TexasCHLforum.com

Keith, I find the concept that telling someone you're armed is falling to conceal, to be linguistically torturous. I suppose a rabid prosecutor might try to make that argument, but I doubt a judge, or jury would buy it. IMHO, of course - and worth what you paid for it.

sjfcontrol wrote:Keith, I find the concept that telling someone you're armed is falling to conceal, to be linguistically torturous. I suppose a rabid prosecutor might try to make that argument, but I doubt a judge, or jury would buy it. IMHO, of course - and worth what you paid for it.

It would be a stretch, but if I was a vindictive DA and wanted to try and twist it for a conviction it might fly.

Carry concealed. Be quiet about it and smile.
No need to tell it to everyone at the table. The next table over could hear it and panic.
Unless I know that everyone else is carrying too I don't talk about guns in public. Oh, except at the range.

Absent a threatening manner of speech, I find it difficult to believe that you can be considered to have intent to cause alarm. That plus a failure to display a firearm would not be a failure to conceal under the old law in my opinion. If I were a juror on such a case, the prosecutor would probably have a hard time selling that to me.

sbrawley wrote:

Keith B wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Keith, I find the concept that telling someone you're armed is falling to conceal, to be linguistically torturous. I suppose a rabid prosecutor might try to make that argument, but I doubt a judge, or jury would buy it. IMHO, of course - and worth what you paid for it.

It would be a stretch, but if I was a vindictive DA and wanted to try and twist it for a conviction it might fly.

Unless the definition of "concealed" is/was listed in the statute, then all a prosecutor would have had to do was read the definition of concealed from a dictionary to a jury, emphasizing the verbiage of "keep (something) secret; prevent from being known or noticed", as Keith pointed out. An anti-gun or fence sitter would definitely take that definition into consideration when determining guilt of the accused.

And a good defense attorney would counter that with multiple definitions from other dictionaries, and requesting the court declare one dictionary to be the definitive one. If my understanding of "concealed" is different from your understanding, then an impartial third party must be the arbiter, and the prosecution is not impartial. One could hope for "reasonable doubt" concerning the definition.

sbrawley wrote:

Keith B wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Keith, I find the concept that telling someone you're armed is falling to conceal, to be linguistically torturous. I suppose a rabid prosecutor might try to make that argument, but I doubt a judge, or jury would buy it. IMHO, of course - and worth what you paid for it.

It would be a stretch, but if I was a vindictive DA and wanted to try and twist it for a conviction it might fly.

Unless the definition of "concealed" is/was listed in the statute, then all a prosecutor would have had to do was read the definition of concealed from a dictionary to a jury, emphasizing the verbiage of "keep (something) secret; prevent from being known or noticed", as Keith pointed out. An anti-gun or fence sitter would definitely take that definition into consideration when determining guilt of the accused.

If you're keeping a secret, then telling that secret to somebody would be failure to conceal it. If you're concealing a firearm, then telling someone about it would NOT be a failure to conceal. Suppose I told somebody that I had a firearm, when I actually didn't? Would I still be guilty of failure to conceal? Such consideration opens up a whole plethora of strange "what if's". Suppose I didn't have either a gun, or a CHL. Yet I told somebody that I had a license and a gun. Can you convict someone without a license or a gun with failure to conceal?

Yes, an avid prosecutor could try to make that case. But I doubt that he would be successful in Texas.

To me this is a lot like a a couple of situations that happened in VA, having to do with brandishing and that it isn't a term that is spelled out exactly in the letter of the law in VA. I can recall two (recent) cases where an arrest took place for acts that I believe nobody here could conceive as brandishing (one was a shaking my finger kind of thing, and the other involved claimed being observed moving gun from car center console). Second case is I believe still under appeal after his conviction. Both were arrested for brandishing, a term with no spelled out exacting definition. Words have meaning, or at least they are supposed to. And there is always a prosecutor out there willing to warp the meaning of a word. So I think that Keith makes a very valid point about a potentially vindictive DA.

Enough with the "what ifs", I'm . Y'all have a nice day.

Oldgringo wrote:Enough with the "what ifs", I'm . Y'all have a nice day.

Hope you didn't lay awake all night worrying about this quandry.

As I stated above, getting a conviction (under the old statute) by verbal disclosure of your firearm would be a stretch. As a DA I would argue the dictionary definition, which is the same in most dictionaries I have looked up the word conceal in.

Now, as a defense attorney I would argue from the intent of the statute. I would point out that the 'intent' of the law was to make cure the firearm was 'concealed from sight' by means of a cover garment or other method. I would stress that the 'intent' was not meant to disallow verbal acknowledgment of the possession and carrying to someone who you wished to disclose the fact you are carrying to.

So, we really don't know if or if not someone would be charged and convicted (under the old law) by doing this. It can be argued, but that is it.

I contend it is NOT illegal in any way now as the new statute change made it clear it was 'intentional display' only that is illegal.

Keith B wrote:As I stated above, getting a conviction (under the old statute) by verbal disclosure of your firearm would be a stretch. As a DA I would argue the dictionary definition, which is the same in most dictionaries I have looked up the word conceal in.

Now, as a defense attorney I would argue from the intent of the statute. I would point out that the 'intent' of the law was to make cure the firearm was 'concealed from sight' by means of a cover garment or other method. I would stress that the 'intent' was not meant to disallow verbal acknowledgment of the possession and carrying to someone who you wished to disclose the fact you are carrying to.

So, we really don't know if or if not someone would be charged and convicted (under the old law) by doing this. It can be argued, but that is it.

I contend it is NOT illegal in any way now as the new statute change made it clear it was 'intentional display' only that is illegal.

OK so now the only open question is do you (or did you under old law) want to be the duhn...duhn...dah.... (proverbial) TEST CASE

if someone asks me if I'm armed, I reply by asking if they're wearing underwear

I like this ploy. Guns are intimate wear, particularly my Kimber. That pert, country-girl cowlick of a delicately curved beavertail, the green-eyed "come hither" I see in my tritium sight picture, the stiletto heel holes jumping on targets, and that trigger. Oh, that trigger break, like the surprised inhale from a properly presented Valentine's Day gift.

Mmmm.... Kimbers....

But, I digress. I figure I would fib by omission, "Why would I want to do that?" That's assuming my CHL ever gets here and I ever actually carry.

Or completely dodge the question. Maybe start singing, loudly, in my best Barbara Streisand voice, "Mem'ries, blight the corners of my mind..."

They won't want answers about a gun, they'll want me to shut up!

Seriously, I think no matter what the law says, for me concealment means psychological concealment as well as physically hidden. By my demeanor and actions, I want to be perceived as harmless and unarmed, which shouldn't be hard for me to do. I'm not a troublemaker.

With malice toward none and a firearm discretely at my side, that's me. Or will be, once my dang CHL gets here.