guns? (Dallas, Shepherd: rentals, pros and cons, dangerous)

[Kave64]

Originally Posted by BobTex

OK ... y'all are still hung up on this "travelling" thing! HB 823 made your car an extension of your home thus the "Castle Doctrine "applies to firearm possession. The weapon must be concealed though. And if you're carrying why in the he11 would you want it unloaded .... so you could attempt to club the carjacker or theif with it?

I don't think the original poster is concerned about being carjacked. He just wants to know how to purchase a gun and get it home without getting into trouble. A gun in the car is probably not a necessity unless you tend to frequent high crime neigborhoods, especially at night.

[CallMeLaura]

Originally Posted by Kave64

I don't think the original poster is concerned about being carjacked. He just wants to know how to purchase a gun and get it home without getting into trouble. A gun in the car is probably not a necessity unless you tend to frequent high crime neigborhoods, especially at night.

And if you feel it's a necessity, you should probably rethink visiting those areas

[wakingdark]

yea thats true.. and i am the original poster and just wanted info on getting the gun from the store home
but all the answers all always welcome and it has been a great help.. i might hve some more inquiries that i might post in the next couple of days

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by BobTex

OK ... y'all are still hung up on this "travelling" thing! HB 823 made your car an extension of your home thus the "Castle Doctrine "applies to firearm possession. The weapon must be concealed though. And if you're carrying why in the he11 would you want it unloaded .... so you could attempt to club the carjacker or theif with it?

This is a good point (about it being unloaded).

I kinda wonder something though, in reference to the stipulation that the handgun must not be "in plain view" (as the law reads). That is, it sounds like a person, while in their vehicle, would be within the law if they had the weapon in a vest or shoulder holster covered by an outer garment, or whatever. If however, the person did not have CHL, and was stopped, and asked to step OUT of the car, would they then be in violation of the law?

Not trying to make this needlessly complicated or spin little "what if" scenarios, but this IS something that, sooner or later, will probably happen and become a matter of "case law" and "precedent."

[leavingsoon]

Originally Posted by BobTex

OK ... y'all are still hung up on this "travelling" thing! HB 823 made your car an extension of your home thus the "Castle Doctrine "applies to firearm possession. The weapon must be concealed though. And if you're carrying why in the he11 would you want it unloaded .... so you could attempt to club the carjacker or theif with it?

You are confused in what the "castle doctrine" is- it refers to not having a duty to retreat before using deadly force in self defense. It has nothing to do with carrying a weapon.

"A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against
whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity
at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before
using force as described by this section." That is language that was added to Penal Code sections 9.31 and 9.32.

Also, HB 823 was the traveling presumption which I discussed in my other post- that had nothing to do with the "castle doctrine" and has been repealed.

Originally Posted by TexasReb

This is a good point (about it being unloaded).

I kinda wonder something though, in reference to the stipulation that the handgun must not be "in plain view" (as the law reads). That is, it sounds like a person, while in their vehicle, would be within the law if they had the weapon in a vest or shoulder holster covered by an outer garment, or whatever. If however, the person did not have CHL, and was stopped, and asked to step OUT of the car, would they then be in violation of the law?

Not trying to make this needlessly complicated or spin little "what if" scenarios, but this IS something that, sooner or later, will probably happen and become a matter of "case law" and "precedent."

Did you read the provisions?

§ 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person
commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or
recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal
knife, or club if the person is not:
(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the
person's control; or
(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle
that is owned by the person or under the person's control.
(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person
intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or
her person a handgun in a motor vehicle that is owned by the person
or under the person's control at any time in which:
(1) the handgun is in plain view; or
(2) the person is:
(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a
Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance
regulating traffic;
(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm;
or
(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as
defined by Section 71.01.



I assume that anyone reading this has internet access, so if anyone has questions why not go directly to an official source- Texas DPS- and read the law for yourself- instead of relying on people on the internet who are most often wrong.

[wakingdark]

yea i think everybody here has read that at one point or another..
in my understanding of reading that is that i can have it in my car as long as it is not in plain view and i am not showin it flauntenly or actually harrasing anyone with it without a chl

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by leavingsoon

Did you read the provisions?

§ 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person
commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or
recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal
knife, or club if the person is not:
(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the
person's control; or
(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle
that is owned by the person or under the person's control.
(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person
intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or
her person a handgun in a motor vehicle that is owned by the person
or under the person's control at any time in which:
(1) the handgun is in plain view; or
(2) the person is:
(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a
Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance
regulating traffic;
(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm;
or
(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as
defined by Section 71.01.

I assume that anyone reading this has internet access, so if anyone has questions why not go directly to an official source- Texas DPS- and read the law for yourself- instead of relying on people on the internet who are most often wrong.

Yes, I read the law. Thanks for your concern on the matter and gratuitous legal advise. However, a person stepping outside of their vehicle is not enroute to it, are they?

Anyway, the question was intended to be more rhetorical and humorous than truly serious. If asked to step out of the vehicle, I would think the proper thing to do would be to let the officer know you had a handgun on your person.

But yes, as you said, it is wise to go directly to the source itself (in this case the penal code). And yes, there is a lot of "urban legend" and misinformation on this topic. And being self-critical here, I was one of those who was unaware the travelling provision had been repealed and that it is now essentially legal -- subject to certain stipulations -- to keep a hangun in your vehicle. Your correction on this point was much appreciated. I sincerely thank you for that. The word of a practicing attorney on this topic is valuable.

However, at the same time, and perhaps it is just me, some of your posts contain an element of arrogance. A lot of people ask questions such as this for the purpose of not only trying to find out the letter of the law, but the experiences of others. And I am sure, as a lawyer, you know that all these little details in the law itself are going to, over time, be subject to the interpretations of the courts and become case law. Hense that somewhat silly question I asked about is someone in violation if asked to step out of their car! It would seem obvious...but one never knows!

[CallMeLaura]

Originally Posted by wakingdark

yea i think everybody here has read that at one point or another..
in my understanding of reading that is that i can have it in my car as long as it is not in plain view and i am not showin it flauntenly or actually harrasing anyone with it without a chl

The quickest way to lose that CHL would be to 'flauntenly' harass someone with a firearm.

I would suggest getting a CHL and carrying another means of defense (especially if you are not able to get a CHL for one reason or another), rather than drive around all the time with a loaded gun in your car. One slip-up could land you in jail with a permanent mark on your record, regardless of your intentions.

I am a firm believer in The Second Amendment, but I'm a bigger believer in not going to jail. Cops can, and will, detain you for reasons you don't necessarily agree with. It can end up costing you a lot of money and aggravation. Why take that chance when you can just as easily operate within the law?

If you carry a gun for self-defense, you need to be mentally prepared to kill someone with it. As in dead, by your hand. Trying to scare someone off by showing them your gun is just as likely to get YOU killed with it. And I can assure you that, should you ever fire that gun in self-defense, the cops aren't going to overlook the fact that you were carrying it around without a CHL. You may get off in court, but have you priced an attorney lately?

[wakingdark]

well yea that is true

[wakingdark]

any recomendations as to what kind of gun i can buy?