Search found 3 matches

by troglodyte
Wed Dec 29, 2004 11:26 pm
Forum: Goals for 2007
Topic: Changes to CHL law
Replies: 37
Views: 12467

I was looking at my copy dated 2001-2002 in the DPS Rules section in the back. It simply says "A license holder carrying a handgun must keep the handgun concealed...."

PC section 46.035 (as Lindy correctly points out) uses the words "intentionally fails to conceal".

Lindy - Thanks for the explaination on the church/hospital carry wording. I knew the law was changed, I just didn't know the details. You're correct, we take what we can get.

Now I wish we could ease the school/university carry.

Trog
by troglodyte
Tue Dec 28, 2004 2:36 am
Forum: Goals for 2007
Topic: Changes to CHL law
Replies: 37
Views: 12467

Lindy wrote:I'm opposed to open carry. I want criminals to be in doubt about who is carrying and who isn't.

I assume that by "flashing" or "printing", you refer to section 42.01a(8), Disorderly Conduct, which refers to "displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm." As long as you don't deliberately uncover your handgun, it's hard to see how that would be interpreted to apply by a reasonable person.

Someone else earlier refered to hospitals and churchs - the current law is pretty clear that in both cases you must be given effective notice.
Actually I was referring to section 6.42 (page 70 in my book). Failure to Conceal Handgun. A license holder carrying a handgun must keep the handgun concealed. yada, yada, yada.

I'm not a proponent of open carry. Maybe I should have stated that we needed an "inadvertant exposure of concealed weapon" clause. I'm all for keeping it concealed but accidents do happen.

Concerning the church/hopital (and other places). It states that it is illegal then says you have to have been given effective notice. How is that different than the 30.06 section? It was originally written in then change a few years later. I just think they need to reword the section (or get rid of it). Churches and hospitals could post under the regular 30.06 like businesses. Maybe I'm missing the boat on this but I see too many posts on other boards concerning, especially churches, the legality of carrying in said places. Too many still think it is automatically illegal.

I know, I know, they should read. Sometimes it's not the reading but the understanding that gets them (me). The State could word it in a more clear manner, IMHO.

Best,
Trog
by troglodyte
Fri Dec 24, 2004 4:38 pm
Forum: Goals for 2007
Topic: Changes to CHL law
Replies: 37
Views: 12467

I'd like several things addressed (passed) this session

Lower fees - always good in my book.

Lengthening CHL - sounds good but I can live with the four year term.

DL notation - Doesn't bother me either way. Would be a little more convienent I guess.

What I would like to see -

No civil suit allowed if defense was justifiable.
Fewer no-carry sites. Especially schools, hospitals, court buildings, etc.
Rewording "church-carry" sections - tends to be confusing the way it is now.
Open carry legal (at least with CHL). Relieves flashing/printing issues.

Return to “Changes to CHL law”