TexasCHLforum.com

Now, before I even go ANYWHERE with this, This is not a question on whether it should, or should not be allowed, or anything like that. This is not a debate against the pros and cons, or fors or againsts. Personally, I Prefer concealed carry, but I am interested in the laws on firearm carry as a whole, and this goes towards understanding that.

I am simply wondering what laws specifically Prohibit Open Carry.

So far, All I know of is TPC 46.02:


(forgive the image.. the new phamphlet does not allow copy & paste! Aargh!)

Are there any other restrictions elsewhere that prevent it?
I Am going somewhere with this, just want to be sure that this is the entire basis against OC in Texas.

I am not sure what the gist of your question is. Doesn't that law suffice to bar open-carry? I am not sure what you question regarding it.

Open-carry is not specifically mentioned in the Penal Code as a stand-alone violation, but it is an element in two Penal Code Sections as noted below. The general rule is that carrying a handgun is prohibited, whether it's carried openly or concealed. There are exceptions to this prohibition (home, business, sporting activities, etc.) and when they apply, there is no prohibition on open-carry.

Then there are two Code provisions dealing with carrying a handgun in which a prohibition on open-carry is set out. One is in TPC §46.02(A-1) (Motorist Protection Act) and the other is TPC §46.035(a) that prohibits CHL's from "intentionally" failing to conceal a handgun.

Chas.

Thank you Charles, that is exactly the answer I was looking for.

Purplehood: I was wondering what laws, other than TPC §46.02 above, had an impact on open carry. Since if that were the only one, Open Carry would possibly be legal, as long as you were also concealed carrying at the time. Without the 'intentional failure to conceal' section, that may well have been the case.

So, if you are carrying a Concealed handgun, AND openly carrying a handgun, you will not be charged under TPC §46.02 above, but rather under TPC §46.035(a) - Intentional Failure to conceal, since Legal Concealed Carry makes TPC §46.02 nonapplicable in it's entirity as stated under TPC §46.15(b)(6).

So It ALSO appears that, the way the law is written, if you are lawfully carrying a concealed handgun, then it is no longer illegal to carry an "illegal knife" or "club" (as defined under TPC §46.01) under TPC §46.02 anymore, since, once again, Legal Concealed Carry makes the entirity of TPC §46.02 Nonapplicable.

Thoughts?

LOL.

"Thoughts?"

None at all, you simply made me acutely aware of why my chosen profession is not Counselor at Law.

dicion wrote:So It ALSO appears that, the way the law is written, if you are lawfully carrying a concealed handgun, then it is no longer illegal to carry an "illegal knife" or "club" (as defined under TPC §46.01) under TPC §46.02 anymore, since, once again, Legal Concealed Carry makes the entirity of TPC §46.02 Nonapplicable.

Thoughts?

That appears to be technically correct, but I don't recommend trying it. It's like the pre-1899 antique firearms not being "firearms" for purposes of the Penal Code. I don't have the citations to the cases, but an attorney who once posted on OpenCarry.org warned people not to try that defense; it has already failed. Apparently the courts held that pre-1899 guns were "firearms" for purposes of TPC §46.02 and presumably §46.035(a) also.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

dicion wrote:So It ALSO appears that, the way the law is written, if you are lawfully carrying a concealed handgun, then it is no longer illegal to carry an "illegal knife" or "club" (as defined under TPC §46.01) under TPC §46.02 anymore, since, once again, Legal Concealed Carry makes the entirity of TPC §46.02 Nonapplicable.

Thoughts?

That appears to be technically correct, but I don't recommend trying it. It's like the pre-1899 antique firearms not being "firearms" for purposes of the Penal Code. I don't have the citations to the cases, but an attorney who once posted on OpenCarry.org warned people not to try that defense; it has already failed. Apparently the courts held that pre-1899 guns were "firearms" for purposes of TPC §46.02 and presumably §46.035(a) also.

Chas.

Aww, and here I was hoping to carry a full length Katana in Wal-Mart!

Yes, it's definately one of those 'You may beat the rap, but you WILL Take the ride' situations, and the ride here probably would include a lengthy court case.

Feel free to try it out, let us know how it goes. I too would like to be able to carry a full length katana at Wal-Mart...

Doesn't it aggravate anyone else that you can't even rely upon the plain wording of the law to determine whether something is illegal. It is the courts' imposing their "interpretations" on the law that have allowed such travesties as the Slaughterhouse decisions, which led down the path of selective incorporation, all in order to perpetuate racism with regard to such rights as the RKBA, all in violation of the clear wording and historical intent of the 2nd and, then, the 14th Amendments.

Granted, we are discussing Texas statutes with a much lower level of importance and application in this thread, but willful misinterpretation of the clear language of the law is what allows a policeman to arrest without cause, and a prosecutor to subject a citizen to the bankrupting costs of a trial and potential incarceration.

jamullinstx wrote:Doesn't it aggravate anyone else that you can't even rely upon the plain wording of the law to determine whether something is illegal. It is the courts' imposing their "interpretations" on the law that have allowed such travesties as the Slaughterhouse decisions, which led down the path of selective incorporation, all in order to perpetuate racism with regard to such rights as the RKBA, all in violation of the clear wording and historical intent of the 2nd and, then, the 14th Amendments.

Granted, we are discussing Texas statutes with a much lower level of importance and application in this thread, but willful misinterpretation of the clear language of the law is what allows a policeman to arrest without cause, and a prosecutor to subject a citizen to the bankrupting costs of a trial and potential incarceration.

Many of our legislators are lawyers. They have no problems writing laws that the common person will need lawyers and Courts to decode.

Too much infringing regulation for 3:30 am on a Sunday morning. It's easier to understand what the Founding Fathers had in mind at this hour. Simplicity.

Liberty,

But, in this case, they didn't. They wrote perfectly clear legislation, easily understood. Charles' pointed out that, while an accurate interpretation of the statute, many cops and prosecutors would still arrest and charge based upon the longstanding prohibition on open carry in Texas. I agree, in this case, that the legislators probably made a mistake, overlooking that the concealed carry exception voided all of 46.02, but it doesn't matter. If they don't like the mistake they can fix it, at the next session. Citizens don't get a walk for making a "mistake" if it happens to violate the law. Authorities shouldn't be able to violate the straightforward language of the law simply because they don't like it.