Here's one for all the great thinkers and debaters out there...

[Beiruty]

How many days left, until this thread is meaningless?

[lfinsr]

Is it just me? I thought a walk in the park was time to clear your mind, enjoy the outdoors, take in nature...

[Mike S]

The definition of a "concealed handgun" is now meaningless. When SB299 passed in 2013, it changed the operative language of a violation of TPC §46.035(a) from "intentionally fails to conceal the handgun to "displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place." Since concealment is no longer the operative language, the definition is now superfluous.

Chas.

Charles,
Could "...intentionally displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place" be described as "brandishing a firearm"? If so, this might be an easier way to describe it in layman's terms (although 'brandishing' isn't defined in TPC...)

[Charles L. Cotton]

The definition of a "concealed handgun" is now meaningless. When SB299 passed in 2013, it changed the operative language of a violation of TPC §46.035(a) from "intentionally fails to conceal the handgun to "displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place." Since concealment is no longer the operative language, the definition is now superfluous.

Chas.

Charles,
Could "...intentionally displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place" be described as "brandishing a firearm"? If so, this might be an easier way to describe it in layman's terms (although 'brandishing' isn't defined in TPC...)

Texas doesn't have a brandishing law, so not really. The closest thing we have to brandishing is Tex. Penal Code §42.01(8) that reads " displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm," but there's that "displays" word again. The answer to what constitutes displaying a firearm could be answered by researching teh §42.01(8) cases, but I don't have time.

Chas.

[K.Mooneyham]

You know why I love Texas laws regarding firearms, specifically handguns? Because the words "brandishing" and "printing" aren't in them.

And, of course, thanks once again to Mr. Cotton and all the other fine folks who've done so much to make things even better.

[flechero]

I think to the OP's concern- the word "intentional" should ease your concern. Even if it ever went that far- proving intent is a very tall order. And thankfully this won't matter pretty soon.

So for the immediate future, avoid carrying under spandex.

[thetexan]

I may have complicated the question.

My question is this...

Assuming that the 411.171 definition of concealed handgun applies to its usage only in Subchapter H of 411 as it states, and further assuming that the 411.171 definition specifies the kind of gun for which the CH license applies (a concealed handgun, that is not displayed, the opposite of which is covered by 46.035a) does it, or does it not follow that a non-concealed handgun which is not displayed (which is specifically covered by 46.035a) is a gun for which the "concealed" handgun license does not give privileges for, LICENSE WISE.

If you have a non-concealed handgun (as per 411.171) that is not displayed (and therefore covered by 46.035a) are you in possession of a gun that you license does not authorize you to carry? And if so what would that violatiion be? A prohibited weapon? a procedural error? Maybe nothing. Maybe the license issue is not an issue. I tend to think so. Remember the point of the post was just to think out loud and analyze the thing to death just for exercise. Not to start a huge debate.

tex

[The Annoyed Man]

Not meaning to be rude at all, but you are waaaaaaaaayyyyy overthinking and overcomplicating this thing.

The state of the law is this... and forget about getting tangled up in the legaleze:

1. Between now and January 1st, 2016, if you have a CHL, you may lawfully carry a concealed handgun in Texas. "Concealed" means that no part of the pistol is visible to an observer while it is carried on your person.
   
   1. "Printing" does not constitute open display. There is no law concerning printing. Put it out of your mind. It muddies the water and contributes nothing to the general body of CCW knowledge. Just be diligent about concealment.
   2. "Brandishing" is not in the law. However, the law says that the displaying of a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm is illegal. (This does NOT apply if you're display of said firearm in a public place causes alarm to a perp who is in the midst of committing a crime against you or a 3rd party, such that he beats feet.)
   3. There are limits defined in the law as to where we can or cannot carry, such as professional sporting events, 51% locations, schools, etc., etc.
2. Between now and January 1st, 2016, when you are lawfully carrying your concealed handgun under the authority of your CHL (or recognized out-of-state permit), you may not remove said handgun from concealment so that it becomes visible to an observer.........UNLESS you are drawing it for purposes of self-defense. (See (1)(b))
3. Beginning January 1st, 2016, you may carry your weapon either concealed, and everything above except (1)(b) and (1)(c) goes away. Displaying your firearm in a manner calculated to cause alarm will still be illegal.
4. From January 1st, 2016 forward:
   
   1. If open carrying, your carry methods are restricted to a "belt holster" or "shoulder holster".
   2. 30.06 signs will still apply to concealed carry, and a new 30.07 sign having the same intent will apply to open carry.
   3. The penalty for refusing to leave an establishment after walking past their 30.06/30.07 sign and being caught has been reduced to a Class C misdemeanor. There is no penalty if you leave when asked.

