TexasCHLforum.com

Tracker wrote:Question: Suppose I were to intentionally display a holstered firearm as threat of force to these three when they had stopped 25 feet away. Would I be committing a crime? My goal would be to defuse what I believed/perceived to be a threat before it ever got to a condition Red.

The general guideline that I personally use is if it's not legal to shoot them, it's not legal to show them. So far, I've been fortunate enough to not have to make that call.

Also, welcome to the forum!

Dave2 wrote::
The general guideline that I personally use is if it's not legal to shoot them, it's not legal to show them.

That is the case legally, but once 299 goes into effect we have a little more leeway. Not sure if you knew that already. So it seems he's asking his scenario under the rule of the new law, once in effect.

Tracker wrote:Hi, I'm new to the forum


Question: Suppose I were to intentionally display a holstered firearm as threat of force to these three when they had stopped 25 feet away. Would I be committing a crime? My goal would be to defuse what I believed/perceived to be a threat before it ever got to a condition Red.

Again, WELCOME to the forum. I hope you get a lot out of it AND add a lot to it.

Your question is a valid one. I personally think it is helps in a critical situation if certain 'potential' situations are analyzed in advance so as the make the actual decisions of life and death and lawyers go a bit more efficiently. Obviously each ACTUAL situation must be addressed individually as no one can anticipate all the potential variables. It also works in defensive driving situations.

The answer to your question according to the new wording, in my mind, and I am not a lawyer, is it would be an illegal act to display your weapon given the situation you describe. The other people are still 25 feet away, they have make no actual threats and have violated no law.

The display of a weapon is considered a use of force. It is not justified to do so with no words exchanged (of a threatening nature), no imminent threat, no provocation, no use of force against you. You would have a very tough time with a jury given those circumstances.

CWOOD wrote:The display of a weapon is considered a use of force.

Can you show me where hunting with an unconcealed gun is considered use of force?

gringo pistolero wrote:

CWOOD wrote:The display of a weapon is considered a use of force.

Can you show me where hunting with an unconcealed gun is considered use of force?

Read his comment context. Also read Tex. Penal Code §9.04.

Chas.

CJD wrote:

Dave2 wrote::
The general guideline that I personally use is if it's not legal to shoot them, it's not legal to show them.

That is the case legally, but once 299 goes into effect we have a little more leeway. Not sure if you knew that already. So it seems he's asking his scenario under the rule of the new law, once in effect.

Hi everyone

Yeah, CJD, that's exactly what I'm asking. How would 299 affect my intentionally displaying a holstered gun.

The airport encounter was a factual situation that happened to me years ago. I was about 22 years old at the time. In my 30s I got heavily into close quarter combat training that involved the use of a knife in self defense. My CQC instructor (his background is in Arnis...and a retired police officer) used my scenario as a teaching aide to for when you'd use a concealed grip hiding the blade behind the forearm. At that time (pre 9/11) I could've had a knife on me in Love Field's terminal and had the blade hidden just in case this guy had made any aggressive move at me. At his closes I could have taken one step forward and touched him while his backup(s) stood there about 25 feet away.

Without a doubt I knew that I was being sized up as a mugging target. Given this situation, today, I would want to have a firearm but not have to use it. Hence, 299, simply displaying the fact that I had a holstered pistol in an effort to defuse their sizing me up as a target. Without using a "show of force" I want them to have yet another reason to say, "I don't think he's worth it."

It's situation like mine is why I'm in favor of open carry, as legal protection. My reasoning isn't to be able to walk around with an exposed gun like Oklahomans can (I'd rather not having anyone know I'm carrying) but to give me the judgment to display the holstered gun without the Class A legal recourse if I had reasonable belief my life was endanger.

Like I told my state rep, it would be nice if he could get a change in the law so that the charge for deliberately exposing a holstered gun is dropped from a Class A to a Class C. I told him, "Yeah, I'll take the risk of getting Class C and paying the fine if I thought I was justified for my intentional displaying a holstered pistol as an effort to defuse my becoming another mugging statistic."

