Castle Laws and Bicylces

[CHEVELLE427]

seems like if you can get a dui riding a bike the laws should be same on a bike as a car,

 

[blkbrd666]

Car, motorcycle or bicycle...all are your mode of transportation and all governed by the same rules/laws.

 

[gallo]

Chevelle,

Thanks for reining the thread back to topic.

 

[runrabbitrun]

Sorry for veering off topic guys.

Tex and others, I can't address your comments in this thread.
(About hot carry 24/7)...
Not sure it's worth trying anyway.

But to comment on this particular subject.

I'd have to agree with this statement below:

seems like if you can get a dui riding a bike the laws should be same on a bike as a car,

 

[TexasRifleman]

seems like if you can get a dui riding a bike the laws should be same on a bike as a car,

That does seem like it would make sense, but it's absolutely NOT the law in Texas so be careful.

 

[runrabbitrun]

Darn.
And to think I wanted to outfit my mountain bike with
double mini guns mounted to the handle bars.

 

[thesolidus]

now I want to make a bicycle frame entirely out of workable firearms welded together! Triangle made from 2 shotguns and the downtube a rifle pointed down with the rider sitting on the buttstock! SBR's to the side as handlebars, revolvers as pedals...
Couldn't say it's concealed!
Hahahhahahahaha

 

[joe817]

That would have to be an awfully big buttstock. lolol

ohhhh, play on words. double lolol.

 

[TAB]

In many states its not actually dui for riding a bike drunk, its drunk in public that you are charged with.

 

[DHJenkins]

Oh, edit.

 

[bltmonty]

In New Mexico, the car, bicycle, motorcycle, horse, 4-wheeler and all other "personal means of conveyance" are all considered an extension of the home and as such, one can carry concealed with out a ccw license. Once you are off the bike, you have to disclose or unload.

 

[DHJenkins]

This is taken from Chapter 46 of the Texas Penal Code, and clearly answers the question:

"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 that is owned by the person or under the person's control."

 

[doubleought 7]

I took the CHL course in Houston Texas in June 2009. Both the instructors were very specific and warning that altho the "Castle Doctrine" has been ruled by the state as applying to motor vehicle also. The metropolitan districts in Texas (Dallas,FW, Houston Harris County and several others DO NOT RECOGNIZE this right. If a non CHL holder is found with a handgun in their car in HARRIS CO HOUSTON they will be arrested. Across in FT Bend Brazoria etc it is OK. Remember it was the Harris County DA who hassled Joe Horn. The instructor said it has never been contested all the way. Someday maybe some one with the money and the cojones will. I think they were correct in what they said. The course was taught in Harris Co and the firing part was just across the line in FT Bend County and one of the instructors was an Ex Harris deputy and the other a veteran Ft Bend County lawman.

 

[TexasRifleman]

ok the CHL course in Houston Texas in June 2009. Both the instructors were very specific and warning that altho the "Castle Doctrine" has been ruled by the state as applying to motor vehicle also. The metropolitan districts in Texas (Dallas,FW, Houston Harris County and several others DO NOT RECOGNIZE this right. If a non CHL holder is found with a handgun in their car in HARRIS CO HOUSTON they will be arrested. Across in FT Bend Brazoria etc it is OK. Remember it was the Harris County DA who hassled Joe Horn. The instructor said it has never been contested all the way. Someday maybe some one with the money and the cojones will. I think they were correct in what they said. The course was taught in Harris Co and the firing part was just across the line in FT Bend County and one of the instructors was an Ex Harris deputy and the other a veteran Ft Bend County lawman.

You've posted that twice in threads here and what you are saying is NOT true any longer.

You are quoting a very old story from 4-6 years ago before the last law change.

The Castle Doctrine law passed in Texas does not have anything at all to do with whether or not you can carry a handgun in your car without a Concealed License. Those are 2 entirely different laws.

As for Joe Horn, I'm not sure what you mean by "hassled". Texas law requires anyone who commits a homicide to go before the Grand Jury. Prosecutors have no option to just let them go, it's required by law.

Joe Horn was taken before the Grand Jury for murder and the Grand Jury no-billed him, finding that he committed homicide, but was justified in doing so. That is how it works in Texas.

Like I posted in the thread earlier, the law is quite simple. There is no room for games like before.

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.

Quite simply, if the gun is hidden and legally owned, no crime is committed unless the person is in a street gang, and that 71.01 law is pretty specific as well.

Any LE who arrests someone anyway will regret it.

 

[doubleought 7]

About Joe Horn being hassled by an overambitious DA. As you wrote he was referred to the GJ for murder I believe you said. The case should have been passed to the GJ with no charges. That is what the GJ decided.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

There's the difference. A motorcycle is a motor vehicle, a bike is not

 

[FAS1]

In Texas the castle laws allow for carrying a firearm in the car as it is considered an extension of the castle. Does this apply to carrying a firearm not on your person but inside a small pouch attached to the bicycle frame. Can the bicycle be considered an extension of the castle, too?

Thank you.

