TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
"Printing" has never been defined in statute and it has been interpreted differently. A bulge is not and never has been unlawful. Wearing shirt or other garment that is either too tight or too transparent such that a person can tell it's a handgun has always been unlawful. This changes on Jan. 1, 2016, but only if the handgun is carried in a belt or shoulder holster.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Glockster wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Glockster wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The "problem" of arrests for unintentional failure to conceal was a myth started by certain supporters of open-carry. They started spreading this claim in an attempt to create a "need" to pass an open-carry bill. This is a great example of repeating a false claim often enough so that the public believes it's true. Although some claimed numerous false arrests for unintentional failure to conceal, there are precious few documented cases.

Since SB60 passed in 1995, the offense created in Tex. Penal Code §46.035(a) required intentional conduct and that's a very high standard for a prosecutor to meet. Even after the change in 2013 (SB299), intentional conduct is still the required mens rea (mental culpability).

Since Sen. Estes (great pro-gun Senator!) wanted to address this perceived problem, SB299 was drafted and it changed the language from intentionally failing to conceal to intentionally displaying a handgun in a public place with other people present. Ironically, "display" is not defined, so no one is quite sure what constitutes "displaying" a handgun. As I've noted in other posts, the current definition of a concealed handgun found in Tex. Gov't Code §411.171(4) was rendered irrelevant with passage of SB299. That said, some prosecutors may still refer to that definition.

My biggest concern about Jan. 1st is the possibility that some CHLs may mistakenly believe that no handguns need to be concealed. This could lead them to believe it is legal to let the grip stick out of one's pocket, or that it's okay to leave it unconcealed while in a vehicle.

Chas.

This is the thing that still has me confused - can you OC in your vehicle if you have it in the required belt or shoulder holster? By not okay to be unconcealed you meant as in, for example, just sitting out in your car out in the open? Or would I have to go from OC until I get into the car, and then remove it from my belt holster to CC?

Inside your car is just like outside of it. If it's in a belt or shoulder holster, it does not need to be concealed. If it's anywhere else in the cabin of the vehicle, it must be concealed. Forward console-mounted holsters in pickups or SUVs are an example of a popular holster that will still be unlawful even after Jan. 1st. I hope I'm overly concerned, but I've talked to a lot of folks who prefer to remove their handgun from a belt holster when they get into their vehicle. The gun has to go somewhere and that somewhere must include concealment.

Chas.

Makes perfect sense.

Regarding the concealed part of things, I assume that as long it's covered or blocked from view it is "concealed"? For example, when driving I keep my BUG in the door tray thingie, and have a shop rag that completely covers it. I assume that's fulfilling the requirement to conceal?

I guess that someone could try to cover a console-mounted holster the same way, but I myself would be worried that the rag might come lose at just the worst possible time.

Yes, that would be legal. One could cover a console-mounted holster with something and that would be legal also, so long as the cover didn't become dislodged.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Glockster wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The "problem" of arrests for unintentional failure to conceal was a myth started by certain supporters of open-carry. They started spreading this claim in an attempt to create a "need" to pass an open-carry bill. This is a great example of repeating a false claim often enough so that the public believes it's true. Although some claimed numerous false arrests for unintentional failure to conceal, there are precious few documented cases.

Since SB60 passed in 1995, the offense created in Tex. Penal Code §46.035(a) required intentional conduct and that's a very high standard for a prosecutor to meet. Even after the change in 2013 (SB299), intentional conduct is still the required mens rea (mental culpability).

Since Sen. Estes (great pro-gun Senator!) wanted to address this perceived problem, SB299 was drafted and it changed the language from intentionally failing to conceal to intentionally displaying a handgun in a public place with other people present. Ironically, "display" is not defined, so no one is quite sure what constitutes "displaying" a handgun. As I've noted in other posts, the current definition of a concealed handgun found in Tex. Gov't Code §411.171(4) was rendered irrelevant with passage of SB299. That said, some prosecutors may still refer to that definition.

My biggest concern about Jan. 1st is the possibility that some CHLs may mistakenly believe that no handguns need to be concealed. This could lead them to believe it is legal to let the grip stick out of one's pocket, or that it's okay to leave it unconcealed while in a vehicle.

Chas.

This is the thing that still has me confused - can you OC in your vehicle if you have it in the required belt or shoulder holster? By not okay to be unconcealed you meant as in, for example, just sitting out in your car out in the open? Or would I have to go from OC until I get into the car, and then remove it from my belt holster to CC?

Inside your car is just like outside of it. If it's in a belt or shoulder holster, it does not need to be concealed. If it's anywhere else in the cabin of the vehicle, it must be concealed. Forward console-mounted holsters in pickups or SUVs are an example of a popular holster that will still be unlawful even after Jan. 1st. I hope I'm overly concerned, but I've talked to a lot of folks who prefer to remove their handgun from a belt holster when they get into their vehicle. The gun has to go somewhere and that somewhere must include concealment.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The "problem" of arrests for unintentional failure to conceal was a myth started by certain supporters of open-carry. They started spreading this claim in an attempt to create a "need" to pass an open-carry bill. This is a great example of repeating a false claim often enough so that the public believes it's true. Although some claimed numerous false arrests for unintentional failure to conceal, there are precious few documented cases.

Since SB60 passed in 1995, the offense created in Tex. Penal Code §46.035(a) required intentional conduct and that's a very high standard for a prosecutor to meet. Even after the change in 2013 (SB299), intentional conduct is still the required mens rea (mental culpability).

Since Sen. Estes (great pro-gun Senator!) wanted to address this perceived problem, SB299 was drafted and it changed the language from intentionally failing to conceal to intentionally displaying a handgun in a public place with other people present. Ironically, "display" is not defined, so no one is quite sure what constitutes "displaying" a handgun. As I've noted in other posts, the current definition of a concealed handgun found in Tex. Gov't Code §411.171(4) was rendered irrelevant with passage of SB299. That said, some prosecutors may still refer to that definition.

My biggest concern about Jan. 1st is the possibility that some CHLs may mistakenly believe that no handguns need to be concealed. This could lead them to believe it is legal to let the grip stick out of one's pocket, or that it's okay to leave it unconcealed while in a vehicle.

Chas.