Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Posted: 7/29/2015 6:25:10 PM EDT
If I am riding with my brother in his car, am I protected by the same rules as the owner/operator of the vehicle (assuming I have his permission to have the pistol in his car? I do not currently have a chl otherwise this wouldn't be a question for me.
Thanks!
Link Posted: 7/29/2015 6:30:09 PM EDT
[#1]
It is my understanding that as you are traveling in the vehicle you are allowed to have a firearm so long as it is concealed regardless of having a chl.  That is provided you are legally allowed to have the firearm.




Link Posted: 7/29/2015 6:49:38 PM EDT
[#2]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
It is my understanding that as you are traveling in the vehicle you are allowed to have a firearm so long as it is concealed regardless of having a chl.  That is provided you are legally allowed to have the firearm.

View Quote


That is correct.

V
Link Posted: 7/29/2015 7:44:05 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
If I am riding with my brother in his car, am I protected by the same rules as the owner/operator of the vehicle (assuming I have his permission to have the pistol in his car? I do not currently have a chl otherwise this wouldn't be a question for me.
Thanks!
View Quote


Castle doctrine has nothing to do with cars or CHL. It is about your right to protect yourself wherever you are.

What you seem to be referring to is the Motorist Protection Act, and the answer is no, as it only applies to owner/operator and not passengers, and owner/operator cannot give "permission" to occupants.
Link Posted: 7/29/2015 8:50:31 PM EDT
[#4]
" Castle doctrine " is not written in any penal code statutes in Texas.  But we know what you mean.







The legal question you ask is in The Penal Code under self defense and deadly force justifications.










The legal question about not having a CHL when you are in a vehicle that you are a passenger in and dont have control of, or own,puts you in violation of the UCW statute as it is read literally.    









I'm not sure I would care much, everything else being normal and no other criminal activity going on.  But, you might not fair so well somewhere else where someone reads it literally, that I have underlined.










Get a CHL.  No issues.















Sec. 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 or watercraft 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 or watercraft 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 or boating;

(B)  prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or

(C)  a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.

(a-2)  For purposes of this section, "premises" includes real property and a recreational vehicle that is being used as living quarters, regardless of whether that use is temporary or permanent. In this subsection, "recreational vehicle" means a motor vehicle primarily designed as temporary living quarters or a vehicle that contains temporary living quarters and is designed to be towed by a motor vehicle. The term includes a travel trailer, camping trailer, truck camper, motor home, and horse trailer with living quarters.

(a-3)  For purposes of this section, "watercraft" means any boat, motorboat, vessel, or personal watercraft, other than a seaplane on water, used or capable of being used for transportation on water.

(b)  Except as provided by Subsection (c), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(c)  An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed on any premises licensed or issued a permit by this state for the sale of alcoholic beverages.


































SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS




Sec. 9.31.  SELF-DEFENSE.  (a)  Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.  The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1)  knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A)  unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B)  unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C)  was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2)  did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3)  was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(b)  The use of force against another is not justified:

(1)  in response to verbal provocation alone;

(2)  to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

(3)  if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

(4)  if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A)  the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter;  and

(B)  the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor;  or

(5)  if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:

(A)  carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02;  or

(B)  possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

(c)  The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1)  if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;  and

(2)  when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

(d)  The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

(e)  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.

(f)  For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994;  Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Amended by:

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1 (S.B. 378), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007.





Sec. 9.32.  DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.  (a)  A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1)  if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2)   when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A)  to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B)  to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b)  The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1)  knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A)  unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B)  unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C)  was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2)  did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3)  was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c)  A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d)  For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1983;  Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994;  Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Amended by:

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1 (S.B. 378), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007.





Sec. 9.33.  DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON.  A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:

(1)  under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect;  and

(2)  the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.





Sec. 9.34.  PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH.  (a)  A person is justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.

(b)  A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other's life in an emergency.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.





SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY




Sec. 9.41.  PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.  (a)  A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b)  A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1)  the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor;  or

(2)  the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.





Sec. 9.42.  DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.  A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1)  if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41;  and

(2)  when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A)  to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime;  or

(B)  to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property;  and

(3)  he reasonably believes that:

(A)  the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means;  or

(B)  the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.





Sec. 9.43.  PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY.  A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

(1)  the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property;  or

(2)  the actor reasonably believes that:

(A)  the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;

(B)  he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property;  or

(C)  the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


 
Link Posted: 7/30/2015 4:57:38 AM EDT
[#5]
Yeah, I later learned I had my laws mixed up, thanks for clarifying. I do want to get my chl, but I won't be able to get it before this weekend (which is the trip in question). I need to break down and get it, I just never seem to have the $200+ laying around when I have time to do the class and everything.
Link Posted: 7/30/2015 6:41:55 AM EDT
[#6]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Yeah, I later learned I had my laws mixed up, thanks for clarifying. I do want to get my chl, but I won't be able to get it before this weekend (which is the trip in question). I need to break down and get it, I just never seem to have the $200+ laying around when I have time to do the class and everything.
View Quote




 



Yep. It's really unfortunate that TX charges more than $20 for the CHL.
Link Posted: 7/30/2015 7:28:12 AM EDT
[#7]
As others have written, there are really three main ways you can lawfully have a handgun either on your person or about your person while inside of a motor vehicle.  

1)  Carry a CHL

2) Own the vehicle ( despite your seating position)

3) Be in control of the vehicle.  (that means driving it)



Note that in a locked trunk or being not readily accessible to you is not "on or about your person"; therefore, it is not illegal to have under state law.

Link Posted: 7/31/2015 5:24:59 PM EDT
[#8]
It's pretty asinine that you are charged over $200 to exercise a constitutional right. Personally, I would like basically open carry with the clause that the State needs to have on record that you have passed a basic handgun course. So say $50-75 for the class and a $5-10 "administration fee" to have your "certification" on file with the State. The don't even need to issue a separate license, just have it attached to your driver's license, so that way if the police run your license it shows you are legal to carry. They also wouldn't be able to run id just for having a gun. That's how I would do it if I were revising the system.
Link Posted: 7/31/2015 6:23:04 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
If I am riding with my brother in his car, am I protected by the same rules as the owner/operator of the vehicle (assuming I have his permission to have the pistol in his car? I do not currently have a chl otherwise this wouldn't be a question for me.
Thanks!
View Quote


Literally from the statue below, no.  However, if it's not on your person and simply concealed within the vehicle, I see no problem unless you say "Yes sir, that is my handgun."  I.e., if your brother was borrowing it or even better yet, if it was his gun, there would be zero issue whatsoever.  Rather silly exclusion.
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top