hansdedrich wrote:Yes, but the more descriptive, the more protection you have in court. It wouldn't be that much of a stretch to simply state in the law that in open carry, either: 1."The gun and holster must be totally exposed at all times. Or, the gun can be partially exposed. Or better yet, whether the gun is exposed, partially exposed, or totally concealed makes no difference.
Unless this is spelled out, this will be a bad law and somebody is gonna have to spend big bucks defending him or herself.
Your concerns are already addressed. In fact, they have been addressed since 1995 when concealed carry passed. (See below.) To my knowledge, there has not been a single case in almost 20 years (million + "man years") where a CHL was charged with intentional failure to conceal where the level of concealment was an issue.
Chas.
Tex. Gov't Code wrote:Sec. 411.171. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:
(3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.
mojo84 wrote:I think you are way over analyzing this and making something very simple complicated. Exposed is exposed. Concealed is concealed.
Okay, is an inside the waist band holster considered open or concealed? It would seem to me that the lawmakers could easily clear things up by defining open carry as: " an OUTSIDE the belt waist belt holster or shoulder holster." It's a sticking point I believe because gangbangers wear guns stuck in the front of their pants, not different from me wearing an inside the belt holster in the front of my pants because an IWB holster is not visible. This might sound like nit picking until you are arrested and learn the details in court instead of asking the hard questions now. Not trying to be a jerk, just trying to protect everyone here who is law abiding.
Why are you mixing apples and oranges?
There are two independent questions/issues: 1) is the gun concealed; and if not 2) is the gun in a shoulder or belt holster? The answer to the concealed question will be no different after passage of open-carry than it has been since 1995. (See below.) The shoulder holster question is easy to answer, as is the belt holster question. If it is attached to or secured by the belt in any manner, then it's a belt holster. This means OWB belt holster, IWB holsters (regardless of placement, i.e. appendix, 3 o'clock, etc.) and even drop-leg holsters (God forbid!!) that are attached to a belt. Whether a gun is concealed is not determined by the type of holster used.
Chas.
Tex. Gov't Code wrote:Sec. 411.171. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:
(3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.
casp625 wrote:I also don't know why this is so confusing? The only time you *might* have an issue if a business prohibits open carry by posting a 30.07 sign. Then, if your handgun is partially visible, you *may* be committing a crime.
And I think we're going to have threads here that discuss how you have or could do the "Texas tuck/untuck" as you move from places with no business owner restrictions to one that is 30.07 posted but not 30.06 posted.
Sorry, let me clarify. Currently, if I am concealed carrying, I grab something off a shelf, my shirt catches on my gun exposing it, and I continue to walk around I could use a defense that I did not intentionally display my firearm in a public place as it was accidentally caught during shopping. right?
Now let's say a store has a 30.07 sign posted and the same situation from above happened. The law states that a partially visible gun is legal as long as we have our CHL and it's in a belt (or shoulder holster). Couldn't a LEO interpret this as you were open carrying? Wouldn't you have to prove you were conceal carrying and your shirt just got caught?
casp625 wrote:I also don't know why this is so confusing? The only time you *might* have an issue if a business prohibits open carry by posting a 30.07 sign. Then, if your handgun is partially visible, you *may* be committing a crime.
And I think we're going to have threads here that discuss how you have or could do the "Texas tuck/untuck" as you move from places with no business owner restrictions to one that is 30.07 posted but not 30.06 posted.
Sorry, let me clarify. Currently, if I am concealed carrying, I grab something off a shelf, my shirt catches on my gun exposing it, and I continue to walk around I could use a defense that I did not intentionally display my firearm in a public place as it was accidentally caught during shopping. right?
Now let's say a store has a 30.07 sign posted and the same situation from above happened. The law states that a partially visible gun is legal as long as we have our CHL and it's in a belt (or shoulder holster). Couldn't a LEO interpret this as you were open carrying? Wouldn't you have to prove you were conceal carrying and your shirt just got caught?
Seems that this scenario fits the definition of 'unintentionally failing to conceal'. I suppose a LEO could interpret as you are openly carrying, but I think even a marginally competent lawyer would have no trouble articulating that it was 'unintentionally failing to conceal' vs. open carrying. I also like to believe that virtually all LEO's have common sense and would probably view it this way as well.
mojo84 wrote:I think you are way over analyzing this and making something very simple complicated. Exposed is exposed. Concealed is concealed.
Okay, is an inside the waist band holster considered open or concealed? It would seem to me that the lawmakers could easily clear things up by defining open carry as: " an OUTSIDE the belt waist belt holster or shoulder holster." It's a sticking point I believe because gangbangers wear guns stuck in the front of their pants, not different from me wearing an inside the belt holster in the front of my pants because an IWB holster is not visible. This might sound like nit picking until you are arrested and learn the details in court instead of asking the hard questions now. Not trying to be a jerk, just trying to protect everyone here who is law abiding.
