Customer Outs Himself

[Hoi Polloi]

For this scenario, let's say I'm for absolute gun control and I don't think citizens should be armed! (I'm not even going to discuss the drinking!)

I'm sitting in Chili's and I hear this guy verbally disclose that he is armed. I call the Police and they arrive on scene. They ask me who has a gun and I point the guy out. Sure enough, they discover he has a gun.

I'm sitting in Chili's and I see this guy has a gun because he shows it to his friend. I call the Police and they arrive on scene. They ask me who has a gun and I point the guy out. Sure enough, they discover he has a gun.

I'm sitting in Chili's and I see this guy showing his CH License to his friend (or to a possible adversary in a threatening manner), I assume he may be armed. I call the Police and they arrive on scene. They ask me who has a gun and I point the guy out. Sure enough, they discover he has a gun.

If I'm just a bystander and I can point you out to Law Enforcement as being in possession of a firearm, then you have effectively "Failed to conceal"!

The facts concerning each individual situation listed above now becomes an issue of interpretation of the Law by Police and maybe later by Lawyers!

Concealed means Concealed! Strap it on.........cover it up.............and SHUT UP!!!!!

That's just not true. There's no more legal "interpretation" involved in the difference between showing a CHL and showing a gun than there is in saying the neighborhood kids playing ball in the street after school were casing your house for a robbery compared to two men dressed in black creeping around your back yard at night are casing your house for a robbery. While some crazy person can always call in a crazy complaint and some crazy cop can always incorrectly place a person under arrest when he's done nothing wrong, there is no more need to be concerned that this situation will befall you than there is reason to be concerned that planting an oak tree will get you hauled to jail on suspicion of growing marijuana.

Yes, it can and has happened. The CHL holder being taken in for printing, I mean. I don't know about the oak tree because I made that illustration up. Therefore it is imprudent (meaning not wise) to do the things you listed in public, especially since firearms ownership and use is a controversial topic and you don't know how those around you will respond. I agree completely with that warning. Saying that talking about CHLs is a gray area of law that is up to subjective interpretation is simply not true, though. Even in Handog's case (the poster here who was arrested for printing), the CA and judge realized just how bogus the entire thing was and justice, though slow, was served.

I state again that I would not want to be the one dealing with the frustration or fallout of facing the police and courts, even though I'd be confidant the law was on my side, and that's why I fully support the idea of not talking about it publicly from a standpoint of prudence. It is solely the conflation of prudence with legality that I am addressing and taking issue with.

[bdickens]

Seriously though, I'm not confused over what the little white book sez, but I still think that revealing one's carry status, regardless of the medium, is iffy and will likely get you arrested and possibly prosecuted if a moron calls the poleese (at least here in Austin).

Embalmo

Arrested and possibly prosecuted for what?

[Embalmo]

Seriously though, I'm not confused over what the little white book sez, but I still think that revealing one's carry status, regardless of the medium, is iffy and will likely get you arrested and possibly prosecuted if a moron calls the poleese (at least here in Austin).

Embalmo

Arrested and possibly prosecuted for what?

Arrested because the LEO or manager of the establishment is convinced that you can't carry in a grocery store that sells beer, or just because (insert whatever ignorance of CHL law here) and prosecuted by a DA that believes that guns cause crime. Do you think antis in authority really care about...Whats that funny word? Oh yea, the LAW. Oh and if there's a silly gun buster sign on the door, it's GAME ON for the prosecution and arresting officer.


Embalmo

[bdickens]

Seriously though, I'm not confused over what the little white book sez, but I still think that revealing one's carry status, regardless of the medium, is iffy and will likely get you arrested and possibly prosecuted if a moron calls the poleese (at least here in Austin).

Embalmo

Arrested and possibly prosecuted for what?

Arrested because the LEO or manager of the establishment is convinced that you can't carry in a grocery store that sells beer, or just because (insert whatever ignorance of CHL law here) and prosecuted by a DA that believes that guns cause crime. Do you think antis in authority really care about...Whats that funny word? Oh yea, the LAW. Oh and if there's a silly gun buster sign on the door, it's GAME ON for the prosecution and arresting officer.


Embalmo

Ever heard of false arrest? Official oppression?

