TexasCHLforum.com

nightmare wrote:

A-R wrote:As for "flashing" depends what you're flashing (breasts are ok under state law, other body parts are not; local laws vary).

Read more under PC 21.08 http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.21.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ask anyone who works in an OR, 90% of the time clothes cover many things that no one would ever want to see. To quote my wife (20 yrs in OR) "It ain't pretty".

Elevators have weight limits. So should yoga pants.

fishman wrote:The easy answer would be, don't show your gun unless your going to use it. AND don't go looking for a reason to use it.

There is your answer. BTW, IANAL nor am I a wannabe law student; ergo, I will not attempt to quote paragraph and verse of the various codes appertaining thereto.

nightmare wrote:Elevators have weight limits. So should yoga pants.

Yoga Pants do have a weight limit, just ask the founder of LuLu Lemon!

RKirkwood wrote:There is a chance he will go and call the police.



TPC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE
HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place in a manner calculated to cause alarm and not pursuant to a justified use of force or threat of force as described in Chapter 9.

BUT
Chapter 9 of the penal code says:

Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.


There are many other that may be able to explain this better.
Bold & Underline added by me.

In our part of the country several idiots have been arrested and charged with "Terrorist Threat" for intentionally pointing a gun at someone without even firing a shot. One couple of years ago did this and was fined and put on probation. He violated probation. He was remanded and sent to prison for a 10 year sentence. "And they walk among us..."

Hofacker wrote: how long do you have to wait before reaching for your gun?

Do yourself a favor and buy a snub nosed revolver or Kel-Tec P3At (or other pocket pistol). That way, you can put your hand on your gun inside your pocket and nobody will accuse you of "flashing". A pocket pistol makes a great BUG or primary carry gun, depending on your needs.

Or change your carry method. Keep your 2 top shirt buttons unbuttond and have your gun in a shoulder holster under your shirt. You can reach for your gun in your holster but your shirt is still covering your gun.

Wear a very small gun on a holster on a necklace.

Wear a holster UNDER your pants and tuck your shirt under the holster. You can reach for your gun and the gun will not show. It will only look like your are scratching yourself.

Belt carry with a shirt tucked over your holster is the worst method of carry if you want to put your hand on the gun in an iffy situation (you are not 100% sure if deadly force is warranted) because if you do so, you'll have to lift your shirt and you'll be "flashing".

Okay, I'd like to get some clarification about "verbal provocation alone". I understand that would include an individual using foul language toward you, but what about a communicated threat of doing you bodily harm? If possible, personally I'm going to depart the area with a quickness. However, I'm curious where a communicated threat falls in regards to the penal code.

K.Mooneyham wrote:Okay, I'd like to get some clarification about "verbal provocation alone". I understand that would include an individual using foul language toward you, but what about a communicated threat of doing you bodily harm? If possible, personally I'm going to depart the area with a quickness. However, I'm curious where a communicated threat falls in regards to the penal code.

IANAL, but I believe that it has to do with the totality of the circumstances. If it obvious that the person "provoking you verbally" doesn't have the physical capability or means of carrying out the threat, then the use of lethal force would not be justified.

Other's please feel free to correct or elaborate.

WildBill wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:Okay, I'd like to get some clarification about "verbal provocation alone". I understand that would include an individual using foul language toward you, but what about a communicated threat of doing you bodily harm? If possible, personally I'm going to depart the area with a quickness. However, I'm curious where a communicated threat falls in regards to the penal code.

IANAL, but I believe that it has to do with the totality of the circumstances. If it obvious that the person "provoking you verbally" doesn't have the physical capability or means of carrying out the threat, then the use of lethal force would not be justified.

Other's please feel free to correct or elaborate.

with WildBill, shooting a parapalegic or a multiple amputee will probably not be well received; however, ymmv.

Oldgringo wrote:

WildBill wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:Okay, I'd like to get some clarification about "verbal provocation alone". I understand that would include an individual using foul language toward you, but what about a communicated threat of doing you bodily harm? If possible, personally I'm going to depart the area with a quickness. However, I'm curious where a communicated threat falls in regards to the penal code.

