TexasCHLforum.com

RiverCity.45 wrote:
With all the recent reporting on gun violence (just yesterday, another today!), I can understand why store patrons would be skiddish.

I can't relate.

If he had been well dressed in slacks and a polo, clean shaven, hair cut, would they have been as skittish?

Do sensational reports of multiple fatalities make the sheeple not drive?

This makes little sense to me.

Anygunanywhere

No one is more pro-gun than am I, but if I see someone in a store with me with a gun, you can bet I'll be keeping my eye on him! I wouldn't care if he looked like our senior pastor at church, or Grizzly Adams on a Harley.

Chas.

I don't know what happened I was not there. We need to be extra careful these days with so many antis stirred up

I see the article says he's charged with unlawful carrying of a weapon. I assume this to be a violation of 46.02 rather than 46.035, unlawful carrying of handgun by license holder.

So the often mentioned "intentionally" failed to conceal is under 46.035.

Under 46.02 you basically can not be in possession of a firearm anywhere but you home, car, or place of business. As CHL holders we are exempt from this due to 46.015 Nonapplicability. Specifically

(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:

(6) is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying;

So the argument goes that the Nonapplicability afforded under 46.015 does not apply to the person carrying an unconcealed handgun, whether it was intentional or not.

I'm not saying I agree, or that it will stand up in court, but it definitely earned this man a ride.

KRM45 wrote:I see the article says he's charged with unlawful carrying of a weapon. I assume this to be a violation of 46.02 rather than 46.035, unlawful carrying of handgun by license holder.

So the often mentioned "intentionally" failed to conceal is under 46.035.

Under 46.02 you basically can not be in possession of a firearm anywhere but you home, car, or place of business. As CHL holders we are exempt from this due to 46.015 Nonapplicability. Specifically

(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:

(6) is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying;

So the argument goes that the Nonapplicability afforded under 46.015 does not apply to the person carrying an unconcealed handgun, whether it was intentional or not.

I'm not saying I agree, or that it will stand up in court, but it definitely earned this man a ride.

The media and even DPS index crimes such that most everything is labeled "unlawful carrying of weapon" when §46.02, §46.03, or §46.035 are violated.

Chas.

I have viewed instances of a man carrying a holstered gun with no indication of a badge, and had it brought to my attention by people that I supervised. I asked them if the person was handling the gun or acted like it was part of his cloths. The answer was always looked like he was use to carrying it. In that case nothing to be alarmed about. I still watched them, just like I watch police and other people. One would be surprised how often some police officers either touch the butt of their guns or adjust the hang over a period of time.