TexasCHLforum.com

The way I'm reading it, it appears that the bar has been lowered from deadly force to the lower standard of just "force" (ie. having to push, shove, hit someone). I can display my weapon but not actually use it if it hasn't escalated to the criteria for using deadly force.

Here's how I think it would play out in my mind. Under the old rules I would not be able to display and/or use my firearm except when meeting the deadly force criteria. With the new law I can now display my weapon when met with a simple fist fight or similar physical altercation that isn't considered life threatening (yeah I know a punch can kill but not the point right now). I see myself now having the option to uncover my "concealed" handgun, not necessarily draw it, to dissuade an aggressor from continuing to threaten or engage in a physical confrontation.

Long story short...I can now lift my shirt and put my hand on my gun in response to some roided out bully looking for a fight and not be guilty of failure to conceal. I am not justified in using deadly force but can still "display" my gun. Now here's the best part as I see it. If the aggressor continues to engage you I would think it escalates to justified deadly force since he is now attacking someone who is armed. The presence of the gun itself escalates the aggressors attack since as soon as he is aware of the gun and doesn't back off you can certainly say it is a deadly situation. You cannot let someone gain control of your gun. I don't have to wait, ala GZ, to be on the ground being pummeled to death to access my firearm. I can be a little more proactive.

I think this also disarms the bullies who threaten all sorts of bluster about beating you up and then get to call the cops when you finally take them seriously and draw or display your gun. "I never touched him officer, he just totally over reacted to me talking smack" won't be a defense anymore and the cops should let you go on your merry way while they deal with the drunk frat boys causing trouble.

olafpfj wrote:The way I'm reading it, it appears that the bar has been lowered from deadly force to the lower standard of just "force" (ie. having to push, shove, hit someone). I can display my weapon but not actually use it if it hasn't escalated to the criteria for using deadly force.

That was already the standard in Chapter 9. What changes is that, under circumstances where it's justified as force under Chapter 9, CHL won't have to worry about a chickenfeathers charge of intentionally failing to conceal.

tbrown wrote:

olafpfj wrote:The way I'm reading it, it appears that the bar has been lowered from deadly force to the lower standard of just "force" (ie. having to push, shove, hit someone). I can display my weapon but not actually use it if it hasn't escalated to the criteria for using deadly force.

That was already the standard in Chapter 9. What changes is that, under circumstances where it's justified as force under Chapter 9, CHL won't have to worry about a chickenfeathers charge of intentionally failing to conceal.

I think for me the best way to think about it is that it defines a narrow limited exception to the open carry ban. I can temporarily open carry if it is in response to a situation that meets the criteria for using force.

Does that sound about right?

tbrown wrote:

olafpfj wrote:The way I'm reading it, it appears that the bar has been lowered from deadly force to the lower standard of just "force" (ie. having to push, shove, hit someone). I can display my weapon but not actually use it if it hasn't escalated to the criteria for using deadly force.

That was already the standard in Chapter 9. What changes is that, under circumstances where it's justified as force under Chapter 9, CHL won't have to worry about a chickenfeathers charge of intentionally failing to conceal.

This has been my take on the new amendment - a clarification of circumstances where uncovering a concealed weapon is allowed. It's even possible that the way that the law will be written was what the legislature actually intended in the first place.

olafpfj wrote:

tbrown wrote:

olafpfj wrote:The way I'm reading it, it appears that the bar has been lowered from deadly force to the lower standard of just "force" (ie. having to push, shove, hit someone). I can display my weapon but not actually use it if it hasn't escalated to the criteria for using deadly force.

That was already the standard in Chapter 9. What changes is that, under circumstances where it's justified as force under Chapter 9, CHL won't have to worry about a chickenfeathers charge of intentionally failing to conceal.

I think for me the best way to think about it is that it defines a narrow limited exception to the open carry ban. I can temporarily open carry if it is in response to a situation that meets the criteria for using force.

Does that sound about right?

You might be on thin ice with this. The legislature had ample opportunity to pass an actual open carry bill, but ultimately did not. As the passed bill was written, displaying a concealed weapon is limited only to situations where the use of force or deadly force is justified. Open carry, even immediately outside the prescribed circumstance could be seen as 'in a manner calculated to cause alarm'.

PC §9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately
necessary to avoid imminent harm;
(2) the desirability and ur gency of avoiding the harm clearly
outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm
sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and
(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the
conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

texanjoker wrote:Interesting information. I won't claim to be an expert for that law and this is not legal advice, but I was taught to draw my weapon "in anticipation of danger."

As a LEO, though, right? Inside my house or on my own property I'll follow that same rule, but out and about the rules for me are quite different. Although, a little less so with this new law.