Why are you mixing apples and oranges?
There are two independent questions/issues: 1) is the gun concealed; and if not 2) is the gun in a shoulder or belt holster? The answer to the concealed question will be no different after passage of open-carry than it has been since 1995. (See below.) The shoulder holster question is easy to answer, as is the belt holster question. If it is attached to or secured by the belt in any manner, then it's a belt holster. This means OWB belt holster, IWB holsters (regardless of placement, i.e. appendix, 3 o'clock, etc.) and even drop-leg holsters (God forbid!!) that are attached to a belt. Whether a gun is concealed is not determined by the type of holster used.
Chas.
Tex. Gov't Code wrote:Sec. 411.171. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:
(3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.
Some good points Charles, but as you well know, it may not be a 'reasonable person' doing the observing and thus becoming the complainant. That's one of the problems we have when relying on the literal rule of statutory interpretation of law, eh?
ELB wrote:Why was this ever put in there in the first place? (Is this some consequence of the OCT/OCTC antics?)
If you don't have a holster, and a handgun is visible, LE has PC to make a stop. Gangbanger.
I think this was put in for a much better reason than this. We have had a few well publicized incidents of CHLs dropping their weapons. IIRC, one went off in Houston when dropped and hit a bystander. While a holster does not stop this from happening, it makes it much less likely. It would be even less likely if there was a retention holster required, as was first proposed. I am glad to see the retention requirement dropped, and I am willing to put up with the holster requirement for now. But it was concealed carry without holsters that caused those incidents and that is still allowed. I am not suggesting that we require holsters for carry, but I do strongly suggest use of a good holster to carry; pocket, ankle, belt, shoulder, or whatever.
Just to add my 2¢a holster is better for the gun also. Nothing to do with legality of carrying but just another reason for using a holster. Protect your gun and it will protect you.
There are very few statutes where every provision and possibility is perfectly spelled out. If you truly fear the pitfalls of such, then don't open carry, concealed carry, or even own a gun.
Opinions expressed are subject to change without notice.
NRA TSRA TFC CHL: 9/22/12, PSC Member: 10/2012
ELB wrote:Why was this ever put in there in the first place? (Is this some consequence of the OCT/OCTC antics?)
If you don't have a holster, and a handgun is visible, LE has PC to make a stop. Gangbanger.
I think this was put in for a much better reason than this. We have had a few well publicized incidents of CHLs dropping their weapons. IIRC, one went off in Houston when dropped and hit a bystander. While a holster does not stop this from happening, it makes it much less likely. It would be even less likely if there was a retention holster required, as was first proposed. I am glad to see the retention requirement dropped, and I am willing to put up with the holster requirement for now. But it was concealed carry without holsters that caused those incidents and that is still allowed. I am not suggesting that we require holsters for carry, but I do strongly suggest use of a good holster to carry; pocket, ankle, belt, shoulder, or whatever.
If you carry hot (chambered and no safety which is the only way to carry) the trigger can easily get snagged when stuffing the gun in your waistband without a good kydex IWB holster, And there are a lot of arteries around that area.
And so the discussion devolves into what each persons thinks is a good idea, but still no good answers as to why the statute should specify how to carry. If license there be, license to carry, not license to "carry like this." It works well in other states.
I'm sure it's too late to fix now, but the point is the law should be no more restrictive than absolutely necessary when exercising a right, and should provide no hooks for harassing gun owners. Recall that when the Leg tried to fix the "traveling" problem by authorizing guns in cars, it was "clear" to certain prosecutors that gun in your car was still certainly PC for arrest. Jurisdictions that don't like OC are going to comb the law very carefully if it passes, and you can bet "holster" will be interpreted very narrowly. Unless putting in "belt and shoulder holster" bought enough votes to get passage (and I doubt that), it is an unnecessary own goal.
hansdedrich wrote:You may be absolutely correct. The dangers of carrying a gun and having one around the house may not be worth it unless you live on a working ranch.
"When democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote." Mike Vanderboegh
"The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." – Ayn Rand
hansdedrich wrote:You may be absolutely correct. The dangers of carrying a gun and having one around the house may not be worth it unless you live on a working ranch.
There really is not much risk to carrying a gun if you are aware of your surroundings and know what your doing.
hansdedrich wrote:You may be absolutely correct. The dangers of carrying a gun and having one around the house may not be worth it unless you live on a working ranch.
Wellllll, if you want to rid yourself of the dangers of carrying a gun and having one around your house, ahhh, what kind are they and how much do you want for them?
Diplomacy is the Art of Letting Someone Have Your Way
TSRA
Colt Gov't Model .380
hansdedrich wrote:You may be absolutely correct. The dangers of carrying a gun and having one around the house may not be worth it unless you live on a working ranch.
Wellllll, if you want to rid yourself of the dangers of carrying a gun and having one around your house, ahhh, what kind are they and how much do you want for them?
