Search found 3 matches
Return to “concealed definition”
- Wed Jun 20, 2018 1:40 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: concealed definition
- Replies: 24
- Views: 6987
Re: concealed definition
You know what I find amusing? Being on topic and getting jumped on about it by folks discussing taping a flip-flop to a belt and using it for a holster. That's really rich. If I actually see someone do that, I'll be sure to let y'all know right away.
- Wed Jun 20, 2018 10:19 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: concealed definition
- Replies: 24
- Views: 6987
Re: concealed definition
I understand what you are saying. However, violating 30.07 is easy; openly carry a handgun in a belt or shoulder holster, and simply walk past the sign. But if the place had a 30.07, and you were concealed, could you conceivably be arrested for it becoming unconcealed, since there doesn't seem to be an official definition of what concealed means? Or, is that a moot point now? And in the scenario I'm speaking of, no one asks you to leave prior to calling the police. They spot your handgun and immediately get on the phone to the police without saying a word to you.twomillenium wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:02 amIf the officer chose to make you defend yourself it would result in receiving a ticket. The arrest would come if you were asked or told to leave the premises and your did not immediately do so, resulting in an arrest for trespass, not for the 07 or 06 infraction. BTW, the unintentional act of a concealed handgun becoming momentarily visible is not an infraction. This action would have to be proven as intentional. (IMO varying by the liberalness of the county this occurred in) Although, it could result in the licensee being asked to leave and they must do so immediately as not to become guilty of trespass.K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:35 am Well, I'm glad I stumbled across this post. It somehow escaped me that the official definition of concealed had been removed from the Penal Code. However, 30.06 applies to concealed carry. So, without an official definition of concealed, what is the criteria for arrest if one carries past the sign? What about 30.07? The former would seem more clearcut than the latter. You had a handgun on you, you were licensed, and you carried past the 30.06 sign. But if you had the handgun covered by say, an untucked shirt, and it became momentarily visible when bending over, etc, and someone called the police on you for violating 30.07 without your knowledge, is that grounds for arrest when the intent was not to make it visible? Have we come full circle back to it being a matter of loose interpretation? Some older members of this forum will remember a posting about a person who went through a terrible experience over something similar. I am certainly no fan of making laws that apply specifically, but then not defining the parameters for said specific law. The whole point of the legendary Code of Hammurabi wasn't that it was nice to people, but that for the first (known) time, the laws were written down for all (who could read) to see.
I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. This is only how I understand the way it was explained to me.
- Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:35 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: concealed definition
- Replies: 24
- Views: 6987
Re: concealed definition
Well, I'm glad I stumbled across this post. It somehow escaped me that the official definition of concealed had been removed from the Penal Code. However, 30.06 applies to concealed carry. So, without an official definition of concealed, what is the criteria for arrest if one carries past the sign? What about 30.07? The former would seem more clearcut than the latter. You had a handgun on you, you were licensed, and you carried past the 30.06 sign. But if you had the handgun covered by say, an untucked shirt, and it became momentarily visible when bending over, etc, and someone called the police on you for violating 30.07 without your knowledge, is that grounds for arrest when the intent was not to make it visible? Have we come full circle back to it being a matter of loose interpretation? Some older members of this forum will remember a posting about a person who went through a terrible experience over something similar. I am certainly no fan of making laws that apply specifically, but then not defining the parameters for said specific law. The whole point of the legendary Code of Hammurabi wasn't that it was nice to people, but that for the first (known) time, the laws were written down for all (who could read) to see.