IANAL, but I believe that it has to do with the totality of the circumstances. If it obvious that the person "provoking you verbally" doesn't have the physical capability or means of carrying out the threat, then the use of lethal force would not be justified.

Other's please feel free to correct or elaborate.

with WildBill, shooting a parapalegic or a multiple amputee will probably not be well received; however, ymmv.

You forgot old blind grandmothers.

Oh come on now, no need to get silly with it. Did I say something that should have led things in that direction? I really was trying ask a serious question.

IANAL YMMV

"Verbal provocation alone" ...

Remember, generally, the other party needs 3 things to put you in reasonable fear of imminent serious injury that would necessitate your immediate self-defense response:

Means
Motive
Opportunity

Verbal provocation = motive

But what are the other party's means and opportunity to make good on that verbal threat? If you cannot articulate this, then best not to "jump the gun" with an over aggressive self- defense response.

Words are words alone and cannot hurt you.

Add means like a visible weapon or significant physical disparity (size, youth, athleticism, numbers of attackers) and opportunity like physical proximity to you that would give the attacker ability to use the weapon and you e changed the self-defense equation.

A guy showing a knife and screaming "I'm gonna gut you like a fish" is not an imminent threat if he is 50 yards away on the other side of a river. But put the same guy only 30 feet away on open, level ground? Now THAT is an imminent threat (search "Tueller Drill".

A-R wrote:IANAL YMMV

"Verbal provocation alone" ...

Remember, generally, the other party needs 3 things to put you in reasonable fear of imminent serious injury that would necessitate your immediate self-defense response:

Means
Motive
Opportunity

Verbal provocation = motive

But what are the other party's means and opportunity to make good on that verbal threat? If you cannot articulate this, then best not to "jump the gun" with an over aggressive self- defense response.

Words are words alone and cannot hurt you.

Add means like a visible weapon or significant physical disparity (size, youth, athleticism, numbers of attackers) and opportunity like physical proximity to you that would give the attacker ability to use the weapon and you e changed the self-defense equation.

A guy showing a knife and screaming "I'm gonna gut you like a fish" is not an imminent threat if he is 50 yards away on the other side of a river. But put the same guy only 30 feet away on open, level ground? Now THAT is an imminent threat (search "Tueller Drill".

Okay, that's a little more toward what I was thinking. However, that is a pretty far extreme between both of those scenarios. I worry more about something a little more "real-world", though, like a guy who's got 20 or 25 pounds and 2 or 3 inches on me in height with his fists balled up saying he's going to "whoop me" while in a parking lot at the local Wallyworld. Like I said, I'm generally going to beat a hasty retreat, but I would imagine that isn't always possible. And though I probably wasn't clear enough to begin with, I'm most concerned about how {Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.} comes into play in a situation like that.

K.Mooneyham wrote:Oh come on now, no need to get silly with it. Did I say something that should have led things in that direction? I really was trying ask a serious question.

This is a serious subject. I apologize for my levity.

K.Mooneyham wrote: Okay, that's a little more toward what I was thinking. However, that is a pretty far extreme between both of those scenarios. I worry more about something a little more "real-world", though, like a guy who's got 20 or 25 pounds and 2 or 3 inches on me in height with his fists balled up saying he's going to "whoop me" while in a parking lot at the local Wallyworld. Like I said, I'm generally going to beat a hasty retreat, but I would imagine that isn't always possible. And though I probably wasn't clear enough to begin with, I'm most concerned about how {Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.} comes into play in a situation like that.

Again, I think that it is going to boil down to the totality of circumstances. At least for me, in the "real world", 20-25 pounds or 2-3" in height isn't going to be a factor. The bottom line is: I am not getting into a physical altercation with a stranger in a parking lot. If I believe that I am in fear of great bodily harm, then I will act accordingly. Again, I am not a lawyer, but I believe that if you can reasonably articulate your reason for displaying your weapon in this type of circumstance you won't be breaking the law and would not be charged with a crime.

Here's another scenario in a parking lot. I am going to my car with a basket full of things that I bought in the store. A man runs up and grabs a bag of my stuff and runs away. Will I draw? Probably not. If I reach to stop him and he hits me or grabs me or knocks me down or shows a weapon, my response will probably be different.