Not sure about the Castle Doctrine and don't care to test it myself on a bike. I carry my .380 Kel-Tec just as you describe. I have a CCW and feel better knowing that it is close by. Have not been comfortable biking with it on my body at 100 degrees and my whole body covered in sweat.

 

[doubleought 7]

From Texas Rifleman

"The Castle Doctrine law passed in Texas does not have anything at all to do with whether or not you can carry a handgun in your car without a Concealed License. Those are 2 entirely different laws."

This statement is not correct The Castle doctrine passed 9/07 has every thing to do it and specifically allow carry in you car. See below. (SB378)

AN ACT
relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows: (4) "Habitation" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.
(5) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

RE Joe Horn
A lot of talk about whether Horn was “REQUESTED” to protect other persons property. The LAW says nothing about “request “ being necessary

§ 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;
******

I live near Houston but not in Harris County and know the local *****County Deputy very well. I asked him about Houston “Policy” not law and he said in Harris County (Houston) If a handgun was found in your car and you did not have a CHL you would have a trip down town in cuffs. You might end up beating it but to start with there would be a towing fee and impoundment charge for your car. Might or might not ever get the weapon back I under stand Dallas, FW Corpus Christi are the same way Get out and talk with the “ol boy network” to see what the law says and what “policy is.

 

[TexasRifleman]

If a handgun was found in your car and you did not have a CHL you would have a trip down town in cuffs. You might end up beating it but to start with there would be a towing fee and impoundment charge for your car. Might or might not ever get the weapon back I under stand Dallas, FW Corpus Christi are the same way Get out and talk with the “ol boy network” to see what the law says and what “policy is.

Post one single arrest for us to see. Anywhere in the state is fine.
Both the Texas ACLU and the Texas State Rifle Association disagree with you. No LE is going to put his career in jeopardy to arrest someone who has not committed a crime. It would be a crime for LE to arrest under those circumstances. Personally I'd give love to be the test case. I could retire.

This statement is not correct The Castle doctrine passed 9/07 has every thing to do it and specifically allow carry in you car.

I'm sorry, you are simply wrong about that.

The law first allowing concealed carry in a more defined way in your car by defining the traveling exemption was Texas HB 823 passed in 2005. This is the law that was questioned by the Harris County District Attorney and it's the law that the Texas ACLU threatened to sue the Harris County DA over in 2006. That DA is no longer at his job.

Texas HB 1815 was the next step. This law, passed in 2007, put the current law in place regarding carry in a vehicle. It has nothing to do with the "castle doctrine" passed in Texas. It allows for concealed carry of a handgun in a car by someone without a CHL as long as they are not a gang member.

Texas Castle Doctrine was Texas SB 378 and does not speak to the carrying of firearms in any way. What castle doctrine does as far as automobiles are concerned is to define them as part of your home as far as the use of deadly force goes, but it does nothing to allow or limit the carrying of firearms.

What you posted basically says that. The definition of "habitation" is changed as far as it relates to the use of deadly force, but it does not change where guns may be carried.

As for the Joe Horn case I notice you only post part of the law. You only post part of it because it does in fact say "request".

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;

The DA questioned whether or not Horn met part (1). Did Horn know that the theft had been accomplished? Did Horn see the carrying of loot? That was the question. If Horn did NOT know that the theft had been consummated, then the law proceeds to the section on "request".

I believe the DA was wrong, but you say that the law does not mention being protection being requested, and it very clearly does.


Information on the ACLU and NRA's involvement in the original Harris County DA's interpretation of the 2005 law:

http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/04/07/aclu-in-texas-helps-protect-traveling-gun-owners/

 

[doubleought 7]

I suggest you set up a situation in Houston. Get taken to the station on "Suspicion of not combing your hair correctly". And "suspicion" of illegally having a gun in the car. To start with if the weapon was concealed you would have to be "charged" with enough violations to have your car searched. If the gun was in plain sight big VIOLATION Get the car towed and gun confiscated and spend several years and thousands of dollars fighting city hall to even get the gun returned. A lot of people wish some one would fight it to the finish.So far no one has. I am not arguing about what the law says, just the way the big city DAs are condoning and winking at the policy of harrassing any possession of gun in car by non CHL holder. They are literally say "So sue me"Maybe the ACLU would help you

The law says what Horn did was legal. The Houston DA said the law didn't.

.I didn't quote all the law because any thing after the OR following Number one was completly irrelevant.

Big OR

(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;

Notice the word OR(alternative, choice) after Number one. That means Number one is sufficient OR two or( A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;

You ask Did Horn see the carrying of loot?
According to the testimony he did. The thieves were reported to be seen by Horn carrying the loot from next door. And that Horn said he actually saw them climbing out the window of the house next door.



From the transcript of conversation between Horn and 911 operator
Dispatcher: "No, it's not, I'm not saying that, I'm just not wanting you to ..."

Horn: "OK, he's coming out the window right now, I gotta go, buddy. I'm sorry, but he's coming out the window. "

Dispatcher: "No, don't, don't go out the door, Mister Horn. Mister Horn..."

Horn: "They just stole something, I'm going out to look for 'em, I'm sorry, I ain't letting them get away with this ----. They stole something, they got a bag of stuff. I'm doing it!"

