In the Texas Administrative Code. Title 37, Part 1, §6.42:
"A license holder carrying a handgun must keep the handgun concealed. This restriction does not apply if the license holder displays the handgun under circumstances in which the actor would have been justified in the use of deadly force under Texas Penal Code, Chapter 9.
Violation is a Class A misdemeanor under Texas Penal Code, §46.035."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is why I am in favor of either the removal of the penalty, for the "display" of a handgun, or the de-facto nullification of it, through an amendment to allow the "option" for "open carry" of a firearm...
Later,
Steve
OK, I am going to broach the subject...
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
- stevie_d_64
- Senior Member
- Posts: 7590
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
- Location: 77504
FYI...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
- Charles L. Cotton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17788
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
- Location: Friendswood, TX
- Contact:
Steve:
I agree that it is absurd for this violation to be a Class A Misdemeanor! It should be either a Class C with no enhancement for multiple offences , or treated like failure to present your CHL to a LEO; i.e. suspension for the first one or two violations, then a Class C. (I know, failure to tender a CHL is a Class B, after the suspension part is met.)
The only time this provision would be used is if a CHL simply "intentionally" failed to conceal the handgun. If they threatened anyone with the gun, without legal justification, whether by drawing, or pulling their coat back to show it, etc., then there are appropriate charges to be filed such as assault, aggravated assault, terroristic threat, etc.
Regards,
Chas.
I agree that it is absurd for this violation to be a Class A Misdemeanor! It should be either a Class C with no enhancement for multiple offences , or treated like failure to present your CHL to a LEO; i.e. suspension for the first one or two violations, then a Class C. (I know, failure to tender a CHL is a Class B, after the suspension part is met.)
The only time this provision would be used is if a CHL simply "intentionally" failed to conceal the handgun. If they threatened anyone with the gun, without legal justification, whether by drawing, or pulling their coat back to show it, etc., then there are appropriate charges to be filed such as assault, aggravated assault, terroristic threat, etc.
Regards,
Chas.
- stevie_d_64
- Senior Member
- Posts: 7590
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
- Location: 77504
Then we are in agreement on the "absurdness" of the penalties...Charles L. Cotton wrote:Steve:
I agree that it is absurd for this violation to be a Class A Misdemeanor! It should be either a Class C with no enhancement for multiple offences , or treated like failure to present your CHL to a LEO; i.e. suspension for the first one or two violations, then a Class C. (I know, failure to tender a CHL is a Class B, after the suspension part is met.)
The only time this provision would be used is if a CHL simply "intentionally" failed to conceal the handgun. If they threatened anyone with the gun, without legal justification, whether by drawing, or pulling their coat back to show it, etc., then there are appropriate charges to be filed such as assault, aggravated assault, terroristic threat, etc.
Regards,
Chas.
The whole idea of the thread, and the poll "txinvestigator" started, was to take the temperature of the "forum" on a possible solution, and the pros and cons of that solution...We know that one idea, "open carry" was one of them, the other was to explore ways to get the statute changed and lower the penalty of the offence...
It seems I have stirred the pot too much with this issue...I apologize...That was not my intent...
Looking at the bills introduced this session in Austin proves that there are a lot of moves to improve the law we carry under...There are also continued attacks on it...The more we push the envelope in our favor, I think thats a good thing...And it reduces and renders those restrictive and negative bills against us to die in committee for the most part...
I'm not boasting, but I do have a neighborly rapore with my State Rep and State Senator...They are both "A's" as far as our agenda goes...I am certainly not a one issue constituent either, and get to discuss a great many other things with them on many occasions...
I am exploring taking some suggestions to improve this law very soon...It's not going to happen this session, but it may come around on the next one...
I should have moved this discussion to the "legistlative" part of the forum, but yer the mod...hehehe
Maybe during a lull in the State IDPA match we can throw it around some more...Its hard to do it much here...A few people here should be there for that match...
Ya'll can chew me out then...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
- Charles L. Cotton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17788
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
- Location: Friendswood, TX
- Contact:
Not at all! This topic always generates a great deal of discussion and is one concerning which many pro-gun folks have strong and differing opinions.stevie_d_64 wrote:It seems I have stirred the pot too much with this issue...I apologize...That was not my intent...
I have suggested that we push a bill to reduce the penalty for failure to conceal to one of the two suggestions I mentioned earlier. It wasn't acted upon for two reasons. First, we had no information about anyone ever being prosecuted solely for failure to conceal. Secondly, we always seem to have far more important issues to address and bills to push and/or oppose. We can discuss a constituent bill when we talk about other things.
Regards,
Chas.