Odd question?

[RHZig]

Can you walk around your property (outside of your house but on your property) with your weapon showing?

How does it work when you're on your own place?

[seamusTX]

Yes, on any premises that are under your control, owned, leased, rented, or just in charge of.

That would not apply to temporary facilities like motel rooms and campgrounds. It may or may not be legal to carry in those places, but you're asking for trouble if you expose yourself.

- Jim

[RHZig]

Ok thanks...

[LedJedi]

hey Seamus, i have got a follow up question.

There was some debate on this in my CHL class.

If you HAVE a CHL and you're on your own property are you compelled to conceal or can you open carry in that situation?

just curious. We never got a final answer on it.

[seamusTX]

If you HAVE a CHL and you're on your own property are you compelled to conceal or can you open carry in that situation?

In my opinion, you can carry openly on your property whether you have CHL or not. Chapter 46 of the penal code allows you to have a handgun on your own premises.

The CHL is required to possess a handgun legally in circumstances that are not covered in Chapter 46 (in other words, in public or on the property of others). In that case, the piece must be concealed.

I don't recommend walking around your unfenced yard in town with a weapon visible. People are almost certain to call the cops, and you would at least have to prove you live there.

In some cases, it might be dicey proving you are on your property. For example, in my town, the property lines are several feet from the sidewalk, in the middle of the lawn.

- Jim

[LedJedi]

If you HAVE a CHL and you're on your own property are you compelled to conceal or can you open carry in that situation?

In my opinion, you can carry openly on your property whether you have CHL or not. Chapter 46 of the penal code allows you to have a handgun on your own premises.

The CHL is required to possess a handgun legally in circumstances that are not covered in Chapter 46 (in other words, in public or on the property of others). In that case, the piece must be concealed.

I don't recommend walking around your unfenced yard in town with a weapon visible. People are almost certain to call the cops, and you would at least have to prove you live there.

In some cases, it might be dicey proving you are on your property. For example, in my town, the property lines are several feet from the sidewalk, in the middle of the lawn.

- Jim

yeah, the only situation i could see myself really seriously open carrying would be like on a deer lease I was leasing or something like that. I dont hunt, but i know a lot of folks do. Wearing a visible sidearm while drinking a beer and watering the grass is not exactly PC these days.

Though, I should point out that something like that would have been perfectly normal in the days of the founding fathers. You would get busted for NOT carrying :)

[Liberty]

yeah, the only situation i could see myself really seriously open carrying would be like on a deer lease I was leasing or something like that. I dont hunt, but i know a lot of folks do. Wearing a visible sidearm while drinking a beer and watering the grass is not exactly PC these days.

Though, I should point out that something like that would have been perfectly normal in the days of the founding fathers. You would get busted for NOT carrying :)

Our founding fathers were smart enough not to waste water on the grass.

[LedJedi]

yeah, the only situation i could see myself really seriously open carrying would be like on a deer lease I was leasing or something like that. I dont hunt, but i know a lot of folks do. Wearing a visible sidearm while drinking a beer and watering the grass is not exactly PC these days.

Though, I should point out that something like that would have been perfectly normal in the days of the founding fathers. You would get busted for NOT carrying :)

Our founding fathers were smart enough not to waste water on the grass.

Very true, Very true.

All the good water was saved for making

[seamusTX]

Though, I should point out that something like that would have been perfectly normal in the days of the founding fathers.

I think most of those who drank preferred whiskey.

And pistols were not common in the 18th century. The preferred weapon was a long rifle.

- Jim

[Thane]

Though, I should point out that something like that would have been perfectly normal in the days of the founding fathers.

I think most of those who drank preferred whiskey.

And pistols were not common in the 18th century. The preferred weapon was a long rifle.

- Jim

That fact, I think, had a lot more to do with weapons technology and not today's "pistol vs. long gun" debates.
The old blackpowder pistols back then were simply not all that useful. The ones that were powerful enough to be effective were often rather large and cumbersome; to make a pistol concealable, you had to significantly reduce charge size and shot size, which made it far less effective. The more efficient smokeless powder was still a long way off, not to mention the steels necessary to handle it. And the self-contained cartridge, an essential to modern concealable handguns, was unheard of.
The old pistols were bulky, cumbersome, took as long to load as a good rifle, and were less effective. Small wonder they eschewed such weaponry, save on the battlefield (for officers on horseback, etc, fending off sword and bayonet attacks on themselves and the horse; not easy to wield a musket in those kinds of quarters).

Had the Founders access to modern weapons, I think the use and carriage of potent sidearms would have been accepted readily.

[Liberty]

Though, I should point out that something like that would have been perfectly normal in the days of the founding fathers.

I think most of those who drank preferred whiskey.

And pistols were not common in the 18th century. The preferred weapon was a long rifle.

- Jim

That fact, I think, had a lot more to do with weapons technology and not today's "pistol vs. long gun" debates.
The old blackpowder pistols back then were simply not all that useful. The ones that were powerful enough to be effective were often rather large and cumbersome; to make a pistol concealable, you had to significantly reduce charge size and shot size, which made it far less effective. The more efficient smokeless powder was still a long way off, not to mention the steels necessary to handle it. And the self-contained cartridge, an essential to modern concealable handguns, was unheard of.
The old pistols were bulky, cumbersome, took as long to load as a good rifle, and were less effective. Small wonder they eschewed such weaponry, save on the battlefield (for officers on horseback, etc, fending off sword and bayonet attacks on themselves and the horse; not easy to wield a musket in those kinds of quarters).

Had the Founders access to modern weapons, I think the use and carriage of potent sidearms would have been accepted readily.

A brace of pistols weren't uncommon for close quarters or horseback. A rifle while they were very much prized were to expensive and 2 slow for most self defense. Long guns and pistols of the 18th century were mostly of the smoothbore category. Rifles were mostly for hunting.

[seamusTX]

Had the Founders access to modern weapons, I think the use and carriage of potent sidearms would have been accepted readily.

I agree. They did not outlaw any weapons when they were running things (as far as I know.)

We can see the technical disadvantages of 18th-century arms relative to modern ones; but they were quite lethal, as were the crossbow, long box, sword, spear, club, and sharp rock in their day.

- Jim

[LedJedi]

Had the Founders access to modern weapons, I think the use and carriage of potent sidearms would have been accepted readily.

I agree. They did not outlaw any weapons when they were running things (as far as I know.)

We can see the technical disadvantages of 18th-century arms relative to modern ones; but they were quite lethal, as were the crossbow, long box, sword, spear, club, and sharp rock in their day.

- Jim

lets not forget the rabid wombat. You beat someone with a rabid wombat and they're gonna be more than just sore the next morning.

[Liberty]

Had the Founders access to modern weapons, I think the use and carriage of potent sidearms would have been accepted readily.

I agree. They did not outlaw any weapons when they were running things (as far as I know.)

We can see the technical disadvantages of 18th-century arms relative to modern ones; but they were quite lethal, as were the crossbow, long box, sword, spear, club, and sharp rock in their day.

- Jim

George Washington had considered abandoning the musket in favor of the long and cross bow. The bayonet killed more soldiers than the musket ball.

[LedJedi]

George Washington had considered abandoning the musket in favor of the long and cross bow. The bayonet killed more soldiers than the musket ball.

no doubt, I'd bet on the man with the long bow any day over a man with a musket. Long bows are crazy lethal in the right hands.

now we are officially and completely off subject :)