Texas - Illegal Knife+CHL+Handgun = Jail+Charges+Test Case?

Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
18
I don't post here much. Don't plan to respond to many questions here but I'll keep it in mind to check from time to time. I also have a thread on AR15.com hometown forums.

http://www.texasguntalk.com/forums/...ife-chl-concealed-handgun-=-jail-charges.html

Ok, folks here's the point where I put a chapter and verse out on the Internet with enough information for the curious to do a virtual anal probe of my life. Please use lube.

So Travis County, DPS were the arresting officers.

Proof this really happened is easy to obtain.

Thursday March 14th I road to the Texas State Capitol building on my motorcycle. In Austin I planed to testify in support of a handful of bills that would allow the carry of handguns on college campuses and open carry of handguns by a Concealed Handgun Licensee (CHL).

I was carrying my handgun, concealed, and pocket knife and a knife with a blade of 6.25 inches long in a sheath on my belt, open to the world.

In the Texas State Capitol building there are two lines to enter. The metal detector line and the Concealed Handgun Licensee line that lets anyone with a license bypass the metal detectors. I used the CHL line, no issues.

Texas law refers to a knife with a blade over 5.5 inches long as an "illegal knife" that you generally can't have on your person except for a few exceptions such as travelling, hunting, fishing, at my home or place of business.

The law also states it doesn't apply to a person who is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid concealed handgun license (CHL). The crux of that is that the majority LEOs don't know or, as I found out, don't choose to acknowledge the plainness of this exception. I thought I stood a good chance of successfully disputing an arrest by pointing out the law in the event I was stopped.

Once at the building I passed though security, with my CHL, and went around looking for the meeting room. I asked no fewer than 4 DPS officers around the capitol building where the room was located. My sense of direction sucks, it's easy to get turned around in that building as well.

I went into the meeting, passing a group of 3 DPS officers, found out I had to register outside the room, went out passing them again, registered, and went back in and listened to the folks testifying for and against the campus carry bills.

About an hr later, mother nature called. I found a polite time to leave, when others were also leaving and I left the room.

Outside there were several DPS officers waiting... For me.

As far as not talking to the police.

I kept my comments, as much as I could, to the point of pointing out the law. When they asked how long the knife is I said it was a good idea to measure it at that point they did.

I spent the next couple of hours showing them where the law stated I was OK, them scratching their heads and even had a lively debate among them with 2 out of 12 folks agreeing with me and the others wanting to book me and let the DA figure it out. They checked my CHL status, my DL took my knifes, gun and holsters and sheath.

They did allow me to pee. I was sweating it though for a bit.

The knife was measured and measured wrong at 7.25 inches on a paper cutter that started at one inch on the ruler.

They then printed out 46.15 (b) 1-8 that had been hand hightlited at the top

(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:

And then down to the bottom of the page was also highlited.

(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;

I was then asked if this is what I was referring to. I said yes, that's it. May I leave now?

I was then told I was ignorant of the law, the section in question only is valid for handguns.

I got arrested, booked in jail, charged with Unlawfully Carrying a Weapon (For my knife not my gun) and spent the night there till I was approved for personal bail. I got some sleep at the jail (Don't ask me how), got out at about 3:30am and then found my motorcycle and drove home.

This was a Class A Misdemeanour charge. I have been notified under section 411.187 that I may no longer carry and have turned in my CHL.

I've hired a lawyer.

In selecting a lawyer I narrowed it down to five, then sent a brief description of the charges in an email. All either emailed or called back. Only one I think really understood.

First email from him:
"Mr. [Matefrio],

Are you saying you were: (1) carrying your concealed handgun license; and (2) carrying a concealed handgun; and (3) carrying a knife with a blade over five and one-half inches?

Thank you for contacting me."

My Response: "That is correct."

Second email:
Mr. [Matefrio],

In that case you have an interesting case of statutory interpretation, one that the authors of 46.15(b)(6) probably did not anticipate, but one that appears to have merit.

He also seems to be very familiar with guns personally.

In further conversations he's stated it's really not even statutory interpretation as to have a case of that the law would need to be vague, in this case he believes it's not vague at all.

The plan now is to file a motion to suppress the arrest with the judge. Most likely the DA will appeal the motion even if the judge grants my request. In that case I hire an appeals lawyer and we go though the process again.

I've communicated to my lawyer that the desired outcome of all this is that myself and others don't get caught up in this same situation.

There are no guarantees this will forge that path. But I think I've got an opportunity to make a trail head.
 
Thanks for the info, keep us updated. I am very interested how this turns out. Good Luck.
 
Thanks for sharing. I read the thread on the other board and was encouraged to learn about the support and representation you have received. It was also impressive to read your friend's comments on your good character. I will keep up with the progress reported there and be happy to contribute to a legal defense fund if one gets set up. In the meantime, watch your cornhole buddy! :)
 
Last edited:
Sounds like the wierdness(stupidity) of Austin caught up with you. I hate that place. God bless, best of luck in your trials.
 
First I wish you luck with the case and hope you win. Second, If you poke the bear, expect him to bite. While you may ( or may not) have a valid exception to the law against the knife you were carrying, bringing it into this type of building for this type of hearing is purely asking for at least one officer to take exception to the clause that you feel allows you to carry a knife in excess of the legal lenght. Now you have lost your right to carry a firearm until this is cleared up, and you may not prevail in your case. I hope you had weight out this as a possible result before you entered with the knife. Once again, good luck and I do hope you win.
 
Last edited:
Here in Ga. it is illegal for Law Enforcement Officers to interpret the laws themselves anyhow. You poked the bear and it bit. All you can really hope for is your CHL back. I hope you win all the same.
 