Sec. 39.03. OFFICIAL OPPRESSION. (a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:

(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;

(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful; or

(3) intentionally subjects another to sexual harassment.

(b) For purposes of this section, a public servant acts under color of his office or employment if he acts or purports to act in an official capacity or takes advantage of such actual or purported capacity.

(c) In this section, "sexual harassment" means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, submission to which is made a term or condition of a person's exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, either explicitly or implicitly.

(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

...Oh and if there's a silly gun buster sign on the door, it's GAME ON for the prosecution and arresting officer.

And why is this so hard to understand:

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:

(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and

(2) received notice that:

(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or

(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.

(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.

(c) In this section:

(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).

(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).

(3) "Written communication" means:

(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or

(B) a sign posted on the property that:

(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;

(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and

(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

[Embalmo]

For this scenario, let's say I'm for absolute gun control and I don't think citizens should be armed! (I'm not even going to discuss the drinking!)

I'm sitting in Chili's and I hear this guy verbally disclose that he is armed. I call the Police and they arrive on scene. They ask me who has a gun and I point the guy out. Sure enough, they discover he has a gun.

I'm sitting in Chili's and I see this guy has a gun because he shows it to his friend. I call the Police and they arrive on scene. They ask me who has a gun and I point the guy out. Sure enough, they discover he has a gun.

I'm sitting in Chili's and I see this guy showing his CH License to his friend (or to a possible adversary in a threatening manner), I assume he may be armed. I call the Police and they arrive on scene. They ask me who has a gun and I point the guy out. Sure enough, they discover he has a gun.

If I'm just a bystander and I can point you out to Law Enforcement as being in possession of a firearm, then you have effectively "Failed to conceal"!

The facts concerning each individual situation listed above now becomes an issue of interpretation of the Law by Police and maybe later by Lawyers!

Concealed means Concealed! Strap it on.........cover it up.............and SHUT UP!!!!!

Trust me-The process by which the LEO "discovers" that you are indeed carrying a gun SUCKS! I would assert that it is best to avoid the whole "police getting involved because some moron called 911" scenario. I doubt it involves the LEO asking for a CHL and then telling you to have a nice day.

Embalmo

[Embalmo]

Seriously though, I'm not confused over what the little white book sez, but I still think that revealing one's carry status, regardless of the medium, is iffy and will likely get you arrested and possibly prosecuted if a moron calls the poleese (at least here in Austin).

Embalmo

Arrested and possibly prosecuted for what?

Arrested because the LEO or manager of the establishment is convinced that you can't carry in a grocery store that sells beer, or just because (insert whatever ignorance of CHL law here) and prosecuted by a DA that believes that guns cause crime. Do you think antis in authority really care about...Whats that funny word? Oh yea, the LAW. Oh and if there's a silly gun buster sign on the door, it's GAME ON for the prosecution and arresting officer.


Embalmo

Ever heard of false arrest? Official oppression?

Sec. 39.03. OFFICIAL OPPRESSION. (a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:

(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;

(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful; or

(3) intentionally subjects another to sexual harassment.

(b) For purposes of this section, a public servant acts under color of his office or employment if he acts or purports to act in an official capacity or takes advantage of such actual or purported capacity.

(c) In this section, "sexual harassment" means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, submission to which is made a term or condition of a person's exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, either explicitly or implicitly.

(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

...Oh and if there's a silly gun buster sign on the door, it's GAME ON for the prosecution and arresting officer.

And why is this so hard to understand:

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:

(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and

(2) received notice that:

(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or

(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.

(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.

(c) In this section:

(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).

(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).

(3) "Written communication" means:

(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or

(B) a sign posted on the property that:

(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;

(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and

(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

When the nice policeman arrives, tell him everything that you've just told me; be sure and post how it all plays out. And don't forget the condescending rhetorical questions:

And why is this so hard to understand:

Ever heard of false arrest? Official oppression?

They respect that.

M. Ball Moe

[Embalmo]

I'm using the phrase "Verbally show" to mean verbally indicating one's carry status as armed; to tell someone that there is a gun in your pocket. To raise ones shirt to reveal the gun shaped bulge in one's bicycle shorts would be to physically show.

