TexasCHLforum.com

PappaGun wrote:It's amazing that he would believe his weapon would stay concealed while carrying OWB and riding.
Who knows, maybe he's carrying illegally.
(Without a CHL)

I'm not a lawyer, but strictly speaking, if he has a CHL and as long as he didn't INTENTIONALLY fail to conceal, he's not committing a crime. Your comment seems to point towards negligence and as Charles pointed out in another thread, that's not a part of the law. Given the photo, I'd say his clothing was sufficient to cover his gun under most circumstances so it is likely the he was unaware that his gun was showing. While that might be poor planning, it isn't illegal.

I've been in the exact same situation. I was riding and at some point my jacket rode up partially exposing my gun. At some point I realized it and took corrective action but if I had gotten stopped before I noticed, I don't think it would have been appropriate to arrest me. I certainly was not INTENTIONALLY going exposed. Accidential exposure can happen and that's why Charles and TSRA were wise to suggest the language that we now have.

As others mentioned, I don't want to turn this into an open carry thread, but having open carry be legal certainly would make this a moot issue.

SA-TX

SA-TX wrote:
I'm not a lawyer, but strictly speaking, if he has a CHL and as long as he didn't INTENTIONALLY fail to conceal...

SA-TX

That's an awful lot of qualifiers.
I'm just sayin.
Ask handog about unintentional exposure.

For all we know, he's a cop and he's not breaking any carry laws at all.

True...he could be any number of things. Cops do ride motor cycles. That would explain why he was not too concerned about the weapon showing. I do think that a fellow officer would have no way of knowing he was a cop and might just decide to shoot him off that bike. Oh...hold on...that picture wasn't in Round Rock, was it.

03Lightningrocks wrote: Oh...hold on...that picture wasn't in Round Rock, was it.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! *Heh I thought the same thing*

SA-TX wrote:
I'm not a lawyer, but strictly speaking, if he has a CHL and as long as he didn't INTENTIONALLY fail to conceal, he's not committing a crime.

While you're 100% right, realize that the law is whatever the police officer and the DA say it is until a court tells them differently.

Plenty of people get hassled when they do nothing wrong. Just sayin'

MedicMan, I too am against open carry. Partially for the same reason you are, but also because I think it would lead to more and more establishments bannng weapons altogehter. Currently many business owners operate with the I dont mind what I dont know mentality. if a bunch of the less educated folks start moaning about all the guns in plain view, then the owners may take the approach of no guns period.
Just my opinion.

dac1842 wrote:MedicMan, I too am against open carry. Partially for the same reason you are, but also because I think it would lead to more and more establishments bannng weapons altogehter. Currently many business owners operate with the I dont mind what I dont know mentality. if a bunch of the less educated folks start moaning about all the guns in plain view, then the owners may take the approach of no guns period.
Just my opinion.

That is my concern as well, but proponents of open carry are quick to point out open carry in other States doesn't create this problem. I would be a supporter of open carry if there would be a law forbidding retailers from discriminating against gun owners in the same way they can't discriminate against minority groups.

That guy needs to look into getting a shoulder rig, or a pocket gun. On another note, he looks like he is about to lose his wallet as well. He needs to reorganize his load all the way around!

SA-TX wrote: I'm not a lawyer, but strictly speaking, if he has a CHL and as long as he didn't INTENTIONALLY fail to conceal, he's not committing a crime. Your comment seems to point towards negligence and as Charles pointed out in another thread, that's not a part of the law. Given the photo, I'd say his clothing was sufficient to cover his gun under most circumstances so it is likely the he was unaware that his gun was showing. While that might be poor planning, it isn't illegal.

Strictly speaking, he's clearly in violation of 46.02. Does he even have a CHL? Well surely we ought to pull him over and detain him for a while just to find out. I can see he needs a real talking to, ie some serious harassment as a minimum. Once we get him stopped it's probably prudent to draw our weapon on him and put this armed suspect face down on the ground. Did he have a CHL? Well, we better call for a backup unit. He's going to jail. We'll let the judge decide what intentional means. Might as well get him handcuffed and get busy searching his vehicle while we wait. Hope nobody he knows sees him getting treated like a dangerous felon on the side of the road. Of course, we won't hold this cop responsible for this little misunderstanding. All ends well after he spends a few nights in jail, and his expensive lawyer convinces the judge he wasn't doing anything illegal! Oh, and no big hurry giving his gun back, re-instating his CHL, or expunging his record of the arrest. I hope he learned his lesson! Thanks for taking that ride with me!

Accidential exposure can happen and that's why Charles and TSRA were wise to suggest the language that we now have.

Yes, thanks to that language, we don't get convicted of a Class A misdemeanor with suspension of our CHL for five years on top of all of the above. No doubt, that's better than nothing. Silly me for expecting that exercising a fundamental right would be just outright respected by the state of Texas just like in so many other states. If I were the guy in this picture though, I'd be just a tad more confident if 46.02 was repealed just as the voters who amended the constitution in 1876 intended.

As others mentioned, I don't want to turn this into an open carry thread, but having open carry be legal certainly would make this a moot issue.

There's no hiding it. This is an open carry thread. We can talk about it here, or we can go back to the stuffed and cuffed thread where handog recently found out that just printing is being interpreted as intentional failure to conceal in Texas. That, despite all the fine language we have in 46.03 and all the assurances we got last year about how this was such a bogus thing to worry about.

HGWC is right.
-----
Moot is Moot!
-----

What makes you think it'd be any better if we had an open carry law?

People in open carry states still get harassed for open carry while doing so legally.

The problem is that law enforcement officers in effect get to say what the law is on the spot. In many cases, the brass in their department specifically give orders to harass people following the law. See what's happenning in the California Open Carry movement, for instance. (Which I am having a lot of fun with with my recent visits there!)

The real endgame here should be forcing law enforcement to obey the law. The ACTUAL law, not the law as they think it should be, but he real, actual, written law.

</RANT>

nitrogen wrote: ... See what's happenning in the California Open Carry movement, for instance. (Which I am having a lot of fun with with my recent visits there!)...


</RANT>

Ohhhh, PLEASE tell!

PappaGun wrote:

nitrogen wrote: ... See what's happenning in the California Open Carry movement, for instance. (Which I am having a lot of fun with with my recent visits there!)...


</RANT>

Ohhhh, PLEASE tell!

Here you go...

The Annoyed Man wrote:

PappaGun wrote:

nitrogen wrote: ... See what's happenning in the California Open Carry movement, for instance. (Which I am having a lot of fun with with my recent visits there!)...


</RANT>

Ohhhh, PLEASE tell!

Here you go...

I always wonder, do those letters go anywhere or get read, or do they get thrown in the waste basket
But I guess it cant hurt, right?