Until SB-299, TX 46.035 and TX PC 9.04 did not match. As was mentioned, TX Courts found that a person could be prosecuted under 46.035 for displaying a weapon before the incident reached the level of Deadly Force. This discrepancy, and similar issues with NC law created the circumstances where on two occasions there were criminals (potential) inside my "personal perimeter" and it was probably too late for my gun to be employed effectively. (This is difficult to describe in words and make it into a broader scenario.... For the purpose of this discussion please try to imagine how this COULD happen, rather than focusing on how it can be avoided. - That's a separate discussion. At least I'd like it to be a separate discussion.)

I think displaying a concealed handgun early in a confrontation is a 50/50 proposition. It could change the other guy's mind, or it could just as easily escalate a situation to a deadly force situation.

In the given example from earlier, drawing a weapon stopped the burglary and kept the thief from getting away.

In a more recent example, the potential attackers changed their minds.

I was in a situation a few months back where I chose to deescalate a situation with a hot head in a parking lot. I ended up telling the guy to go on about his business while moving away from him and preparing to draw if he advanced toward me. I have a feeling that if I'd drawn, he may have tried to get more aggressive not believing I would fire.

I still maintain that the new provision won't alter my mental plan of action. But this topic has given me a lot to think about.

TexasCajun wrote: I was in a situation a few months back where I chose to deescalate a situation with a hot head in a parking lot. I ended up telling the guy to go on about his business while moving away from him and preparing to draw if he advanced toward me. I have a feeling that if I'd drawn, he may have tried to get more aggressive not believing I would fire.

I still maintain that the new provision won't alter my mental plan of action. But this topic has given me a lot to think about.

I must be really tired. I had to read that 3-4 times before I read "hot head" correctly instead of "head shot." I kept thinking, yeah, I bet that deescalated things quickly.

TexasCajun wrote:

olafpfj wrote:

tbrown wrote:

olafpfj wrote:The way I'm reading it, it appears that the bar has been lowered from deadly force to the lower standard of just "force" (ie. having to push, shove, hit someone). I can display my weapon but not actually use it if it hasn't escalated to the criteria for using deadly force.

That was already the standard in Chapter 9. What changes is that, under circumstances where it's justified as force under Chapter 9, CHL won't have to worry about a chickenfeathers charge of intentionally failing to conceal.

I think for me the best way to think about it is that it defines a narrow limited exception to the open carry ban. I can temporarily open carry if it is in response to a situation that meets the criteria for using force.

Does that sound about right?

You might be on thin ice with this. The legislature had ample opportunity to pass an actual open carry bill, but ultimately did not. As the passed bill was written, displaying a concealed weapon is limited only to situations where the use of force or deadly force is justified. Open carry, even immediately outside the prescribed circumstance could be seen as 'in a manner calculated to cause alarm'.

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying that this has anything to do with open carry. What I'm saying is that being able to "display" your handgun, as in intentionally fail to conceal, is in action the same as open carry. I was simply stating a mindset to help clarify what the new rule is in practice. In states where open carry is allowed you don't have to worry about any of this. If someone gets upitty you can simply exercise your right to open carry and reveal your holstered gun, assuming it was concealed in the first place. SB-299 seems to give Texans the same option now but only given a situation that meets the criteria for use of force.

It gives CHL's a defense to failure to conceal when a situation hasn't quite reached the "deadly force" level. I can reveal and prepare to draw my pistol, without actually drawing it, to deescalate an impending physical confrontation and not be breaking any laws, specifically intentional failure to conceal. We have had several posts on this forum of people doing just that and getting a pass from the responding officers. Now there is an actual law confirming the practice as legal and we don't need to rely on the good nature and understanding of the police to avoid a legal problem. It should also put an end to people riling up and threatening a CHL until he draws and then calling the cops on them for doing so. I'm not sure how much of a problem that really is but it is certainly a situation I have worried about, that grey area between an impending physical altercation and an actual physical altercation.

I certainly wouldn't pull my shirt back and threaten use of my pistol lightly but I feel a little better knowing that I don't have to agonize and second guess the decision quite as hard.

That's how I see it currently. Pretty much like tbrown put it in the above quote.

The new law may provide defense, but not immunity. That's where it becomes a personal decision. You may be arrested, charged, and tried.

I'm pretty sure I've seen this posted here before, but it's still good information, especially in light of the law change.

LEO training video in regards to safe distance needed if you are attacked with a knife.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=2xpcrDzy344[/youtube]

TexasCajun wrote:Why is any adjustment in 'when to draw' necessary? Sure, the new law gives us a bit more leeway. But that doesn't mean we should necessarily use it. My mindset from before day 1 has always been that my gun comes out only when it's time to use it. I don't consider display to be very effective at deescalation. I will do everything that I can to make sure that my gun as an absolute last resort.