[Oldgringo]

FWIW, the past three days, I have OC'd all across Montana, down through Wyoming and am now halfway through Colorado. A Colorado rancher at the Safeway gas aisle in Estes Park today, observed, "...you Texans are always packin'...". In that 1,000 miles through three Gold Star OC states, I have not seen one other OC.

Folk, I think you might wear your gun around your neck and it may not be not be noticed....if you don't call attention to it. Granted, we've not been pokin' around in any metro cities.

[Abraham]

"If open carrying, your carry methods are restricted to a "belt holster" or "shoulder holster".

Anyone know why?

...and no, I have no desire to OC on my lovely turned ankle, just curious about the logic regarding the restrictions.

[sherlock7]

Abraham, That is a very good question and I as well would like to find out the answer.
I am a male who at times would like the choice of strapping on a ankle holster for my Glock 26 instead of a belt holster and still be legal.
Would welcome everyone's thoughts on this subject.
Thanks

USMC

Semper Fi

[Charles L. Cotton]

[*]The penalty for refusing to leave an establishment after walking past their 30.06/30.07 sign and being caught has been reduced to a Class C misdemeanor. There is no penalty if you leave when asked.[/list][/list]

One correction: As of 1/1/16, the offense for crossing a §30.06 sign is a Class C misdemeanor. If you are asked to leave and you refuse, it becomes a Class A.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

"If open carrying, your carry methods are restricted to a "belt holster" or "shoulder holster".

Anyone know why?

...and no, I have no desire to OC on my lovely turned ankle, just curious about the logic regarding the restrictions.

There was concern among open-carry supporters in the Legislature that the restriction was necessary to keep people from walking around with a gun in their hand, or in some other dangerous or provocative manner. Guess who generated those concerns.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I may have complicated the question.

My question is this...

Assuming that the 411.171 definition of concealed handgun applies to its usage only in Subchapter H of 411 as it states, and further assuming that the 411.171 definition specifies the kind of gun for which the CH license applies (a concealed handgun, that is not displayed, the opposite of which is covered by 46.035a) does it, or does it not follow that a non-concealed handgun which is not displayed (which is specifically covered by 46.035a) is a gun for which the "concealed" handgun license does not give privileges for, LICENSE WISE.

If you have a non-concealed handgun (as per 411.171) that is not displayed (and therefore covered by 46.035a) are you in possession of a gun that you license does not authorize you to carry? And if so what would that violatiion be? A prohibited weapon? a procedural error? Maybe nothing. Maybe the license issue is not an issue. I tend to think so. Remember the point of the post was just to think out loud and analyze the thing to death just for exercise. Not to start a huge debate.

tex

First, your assumption about the definition of a concealed handgun is unfounded. As I've already noted, that definition is now meaningless due to the change in 2013. It could have and probably should have been repealed when SB299 was passed, but that would only be for clarification purposes.

Secondly, I understand your quandary as to whether "intentionally displaying a handgun . . ." would invalidate your CHL, meaning you could be charged under Tex. Penal Code §46.02. The answer is no. If that were the case, then §46.035(a) would be rendered meaningless and the rules of statutory construction would prevent such an interpretation. Also, the mens rea for a violation of §46.02 is intentionally, knowingly or recklessly, whereas the mens rea]/i] for violation of §46.035(a) is intentional conduct. Thus, the burden of proof is markedly different.

At the end of the day, the charge under §46.02 and §46.035(a) are both Class A "UCW" so the impact on the CHL is the same.

Chas.

[ELB]

How many days left, until this thread is meaningless?

http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... open+carry