 

[doubleought 7]

This is from link provided by Texas R%ifleman http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007...ng-gun-owners/.

But in a report issued last February,2007 the ACLU of Texas, the Texas State Rifle Association, and the Texas Criminal Justice Association showed that many district and county attorneys are instructing police to carry on as before, arresting motorists for UCW at their discretion and letting prosecutors and judges sort things out.

Jacob Sullum from Reason reports:
The ACLU of Texas has joined with the Texas State Rifle Association and the NRA to fight local prosecutors who are defying a law
aimed at protecting law-abiding Texans from being arrested for having guns in their cars. State law has long exempted people who have guns in their vehicles while “traveling” from being prosecuted for unlawful carrying of a weapon (UCW), an offense punishable by up to a year in jail. But the definition of “traveling” was fuzzy, leaving gun owners vulnerable to arrest, prosecution, and conviction, depending on how police officers, prosecutors, and judges decided to read and apply the law. In 2005, at the urging of the gun groups and the state ACLU, the legislature passed a law that creates a presumption of “traveling” for any motorist in a private vehicle who is not legally disqualified from owning a gun, does not belong to “a criminal street gang,” is not engaged in criminal activity (beyond minor traffic infractions), and is not carrying the gun in plain view. But in a report issued last February,2007 the ACLU of Texas, the Texas State Rifle Association, and the Texas Criminal Justice Association showed that many district and county attorneys are instructing police to carry on as before, arresting motorists for UCW at their discretion and letting prosecutors and judges sort things out. — Hit and Run
That’s right, in Texas, the legislature has specifically said not to bother ordinary people who are traveling with their guns, people like Katy geologist Keith Patton, who lost a $300 pistol he’d just bought, $1,500 in attorney’s fees, $268 in vehicle impound fees, and a night in jail, because local prosecutors and cops are still harassing law-abiding citizens by arresting them and bringing them up on trumped-up charges.
The controversy, such as can be said to exist, is largely manufactured by the Texas District and County Attorneys Association, which advised local prosecutors to ignore the plain meaning of the law and the intent of the legislature and that police could still arrest law-abiding citizens because, they said, a court had to decide if they were “traveling.”
“Therefore,” it declared, “officers are still acting within their lawful discretion if they arrest a person who might qualify for the traveling defense or the new traveling presumption.”
Or, as Charles A. Rosenthal Jr., the district attorney of Harris County, which includes Houston, argued, “The presumption of innocence does not make the person innocent.”
Texas ACLU threatened to sue the Harris County DA over in 2006. That DA is no longer at his job.

Comment Did not run for reelection. Something about porn on offfice computor
Must have not worried them much The above was date April 2007

 

[TexasRifleman]

Must have not worried them much The above was date April 2007

I think you misunderstand. The stories you tell about Harris County DA telling cops to arrest for guns was before HB1815 was passed and the link I posted simply described what had happened.

The thing you need to remember is that there has to be a crime committed.

Please show what part of the Penal Code is violated by someone having a concealed handgun in their car.

Before September of last year it was still a crime, but an excusable crime if one was traveling. Now, there is no crime at all so what exactly is it you think they can arrest people for?

 

[doubleought 7]

Before September of last year it was still a crime, but an excusable crime if one was traveling. Now, there is no crime at all so what exactly is it you think they can arrest people for? *********

It was not a crime if a person was traveling. But you might have your car towed and gun confiscated and prove in COURT that you were traveling as defined.
"
"Now, there is no crime at all so what exactly is it you think they can arrest people for?"

Actually most anything as long as a law is full of subjective words like, safely etc. The legal presumpsion is a trained law persons know more about what is a safe manner in which a gun should be transported. Arrest and let a court decide. According to the Grand Jury Joe Horn violated no laws, but he still had to spend a lot of time and money because some DA wanted to make a name for himself.

Just why are you so positive that the Houston and other Metro area police are not still arresting people for handgun violation for possession in vehicles by unlicensed CHL operators? Can you really prove if stopped for say failure to signal before changing lanes on side of road that you do not belong to a "criminal street gang" If an unlicensed gun showed up it might even be used as a excuse for the officer to give as a reason to think that.
Or as Harris County DAsaaid Or, as Charles A. Rosenthal Jr., the district attorney of Harris County, which includes Houston, argued, “The presumption of innocence does not make the person innocent.

AS the article you linked stated "that police could still arrest law-abiding citizens"

Clear now on how Joe Horn KNEW a crime was comitted? Clear about what the word "OR" means in section on right to use deadly force to protect others property?"

Can you show me a link to anything that says Houston etal has ceased to arrest persons for carrying a handgun in their vehicle? What does the ACLU say about it. Speaking of the ACLU Ever hear the expression "If you lay down with dogs you are going to get up with fleas"

 

[Oyeboten]

How 'bout Roller Skates...Ice Skates...Skate Boards...

 

[model of 1905]

New Mexico Statutes state "personal vehicle or other means of private conveyance". I guess that could include a skateboard, I dunno. I take it to mean my car, my Harley and whatever footwear I have on that day. YMMV.