46.02 does not apply" not "the Section 46.02 prohibition on handguns does not apply" so I think all of Section 46.02 does not apply.

Not sure that your saying what I am saying....

Some have said this section gives permission to carry otherwise prohibited items like clubs and larger knives if you have a CHL. However, reading Gvt Code 411 seems to apply only to Peace Officers. Since 46.15 specifies those licensed under Gvt Code 411 and Gvt Code 411 specifies Peace Officers, I am trying to understand how some are trying to place CHL holders in general under this.

Gvt Code 411 covers a lot more than Peace Officers...the whole CHL law is covered there sections 171-208............when PC 46.15 refers to GC411, it also sais "licensed to carry a concealed handgun under..."...it's referring to the CHL section-not the other parts of 411-(unless it says as in one place 411.201)

PC46.15(a) deals with peace officers and other officials (b) deals with military, civilians, private security ...it's written very carefully spelled out...if you'll read it carefully, it'll start to gel...these people can do this, here, these people can do this and this if this and if here...general statements don't express the law...we gotta be specific...

[speedsix]

It says "Section 46.02 does not apply" not "the Section 46.02 prohibition on handguns does not apply" so I think all of Section 46.02 does not apply.

Not sure that your saying what I am saying....

Some have said this section gives permission to carry otherwise prohibited items like clubs and larger knives if you have a CHL. However, reading Gvt Code 411 seems to apply only to Peace Officers. Since 46.15 specifies those licensed under Gvt Code 411 and Gvt Code 411 specifies Peace Officers, I am trying to understand how some are trying to place CHL holders in general under this.

GC 411 subchapter is "LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN".

I understand. However, 411. 1991 it is about Peace Officers. Since Section 46.15 also mentions peace officers, I would view this as the assumption that the prohibition against the otherwise illegal weapons of 46.02 does not apply to peace officers rather than all CHL holders in general. I sat in the DPS class last week with a Police Officer from Midland and asked him if 46.15 could allow CHL holders to carry otherwise illegal weapons. Without even opening the book, he quickly said "Section 46 is about Peace Officers and only them" saying he had to know it for his Peace Officers license. Upon actually reading it and the context itself, I believe he is correct and was wondering if there is something else I have missed.

...what's confusing you is general, unspecific statements that are WRONG...
GC411 covers a LOT....but when 46.15 mentions it, it either pins down a specific subsection or says "...to carry a handgun under "...and the part that authorizes you and me to carry a handgun is specific...not ALL of 411... in the same way...he told you Section 46 is about Peace Officers and only them...by saying that he was 100% WRONG...prove it to yourself by reading all of Chapter 46...don't let an "authority" make you question what you read in the law with your own two eyes...it'll put you on spin cycle...

[boba]

traveling is still in the law, even if some badguys don't liek it

[wgoforth]

It says "Section 46.02 does not apply" not "the Section 46.02 prohibition on handguns does not apply" so I think all of Section 46.02 does not apply.

Not sure that your saying what I am saying....

Some have said this section gives permission to carry otherwise prohibited items like clubs and larger knives if you have a CHL. However, reading Gvt Code 411 seems to apply only to Peace Officers. Since 46.15 specifies those licensed under Gvt Code 411 and Gvt Code 411 specifies Peace Officers, I am trying to understand how some are trying to place CHL holders in general under this.

GC 411 subchapter is "LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN".

I understand. However, 411. 1991 it is about Peace Officers. Since Section 46.15 also mentions peace officers, I would view this as the assumption that the prohibition against the otherwise illegal weapons of 46.02 does not apply to peace officers rather than all CHL holders in general. I sat in the DPS class last week with a Police Officer from Midland and asked him if 46.15 could allow CHL holders to carry otherwise illegal weapons. Without even opening the book, he quickly said "Section 46 is about Peace Officers and only them" saying he had to know it for his Peace Officers license. Upon actually reading it and the context itself, I believe he is correct and was wondering if there is something else I have missed.

...what's confusing you is general, unspecific statements that are WRONG...
GC411 covers a LOT....but when 46.15 mentions it, it either pins down a specific subsection or says "...to carry a handgun under "...and the part that authorizes you and me to carry a handgun is specific...not ALL of 411... in the same way...he told you Section 46 is about Peace Officers and only them...by saying that he was 100% WRONG...prove it to yourself by reading all of Chapter 46...don't let an "authority" make you question what you read in the law with your own two eyes...it'll put you on spin cycle...

I've read it... Texas doesn't help by giving definitions. Is it a maybe? Yes... but not one that I want to try until I have seen others be the test case! Of course there were plenty of other things said wrong in the DPS class, but I know when covering the TPC 46, the instructors said no one but LEO's could carry these. As I say, I know they said other things I disagree with too, but it does seem to be the view of LEO's. As such, I am content to carry a handgun...more effective anyway in most cases.

[speedsix]

...wgoforth...PM

[wgoforth]

I have been enlightened

[capnkyle]

IANAL for all the following, just my laymans understanding of the written law.

