TexasCHLforum.com

TVGuy wrote:What bout HB 164? Haven't seen that one mentioned. Reading now.

I see it does the 'add "or unconcealed"' thing through out as well. At least the definition of "unconcealed carry" leaves out the "points of resistance" bit, but still restricts open carry to belt or shoulder holsters.

Provides a whole new signage requirement, 30.07, that is basically 30.06 for unconcealed carry.

Again under the MPA portion requires an unconcealed handgun to be on the licensee's body.

The only way to intentionally unconceal a handgun is by carrying in belt or shoulder holster -- again no clipdraws etc.

I wonder again about the reciprocity agreements and proclamations - re-written to accommodate UC?\

There is still language about categories of handguns for which the licensee is qualified. I thought we did away with that? Is someone using old text as a baseline to modify?

In addition to what locke_n_load pointed out, Stickland's HB 195 also raises the requirement for when an officer may disarm someone, from "reasonably believes" it is necessary to protect the licensee, officer, or others, to "has probable cause to believe the person [with a handgun] poses an imminent threat to themselves [sic], the officer, or another individual."

Accumulated thoughts on first reading of HB 106:

1. Seems like it would have been easier to strike the word "concealed" rather than add "or unconcealed".... I guess instead of "OC", Texas would have "UC".

Read strictly, will this mean you will have a license to carry a concealed OR a concealed handgun...but not both? Two different licenses? I doubt that was the intent, but applying the "Rosenthal as D.A." test to this makes me wonder...

2. 411.171 is amended to apparently require a holster on the belt or shoulder with a two-point retention system. I really don't think they should go there with trying to specify retention systems, that really opens up a lot of definition problems (is friction-fit a retention device?).

That would rule out things like clip-draws and the trigger guard covers and such (for OC/UC).

Also, it eliminates one of the advantages that have been used to promote OC, that of not breaking the law if a concealed handgun is accidently exposed (yes I know unintentional display is not illegal, but intent can be argued in court). You know have the crime of unconcealed carry with the wrong kind of holster. Thus, you could not simply choose to go OC (intentionally displaying) or CC with most (non-retention) CC rigs. Ths part should never have appeared. If something has to be said about retention, put the onus on the carrier to not allow his handgun to be snatched and drive on.

3. Section 411.173(b) is the section on negotiating reciprocity agreements. "or unconcealed" is simply added to this section. But will this require renegotiation of some reciprocity agreements? Will a person whose home state allows only concealed carry be able to "unconceal carry" in Texas?

4.. Section 30.06 does remove the specificity of the sign requirements. Fail. And altho it seems to bifurcate into concealed and unconcealed handgun sections, both essentially say that if you are "effectively communicated" that you can't carry concealed, you can't UC either, and vice versa. ??? Seems to a poor job on this section.

5. Section 46.02(a-1), the Motorist's Protection Act part, still says a handgun may not be in plain view....unless it is "on" (not "about") a licensed person. So even if you are licensed for open...er unconcealed carry, you can't put your gun in a holster screwed down to the console or some such. Has to be in your belt or shoulder holster with two points of "resistance".