Is a holstered handgun considered displayed or do you have to put hands on it to count as use of force? Does it matter if the person wearing the holster is a bank guard at the bank or a landowner on their property?

Lucky wrote:Is a holstered handgun considered displayed or do you have to put hands on it to count as use of force? Does it matter if the person wearing the holster is a bank guard at the bank or a landowner on their property?

The way I read it, you can be in your yard on main street openly carrying. But if you step of the curb onto public property it's a Class A and you lose your CHL

I believe that we are going to get an opinion from the Attorney General on what "display" means. But Charles would be the aficionado on that. I want to know if display means have it in your holster, in your hand, etc...

I would imagine that the new version of CHL-16 would have a (brief) definition of what the word display means in that context.

Like I said, I think you would have to warn them not to come closer and then not listen before you might be able to show the holster as a deterrent.

Yeah, today I would warn not to come closer once he headed my way. At that time I didn't have any way to back up a warning. I didn't want to give them a reason to engage a conversation. I just wanted them to leave me alone and go away. I've done the test myself in the self defense classes, a person can close a 21 foot distance before you can draw a gun. You can increase your chances by dodging but you have to fit.

Lucky wrote:Is a holstered handgun considered displayed or do you have to put hands on it to count as use of force? Does it matter if the person wearing the holster is a bank guard at the bank or a landowner on their property?

I've seen what i think is a good answer to the oposit of this question but talking about this same topic. The question there is what is concealed. What looks like good answers to this question revolve around, "concealed means concealed". It's not covered by your clothing, a towl, something.

With that in mind, if the holster is of a type that you can see the gun, then i'd say it's not concealed and therefore it has been displayed. If the holster was of a fashion that you could not see the gun or tell that it was a holster, that's a different story but I don't think that's what you asked about. So, IMHO if i can see the gun, it's been displayed.

So post SB299, we are allowed to carry concealed unless the use of force has been justified, in which case we may display.

jerry_r60 wrote:

Lucky wrote:Is a holstered handgun considered displayed or do you have to put hands on it to count as use of force? Does it matter if the person wearing the holster is a bank guard at the bank or a landowner on their property?

I've seen what i think is a good answer to the oposit of this question but talking about this same topic. The question there is what is concealed. What looks like good answers to this question revolve around, "concealed means concealed". It's not covered by your clothing, a towl, something.

With that in mind, if the holster is of a type that you can see the gun, then i'd say it's not concealed and therefore it has been displayed. If the holster was of a fashion that you could not see the gun or tell that it was a holster, that's a different story but I don't think that's what you asked about. So, IMHO if i can see the gun, it's been displayed.

So post SB299, we are allowed to carry concealed unless the use of force has been justified, in which case we may display.

I tend to agree with this line of thought. 411.171 is not changing and still defines concealed as

"“Concealed handgun” means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.

So once the presence becomes openly discernable, you are displaying. Accidental is not a crime, but intentional is unless use of force or threat of force is justified under 9.04.

I'm concerned that some will try and take advantage of this by using intentially inadequate concealment such as not buttoning their cover garment, or a shirt that is known to be too short and allowing the intential flashing of the gun or bottom of an obvious holster.

This is not "open carry Lite".

Tracker wrote: Yeah, CJD, that's exactly what I'm asking. How would 299 affect my intentionally displaying a holstered gun.

"§ 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of
force is justified when the use of force is justified by this
chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or
serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as
long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension
that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the
use of deadly force."

The bold part above applying to CHL holders is what's new with SB299, at least that's my understanding. But this only applies when the use of force is justified, and as others have pointed out your scenario doesn't really fit unless the situation were to further escalate due to actions by the other party.

It's situation like mine is why I'm in favor of open carry, as legal protection. My reasoning isn't to be able to walk around with an exposed gun like Oklahomans can (I'd rather not having anyone know I'm carrying) but to give me the judgment to display the holstered gun without the Class A legal recourse if I had reasonable belief my life was endanger.

I think this would be a big advantage even for those who prefer to carry concealed, and I can think of lots of scenarios where being able to show a holstered weapon could diffuse a situation before it ever even starts.