Is "failure to conceal" still a thing once open carry starts?

[jmorris]

I'm a little confused. Aren't probably 99% of iwb holsters attached to your belt? I realize they are clipped vs a threaded owb holster, but that is just it! They are clipped!

I carry IWB using sticky holsters like remora's sometimes. I wonder if unintentional flashing of the handle or what not (shirt raises up) if its in a hip holster not attached to a belt will be an issue.

If you're carrying concealed then the belt/shoulder holster requirement doesn't apply to you. Unintentional display of your firearm has never been an offense.

[Jago668]

I'm a little confused. Aren't probably 99% of iwb holsters attached to your belt? I realize they are clipped vs a threaded owb holster, but that is just it! They are clipped!

I carry IWB using sticky holsters like remora's sometimes. I wonder if unintentional flashing of the handle or what not (shirt raises up) if its in a hip holster not attached to a belt will be an issue.

Unintentional display of your firearm has never been an offense.

Fairly certain you are incorrect on the unintentional part of that. Want to say it was 2013 when it changed, pretty sure it was the year the decrease in classroom time happened.

[Keith B]

I'm a little confused. Aren't probably 99% of iwb holsters attached to your belt? I realize they are clipped vs a threaded owb holster, but that is just it! They are clipped!

I carry IWB using sticky holsters like remora's sometimes. I wonder if unintentional flashing of the handle or what not (shirt raises up) if its in a hip holster not attached to a belt will be an issue.

Unintentional display of your firearm has never been an offense.

Fairly certain you are incorrect on the unintentional part of that. Want to say it was 2013 when it changed, pretty sure it was the year the decrease in classroom time happened.

Actually, it never was an offense. However, the language was a little ambiguous, so the wording was changed in 2013 to help clarify unintentional failure to conceal to keep anyone from misconstruing the act.

[Jago668]

I'm a little confused. Aren't probably 99% of iwb holsters attached to your belt? I realize they are clipped vs a threaded owb holster, but that is just it! They are clipped!

I carry IWB using sticky holsters like remora's sometimes. I wonder if unintentional flashing of the handle or what not (shirt raises up) if its in a hip holster not attached to a belt will be an issue.

Unintentional display of your firearm has never been an offense.

Fairly certain you are incorrect on the unintentional part of that. Want to say it was 2013 when it changed, pretty sure it was the year the decrease in classroom time happened.

Actually, it never was an offense. However, the language was a little ambiguous, so the wording was changed in 2013 to help clarify unintentional failure to conceal to keep anyone from misconstruing the act.

Ah, thanks for clarifying. I did my class September 1, 2013, and they made it sound like it had been one and was just changed. So carry on, I was wrong.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

[Glockster]

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?

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

[Glockster]

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.

[lacie008]

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.

I've been curious about the legality of the mounted holsters in vehicles so this is good information. Thanks!

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

[Glockster]

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.

Thanks for confirming what I thought was correct!

[Feed&Guns]

I'm a little confused. Aren't probably 99% of iwb holsters attached to your belt? I realize they are clipped vs a threaded owb holster, but that is just it! They are clipped!

I carry IWB using sticky holsters like remora's sometimes. I wonder if unintentional flashing of the handle or what not (shirt raises up) if its in a hip holster not attached to a belt will be an issue.

If you're carrying concealed then the belt/shoulder holster requirement doesn't apply to you. Unintentional display of your firearm has never been an offense.

Actually, I believe it was an offense. In the last two years, there have been many changes (improvements) in the laws. First, printing and unintentional exposure was a crime. Then it was just exposure. Then it was (as it is now), that it basically has to be an intentional display in a hostile manner. Whew. Finally some common sense. It'd be interesting to post a series of how the law has changed in the last few years. But to the OP, flashing a IWB wont matter because the law will still be "intentional display". So, even in a 30.07 area, if the display is unintentional (reached for a top shelf, shirt partially tucked in from pulling your pants up in the bathroom, whatever), it shouldn't be an offense. Also of note, the new law states:

(i) in a concealed manner; or
(ii) in a shoulder or belt holster.

That's from the actual text. That means "not an ankle holster" and, per our guidance in our CHL instructor class, "not a drop holster". Even if the drop holster is attached at some point to your belt, if it's anchored to your leg, it doesn't count. But, "belt" doesn't say "hip", so I'd say appendix carry or small of back carry is technically okay, but maybe not smart (back, I mean...open carry where a thug can grab it from behind you??)

