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

metalhead357 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've been. On earned with an LEO interpreting ga knife laws myself. I posted a ? Before abouth the legality of carrying my Microtech OTF. I have a valid GWL but was led to believe that an LEO could easily misinterpret the law and arrest me.
 
The lawyers will get RICH with this case ---

I wish for your case to be over soon and end in your Favor--but I do not think either of those will happen.

I'll wager you will lose your case and possibly your ability to carry a Handgun concealed again.

Why??

Because most of the people in the legal system will assume you already had a gun and did not need such a Large knife as well(Large to them I mean)

We fail to accept the fact most people do not Like knives as we do and most of them view them as weapons....first.

I hope I'm wrong and your lawyer can convince a jury(if it goes that far) that you were in your legal rights to carry both--into the Capitol Building.

I just wish you would have left it (the knife) at home that day--or carried one with a shorter blade(just for that day)..

Dr.Bill
 
In my opinion, the whole limit to the length of the weapon as an infringement is completely unconstitutional.

However, I have on several occasions walked around packed places with cops all over carrying a highly visible sword. Of course I also did so in a costume. So the few times I got stopped by a cop, I merely stated it was a prop to my costume. Of course most of the time it was for renfaires, halloween, or something like that.
 
tcblank said:
In my opinion, the whole limit to the length of the weapon as an infringement is completely unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

No argument there :)

tcblank said:
However, I have on several occasions walked around packed places with cops all over carrying a highly visible sword. Of course I also did so in a costume. So the few times I got stopped by a cop, I merely stated it was a prop to my costume. Of course most of the time it was for renfaires, halloween, or something like that.
Click to expand...

You were actually protected by a specific provision of the law:

(e) The provisions of Section 46.02 prohibiting the carrying of an illegal knife do not apply to an individual carrying a bowie knife or a sword used in a historical demonstration or in a ceremony in which the knife or sword is significant to the performance of the ceremony.
 
A picture is worth a 1000 words. The outcome was a good one. This isn't over as now I get a chance to take the fight to them.

For those who can't see it:
To the honorable judge of said court:
NOW COMES the State of Texas by and though her Attorney, respectfully requests the Court to dismiss the above entitled and numbered criminal action in which the defendant is charged with the offence of Unlawfully Carrying A Weapon for the reason: In The Interest of Justice.

motiontodismiss.png
 
Great.

Does this mean that the DA decided they couldn't win in court and that they didn't want to be the ones to set precedence?
 
That is great news! I know you have had some sleepless nights waiting for that. Thanks for the update:thumbup:
 
Sweet! How much $$$ did the whole thing run you, including bail? Can you sue for that money back?
 
Congrats!!! Glad to see it went that way...Are your gun permits back? ( if they were taken).
 
zzyzzogeton said:
Great.

Does this mean that the DA decided they couldn't win in court and that they didn't want to be the ones to set precedence?
Click to expand...
In my own experience (admittedly in another state), not exactly. It means the state attorney feels that this is not a "just" prosecution, in that even if the defendant broke the statute as written by the letter, this was clearly never what that law was intended to do.
 
Or it could mean it was dismissed "in the interests of Justice" to reduce caseload on a charge of an individual without prior criminal history in such matters. If the individual should like to set precedence by suing the state for wrongful prosecution, to recover costs or some such matter, he may find himself re-arrested.
 
Karda said:
If the individual should like to set precedence by suing the state for wrongful prosecution, to recover costs or some such matter, he may find himself re-arrested.
Click to expand...
Yep, sometimes when the bear decides to let you go, the best thing to do is just limp away and consider yourself lucky. If you go back and start jabbing the bear with a sharp stick, that bear might decide to eat you after all.

Don't mess with the bear, the bear usually wins.
 
Last edited:
In this case the ADA read the law, decided I'd done nothing wrong and dismissed the case in the best of terms.. I'm looking into a civil case.
 
I wouldn't push your luck on a civil case on this matter. A prosecutor deciding not to prosecute does not imply an unlawful arrest or an acquittal of charges. DPS had sufficient probable cause to arrest you on the UCW charge and any civil case is going to base its verdict off of that fact. Count yourself lucky the prosecutor does engage in frivolous prosecution because TX PC 46.15 (b) 6 only applies to a person carrying a handgun as it clearly states in the wording because your CHL only allows you to consealed carry a handgun.

(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;
 
Herzgo said:
I wouldn't push your luck on a civil case on this matter. A prosecutor deciding not to prosecute does not imply an unlawful arrest or an acquittal of charges. DPS had sufficient probable cause to arrest you on the UCW charge and any civil case is going to base its verdict off of that fact. Count yourself lucky the prosecutor does engage in frivolous prosecution because TX PC 46.15 (b) 6 only applies to a person carrying a handgun as it clearly states in the wording because your CHL only allows you to consealed carry a handgun.

(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;
Click to expand...

You may have missed the part where he was carrying a concealed handgun and valid license and the law also clearly states you can carry an illegal knife if you meet those conditions. It is as clear as day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top