I took the time to read the law:

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm

It would seem that it only applies to a hand gun of the kind listed on the permit to me....The closest I could see may help you would be that you were traveling with it, but since you did not raise this defense at the time of questioning, it will be viewed as a defense after the fact and may not be honored by the court....Once again...good luck...
 
I'm rather inclined to agree with you, Tom. For one, the knife part of the Texas statute doesn't care if the knife is carried openly or not, so even if his interpretation were correct he could have kept it concealed the whole time just like his gun and this never would have been an issue. Going into major building crawling with cops with the excessively large knife in plain site was kinda asking for it. Even in my state where open carry of any size is categorically and unambiguously legal, carrying anything that large through a crowd of cops is going to invite some hassling.
 
I look forward to seeing how this turns out, I too read the laws after following the link, and to me it seems as though it is very cut and dry, problem is, I can see some people interpret it different, I believe that the line that will make it turn out all right for the OP "(a) Sections 46.02 and 46.03 do not apply to:"

and the fact that it says that and doesn't specifically say that it exempts only handguns.

I also could see this causing a law change afterwards, but I don't know for sure

oh, and if the knife in that thread you linked too is in fact the one you had, pretty knife lol
 
Last edited:
Hope you win, but in the end the only ones that truly win will be the attorneys.
 
I look forward to seeing how this turns out, I too read the laws after following the link, and to me it seems as though it is very cut and dry, problem is, I can see some people interpret it different, I believe that the line that will make it turn out all right for the OP "(a) Sections 46.02 and 46.03 do not apply to:"

and the fact that it says that and doesn't specifically say that it exempts only handguns.

I also could see this causing a law change afterwards, but I don't know for sure

oh, and if the knife in that thread you linked too is in fact the one you had, pretty knife lol

It's a nice knife. I am really impressed with it.

As for the law.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm

Sec. 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY

(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:

(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;

I was carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license as issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying.

I met the requirements of (6) so it states, not just a single part, but the whole section 46.02 doesn't apply.

(6) could have also stated driving a vehicle with a license of the same class as endorsed on the license.

Really straight forward.

Are you all afraid of carrying an "Illegal knife" while fishing as well?
 
Last edited:
I will say that re reading it as you stated just about, the wording seems to exclude the entire section of 46.02, but I doubt that was the intention of the law makers. Is their any known case law that would have addressed this matter? The play on words is something that often goes the wrong way for the defendant in court, and the fact being the law was "broken" in the eyes of the officers in the place you were will influence the way the court looks at this ( fair or nor it is what will happen). The Florida law was changed years back to clearly allow for switchblades since a Appellate judge had ruled that all switchblades were illegal even though the wording of the law at the time only defined what we all know as a ballistic knife as illegal. You never know how the court will view this wording and the assumed intent of the law makers. On my reading of it, I would have concurred with the officers who decided you were not compliant with the law. I can only assume that you will have a rough ride in this case no matter how it goes. Once again, good luck, but I think I would have gotten a DA ( or ADA) or some ranking Police offical to give you a written opinion that your reading was in fact correct, before testing it the way you have chosen to do. That would have offered a much stronger defense. Preparation for battle often decides the winner of the battle, and while your intentions seem well placed, your location of the test, and apparent lack of seeking legal direction prior to your testing the limits, all may hurt your chances or at least prolong the case against you....
 
I will say that re reading it as you stated just about, the wording seems to exclude the entire section of 46.02, but I doubt that was the intention of the law makers. Is their any known case law that would have addressed this matter? The play on words is something that often goes the wrong way for the defendant in court, and the fact being the law was "broken" in the eyes of the officers in the place you were will influence the way the court looks at this ( fair or nor it is what will happen). The Florida law was changed years back to clearly allow for switchblades since a Appellate judge had ruled that all switchblades were illegal even though the wording of the law at the time only defined what we all know as a ballistic knife as illegal. You never know how the court will view this wording and the assumed intent of the law makers. On my reading of it, I would have concurred with the officers who decided you were not compliant with the law. I can only assume that you will have a rough ride in this case no matter how it goes. Once again, good luck, but I think I would have gotten a DA ( or ADA) or some ranking Police offical to give you a written opinion that your reading was in fact correct, before testing it the way you have chosen to do. That would have offered a much stronger defense. Preparation for battle often decides the winner of the battle, and while your intentions seem well placed, your location of the test, and apparent lack of seeking legal direction prior to your testing the limits, all may hurt your chances or at least prolong the case against you....

do you live in florida?? I have a copy of that law.
 
Speaking as someone who has been through the criminal justice system (with negative results) I sympathize for you.

It really does leave me shaking my head to think that TWELVE cops had nothing better to do than sit around and debate whether or not a guy who has a permit to carry a CONCEALD HANDGUN should be arrested and taken to jail and have his life turned upside-down for carrying a knife. Not exactly a shining day for law enforcement. But hey, welcome to the US criminal justice system.

I wish you the best of luck.
 
Last edited:
Oh sure, everyone can run down and get a DA or asisstant DA to write a judgment of the law. Those ADs have nothing better to do and know their boss allows them that freedom.

I actually interpreted the law as th OP did. But, I am not a lawyer.
 
Last edited:
Actually you often can get an opinion form the DA or ADA...I have often.....It is all in how you ask.....
 
Actually you often can get an opinion form the DA or ADA...I have often.....It is all in how you ask.....

There are only a handful of folks who can ask the Texas State DA their opinion on the law and I did try to get those folks to ask.
 
There's absolutely zero question that the ACTUAL WORDS of the statute allow for the carry of an "illegal knife" as long as you have both your CHL and your gun on you. We've discussed this in this state for years.

This'll be interesting.
 
OP: I wouldn't have carried that knife. That said, I hope things turn out well for you, and also hope that this might be a catalyst to improving our archaic knife laws!

Best of luck to you!
 
Back
Top