As a little bit of trivia, too, they changed the 30.06 offense to a class C misdemeanor. If the poster then tells you to leave (or brings it to your attention) and you still ignore it, then it's a class A. I think it all used to be class A. So that's gotten better too.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I'm a little confused. Aren't probably 99% of iwb holsters attached to your belt? I realize they are clipped vs a threaded owb holster, but that is just it! They are clipped!

I carry IWB using sticky holsters like remora's sometimes. I wonder if unintentional flashing of the handle or what not (shirt raises up) if its in a hip holster not attached to a belt will be an issue.

If you're carrying concealed then the belt/shoulder holster requirement doesn't apply to you. Unintentional display of your firearm has never been an offense.

Actually, I believe it was an offense. In the last two years, there have been many changes (improvements) in the laws. First, printing and unintentional exposure was a crime. Then it was just exposure. Then it was (as it is now), that it basically has to be an intentional display in a hostile manner. Whew. Finally some common sense. It'd be interesting to post a series of how the law has changed in the last few years. But to the OP, flashing a IWB wont matter because the law will still be "intentional display". So, even in a 30.07 area, if the display is unintentional (reached for a top shelf, shirt partially tucked in from pulling your pants up in the bathroom, whatever), it shouldn't be an offense. Also of note, the new law states:

(i) in a concealed manner; or
(ii) in a shoulder or belt holster.

That's from the actual text. That means "not an ankle holster" and, per our guidance in our CHL instructor class, "not a drop holster". Even if the drop holster is attached at some point to your belt, if it's anchored to your leg, it doesn't count. But, "belt" doesn't say "hip", so I'd say appendix carry or small of back carry is technically okay, but maybe not smart (back, I mean...open carry where a thug can grab it from behind you??)

As a little bit of trivia, too, they changed the 30.06 offense to a class C misdemeanor. If the poster then tells you to leave (or brings it to your attention) and you still ignore it, then it's a class A. I think it all used to be class A. So that's gotten better too.

Unintentional failure to conceal has never been a crime. When SB60 passed in 1995, it created the offense set out in Tex. Penal Code §46.035(a) making it unlawful for a CHL to intentionally fail to conceal a handgun. (See below.) This language was changed in 2013 with the passage of SB299 such that an offense was committed only if a CHL intentionally displays a handgun in plain view of another person a public place. (See below.)

"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.

I disagree that a drop-leg holster will be unlawful. I hope no one wears one, but they attach to the belt and the Code is silent about other forms of securing the holster.

Chas.

Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Article 4413(29ee), Revised Statutes, and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.

(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally displays [fails to conceal] the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place."

[Glockster]

"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.

What I love about this place are the opportunities to learn. But that also always brings out new questions.

I thought that I had the whole printing vs intentional display figured out, but does wearing a shirt that is too tight so that someone can supposedly determine that it is a handgun actually become an intentional display? As that isn't in the law (that a shape of something that someone might be able to somehow determine might be a handgun), is that what's in case law then?

Not trying to nitpick, or argue, just trying to wrestle with all of this to make certain that I understand it.

[Feed&Guns]

I disagree that a drop-leg holster will be unlawful. I hope no one wears one, but they attach to the belt and the Code is silent about other forms of securing the holster.

Chas.

Thank you Mr. Cotton for the professional insight and history lesson. As a lawyer, I'm sure you're familiar with the ironic perspective of lawyers that "juries are crap shoots". I'm not a lawyer, but have many lawyer friends and worked in a law firm in college. I always found it odd that the perspective of the highly paid lawyers was that there were few absolutes in the law and you were subject to the whims of a judge and/or jury in many cases. That's why the venue was so important. "Let the facts speak for themselves"? Depends on who is listening.

There's probably also a difference in "letter of the law", "interpretation of the law", and "application of the law" (as in, case law to substantiate a legal theory).

Has anyone been convicted of "printing"? What about "accidental/unintentional exposure"?

As for the drop holster issue, I just did my CHL instructor class in August and they specifically said "A leg/drop holster is prohibited for open carry". Granted, DPS Troopers are NOT lawyers and frequently don't know the law. In fact, during our class, much of the class would read the new HB910 to the instructor to correct him about what's coming with open carry. No disrespect to our men in blue...just stating facts.

So take anything I say with a grain of salt. I'm not a lawyer (or a judge), and I heard it from DPS...that's two strikes against my credibility! :)