Gvt Code 411 covers a lot more than Peace Officers...the whole CHL law is covered there sections 171-208............when PC 46.15 refers to GC411, it also sais "licensed to carry a concealed handgun under..."...it's referring to the CHL section-not the other parts of 411-(unless it says as in one place 411.201)

PC46.15(a) deals with peace officers and other officials (b) deals with military, civilians, private security

I agree... you have to read the entire 46.15 as section (a) applies to a completely different set of people than the set that section (b) applies to.

..OK, if that's so, why can't I, if I have a Concealed Handgun Permit rated for revolvers only, because of 46.02 then carry a concealed pistol??? because I wasn't trained, certified, and permitted by the authority over me(in this case the CHL) to carry a pistol...only a revolver...

Again, IANAL, but reading through, it looks like as long as you are carrying a handgun of the same category you are licensed to carry, then ALL of 46.02 doesn't apply, so you can carry all the illegal knives and clubs as you wish.
So, playing devil's advocate - if you were carrying a revolver per your NSA CHL, you are meeting the terms of 46.15 (b) (6) and you could carry a semi-auto also. IANAL and YMMV!

(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
......(6) is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Article 4413(29ee), Revised Statutes, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying;

[Thomas]

It says "Section 46.02 does not apply" not "the Section 46.02 prohibition on handguns does not apply" so I think all of Section 46.02 does not apply.

...OK, if that's so, why can't I, if I have a Concealed Handgun Permit rated for revolvers only, because of 46.02 then carry a concealed pistol??? because I wasn't trained, certified, and permitted by the authority over me(in this case the CHL) to carry a pistol...only a revolver...

Because of the last part:
(6) is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying;
just read it as:
(6) is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license to carry a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying;

...as a security guard, I could not legally carry a club...until I was trained, certified, issued, and authorized by my employer to carry it...and then, only the type they specified...not a Prosecutor or Asp which I had not been trained or certified in the use of...

...all the parts of 46.15 are specific to who is exempt from either 46.02 AND/OR 46.03, is it when they are on duty or all the time, is it at this place or that...and have they been trained in the weapon...it's spelled out very carefully...

While a club or other "weapon" might not fall under the Second Amendment, are you are agreeing that one needs special training to handle a "weapon"? A gun can be considered a weapon, so does the Second Amendment only apply if you have government approved training? I think a gun requires more knowledge and thinking to use properly than a club. What prevents the government from saying you have to have some special training that you only get in the military or as a police officer?

...so if I (b)(6) am carrying a concealed HANDGUN AND a valid LICENSE issued under the authority of Subchapter H Chapter 4311 GC...WHICH IS ONLY TO: carry a concealed HANDGUN of the same category as the HANDGUN the person is carrying.........then there's NO LOGICAL WAY I can say that that license authorizes me to carry other prohibited weapons which that quoted section of the GC HAS NO MENTION OF OR AUTHORITY OVER...

...no more than I can say that because I hold a Tx DrLic, I can then drive a motorcycle or 18-wheeler...
...no more than I can , being a General Practicioner...assume that I'm OK to do brain surgery...without any training or certification or authorization to do so...

EDIT: Changed assumed statement about your perceived thought to a question.

[speedsix]

"While a club or other "weapon" might not fall under the Second Amendment, are you are agreeing that one needs special training to handle a "weapon"? A gun can be considered a weapon, so does the Second Amendment only apply if you have government approved training? I think a gun requires more knowledge and thinking to use properly than a club. What prevents the government from saying you have to have some special training that you only get in the military or as a police officer?"

...nothing in this thread has been related to the 2A, but to PC46.15...we're talking the laws of Texas as regarding carrying certain weapons...so I'm not "agreeing" with anything you said in your quoted post above...nor did I post anything that you could extrapolate the above from...

...the LAW of Texas, however, DOES require that individuals who carry a club be trained and certified, unless they are on their own property or property under their control...as spelled out in what we HAVE been discussing...you can go off on a wild-eyed tangent if you wish, but THIS ole dog ain't goin' with ya!!! your ideas in the above paragraph have nothing to do with ANYTHING I said...I can get in enough trouble without someone putting words in my mouth!!!

[Fangs]

Regardless of what the law says, it's silly that I can legally carry as many guns as I can conceal on my person, but not a knife with a 6" blade.

That having been said, I still don't want to be the test case.

[tbrown]

Looking at 46.15, the lawmakers sometimes limited it to specific weapon types and sometimes don't.

(a) Sections 46.02 and 46.03 do not apply....
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply....
(c) The provision of Section 46.02 prohibiting the carrying of a club does not apply....
(d) The provisions of Section 46.02 prohibiting the carrying of a firearm or carrying of a club do not apply....
(e) The provisions of Section 46.02 prohibiting the carrying of an illegal knife do not apply....
(f) Section 46.03(a)(6) does not apply to a person who possesses a firearm or club....
(g) The provisions of Sections 46.02 and 46.03 prohibiting the possession or carrying of a club do not apply....

It's pretty obvious those are different variations on nonapplicability. When the law says "provisions of Section 46.02 prohibiting" it means only specific provisions don't apply, but when the law says a section does not apply, it means the entire section doesn't apply.

The law means what it says. For example, I don't like 46.035, but I would look pretty foolish saying it doesn't mean what it says, just because I don't agree with it.