TexasCHLforum.com

There are no 5th Cir. cases directly on point when dealing with reasonable suspicion related to open-carry. However, there are Fourth Amendment cases from other circuits. All of these quotes are taken from U.S. v. Black, 707 F.3d 531 (4th Cir. 2013).

• The level of suspicion must be a 'particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.' [citation omitted] As such, 'the officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion."
  
  Instead, we encounter yet another situation where the Government attempts to meet its Terry burden by patching together a set of innocent, suspicion-free facts, which cannot rationally be relied on to establish reasonable suspicion.
  
  Being a felon in possession of a firearm (or violating §46.02) is not the default status. More importantly, where a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention. Permitting such a justification would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals in those states. (Citing United States v. King 990 F.2d 1552, 1559 (10th Cir. 1993)
  
  Troupe's lawful display of his lawfully possessed firearm cannot be the justification for Troupe's detention.

The Dutton/Rinaldi Amendment is a win win situation for law-abiding Texans and law enforcement officers. In the absence of a 5th Circuit case on point, it provides clear guidance as to when Fourth Amendment requirements are met and when they are not. As noted elsewhere, openly carrying a handgun is not sufficient to justify an investigatory stop, but when other factors are in play, then such a stop would meet constitutional requirements.

Chas.