The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
It says "property of another" so it looks like it applies to any property that isn't yours. I suspect it applies to real property and not all tangible personal property but IANAL and the last time I slept at a Holiday Inn Express was in June.3dfxMM wrote:I am waiting for someone to help clarify the wording in 30.05 regarding what types of property it applies to.
Actually, fencing is called out as a specific form of "notice".tbrown wrote:I think those are examples and not an exclusive list. What if ACME has a manufacturing facility and erects a fence around the property? The fenced area is not on that list, but I think somebody who climbs the fence and skulks around without permission is trespassing.
I would invite you and 3dfxMM to re-read the following thread.sjfcontrol wrote:That is your opinion. As srothstein stated, the CHL is an exception to the law. If you're not breaking the law (which you're not in a car with a concealed gun), you don't need that exception, and therefore are not carrying under Subchapter H, Chapter 411.C-dub wrote:It does, but if one has a CHL and they have a handgun with them off of their own property or home they are always carrying under the authority of that CHL. We cannot claim to be carrying in our vehicles under the MPA whenever it suits us.
I added the red color to the important part.Charles L. Cotton wrote:You're not argumentative at all. At first blush, what I posted appears to conflict with Tex. Gov't Code §411.205, but there is no conflict. In order for Tex. Penal Code §30.06 to apply to a person, they must be carrying a handgun under the authority of their CHL. However, Gov't Code §411.205 imposes a duty to display a license on every armed CHL, regardless whether they are carrying under the authority of their licenses. Therefore, it would apply in our cars, homes, sporting events, etc.
Chas.
Absolutely no argument with that. Yes, if you're carrying in your car, you must produce your CHL if asked. But that does NOT mean you are carrying under it's authority. Read the red part again -- especially the "regardless whether they are carrying under the authority..." part.C-dub wrote: I would invite you and 3dfxMM to re-read the following thread.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=46515" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It contains such gems as this.
I added the red color to the important part.Charles L. Cotton wrote:You're not argumentative at all. At first blush, what I posted appears to conflict with Tex. Gov't Code §411.205, but there is no conflict. In order for Tex. Penal Code §30.06 to apply to a person, they must be carrying a handgun under the authority of their CHL. However, Gov't Code §411.205 imposes a duty to display a license on every armed CHL, regardless whether they are carrying under the authority of their licenses. Therefore, it would apply in our cars, homes, sporting events, etc.
Chas.
Ok, but it also doesnt make sense that we would LOSE rights/privileges by getting a license. Not that EITHER of us will get far arguing legal "logic". I believe that it was an oversight that the law requires the display of the license when carrying regardless of whether it's being used. Of course when that law was passed the only legal way to carry was with a CHL. So back then there was no distinction. Only when MPA was passed did it matter.C-dub wrote:Hmmm. I can be convinced, but it won't be easy. It doesn't make any sense to me that if one has a CHL that they could choose to carry under any other authority other than that CHL because we do have to display our license when asked for ID by a Texas LEO.
They can post a sign banning all firearms just as easy. Look at the pix in the Polycom thread.40khammer wrote:Wanna solve this whole problem? Keep a shotgun in your car instead of a handgun. Then you're definitely not carrying under the CHL so there's no question.
Unless I'm reading wrong.
Correct! And I'm looking into making that a possibility.unhappycamper wrote:They can post a sign banning all firearms just as easy. Look at the pix in the Polycom thread.40khammer wrote:Wanna solve this whole problem? Keep a shotgun in your car instead of a handgun. Then you're definitely not carrying under the CHL so there's no question.
Unless I'm reading wrong.
I didn't look at it as losing rights, but possibly incorrectly viewing them as two different things. The MPA has muddied the waters for situations like this. Hopefully, as issues like this are discovered, they will get clarified in the next session.sjfcontrol wrote:Ok, but it also doesnt make sense that we would LOSE rights/privileges by getting a license. Not that EITHER of us will get far arguing legal "logic". I believe that it was an oversight that the law requires the display of the license when carrying regardless of whether it's being used. Of course when that law was passed the only legal way to carry was with a CHL. So back then there was no distinction. Only when MPA was passed did it matter.C-dub wrote:Hmmm. I can be convinced, but it won't be easy. It doesn't make any sense to me that if one has a CHL that they could choose to carry under any other authority other than that CHL because we do have to display our license when asked for ID by a Texas LEO.
And it's not really a matter of "choosing" how we carry. 46.15(b)(6) says that 46.02 doEs not apply to CHL holders. But it already doesn't apply if you meet the 46.02(a-1) (MPA) section. So, since the CHL exception isn't needed, you're not carrying under it.
Easy-peazy!