I agree that it doesn't say anything in the book about telling someone in friendly conversation that you're armed (where others may hear you), but I do think that it's a little gray when you consider that bicycle pants and loose lips yield the same results; that you gotta' gun in your pants. And you've also, naturally, got to be careful in places where LEOs and shopkeepers may not get the concept of non-compliant signs.

Embalmo

While imprudent, it is not illegal. Is that what you mean by calling it a gray area? That you might be legally OK, but that it might not be worth the potential hassle, fallout, or fright to do so?

Sorry-I never answered your question. Yep-That's what I meant.

[The Annoyed Man]

I'm using the phrase "Verbally show" to mean verbally indicating one's carry status as armed; to tell someone that there is a gun in your pocket. To raise ones shirt to reveal the gun shaped bulge in one's bicycle shorts would be to physically show.

I agree that it doesn't say anything in the book about telling someone in friendly conversation that you're armed (where others may hear you), but I do think that it's a little gray when you consider that bicycle pants and loose lips yield the same results; that you gotta' gun in your pants. And you've also, naturally, got to be careful in places where LEOs and shopkeepers may not get the concept of non-compliant signs.

Embalmo

While imprudent, it is not illegal. Is that what you mean by calling it a gray area? That you might be legally OK, but that it might not be worth the potential hassle, fallout, or fright to do so?

Sorry-I never answered your question. Yep-That's what I meant.

Well, anyone who carry a gun in a pair of spandex bicycle shorts is arguably exhibiting "intentional failure to conceal....."

....and might be a bit of a perve to boot.

[bdickens]

English is such a tricky language.

[miajaipi]

Drink what ever you think your limit is at the Bar.....Just remember that the LEO that stops you will determine if you are intoxicated not a breathtest or anything else. So the burden will be on you to prove that you were not.....good luck with that and say bye bye to your CHL.

http://www.donotblow.com

[Oldgringo]

Purplehood wrote:

...it ain't my business...

This snippet from our esteemed colleague, Purplehood, speaks volumes to all who would hear.

[The Annoyed Man]

Drink what ever you think your limit is at the Bar.....Just remember that the LEO that stops you will determine if you are intoxicated not a breathtest or anything else. So the burden will be on you to prove that you were not.....good luck with that and say bye bye to your CHL.

http://www.donotblow.com

That forwards to http://www.tylerflood.com/, the website of a DWI law firm.

Are you advertising?

[miajaipi]

Drink what ever you think your limit is at the Bar.....Just remember that the LEO that stops you will determine if you are intoxicated not a breathtest or anything else. So the burden will be on you to prove that you were not.....good luck with that and say bye bye to your CHL.

http://www.donotblow.com

That forwards to http://www.tylerflood.com/, the website of a DWI law firm.

Are you advertising?

IANAL

They have the DONOTBLOW.COM billboards around town especially near bar/club areas. I thought it might be a good counterpoint to the claim that "the LEO that stops you will determine if you are intoxicated" as if you're not entitled to a lawyer and a trial, and as if everyone accused of intoxication is convicted, especially if there's no video and the cop didn't administer a breath or blood test because he knows you're not over the limit.

[Ol Zeke]

Purplehood wrote:

...it ain't my business...

This snippet from our esteemed colleague, Purplehood, speaks volumes to all who would hear.

As my dear old Daddy used to always say... sometimes..
"the hardest thing about 'Freedom' is havin' the good sense to allow the other guy his.

[Oldgringo]

Drink what ever you think your limit is at the Bar.....Just remember that the LEO that stops you will determine if you are intoxicated not a breathtest or anything else. So the burden will be on you to prove that you were not.....good luck with that and say bye bye to your CHL.

http://www.donotblow.com

That forwards to http://www.tylerflood.com/, the website of a DWI law firm.

Are you advertising?

IANAL

They have the DONOTBLOW.COM billboards around town especially near bar/club areas. I thought it might be a good counterpoint to the claim that "the LEO that stops you will determine if you are intoxicated" as if you're not entitled to a lawyer and a trial, and as if everyone accused of intoxication is convicted, especially if there's no video and the cop didn't administer a breath or blood test because he knows you're not over the limit.

Isn't refusal to take an in situ sobriety test an automatic "something or other"? The automatic "something or other" leads to an automatic need for a lawyer.

Y'all have a good time, ya' hear. It shouldn't cost a whole lot.