TexasCHLforum.com

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

rotor wrote:

casp625 wrote:The preceding sentence says on or about your person doesn't mean my interpretation is correct though

To me the important sentence is.. "It is an exception to the application of this subsection that the handgun was partially or wholly visible but was carried in a shoulder or belt holster by the license holder." The way I read this the license holder must carry in a shoulder or belt holster. Not have a holstered gun on a chair or seat next to him/her.

So IANAL, but I think the word "carried" has a pretty broad definition here. After all, the title of 46.035 is "unlawful carrying of a firearm...". So if you are not "carrying" a gun that is not in physical contact with a part of your body, then the entire section would not apply and you would have nothing to worry about from a gun that was sitting on your passenger seat. I also draw the same inference by the inclusion of the words "on or about". If they were only talking about carrying a gun in the literal sense of the word, then how could it not be "on" your person.

Does anyone know if it is possible (within the meaning of the law) to lawfully or unlawfully "carry" a gun that is in your car, but you aren't touching it?

This actually has practical implications to me since I just installed an Alien Gear docking mount in my car. It houses a paddle holster that I put into the mount, and the holster and mount are both inches from my right knee / leg. I am planning to put a black cloth over the gun to be safe, but if it were to become visible somehow would that be a problem?

casp625 wrote:The preceding sentence says on or about your person doesn't mean my interpretation is correct though

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

rotor wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

rotor wrote:This is a silly post with silly answers but for those serious enough to think about it, it is not enough to show part of your gun to make it legal open carry as the gun must be in a belt holster or shoulder holster. So for those that carry otherwise, women with a purse or ankle holsters, showing part of your gun doesn't qualify as open carry.

Are you basing that opinion solely on the requirement that the gun needs to be carried in a belt or shoulder holster that is on or about the person of the LTC holder? If so. I think I can see the logic, but I'm not sure I fully agree. Specifically, I don't necessarily agree that the holster needs to be visible. By that logic wouldn't I be in trouble if I carried in an IWB holster where the holster was not visible at all, but the grip of the gun was visible?

The law says partially or wholly visible but was carried in a shoulder or belt holster. One can not make more out of the law than what it says. I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that a reasonable person would feel that a shoulder holster is worn on the shoulder and a belt holster is worn on the belt. An IWB belt holster that openly displayed a handgun would be legal if no 30.07 or other restriction was placed in my opinion. I would doubt that a woman carrying a handgun in a belt holster in her purse that displayed her handgun would be a legal open carry. Definitely an ankle holster would not be a legal open carry even if one strapped a belt holster to their ankle (in my opinion). One has to assume that there is some logic to legislation ( that may be the dumbest thing I ever said ).

PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER.
Text of subsection effective on Jan. 1, 2016
(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 the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place. It is an exception to the application of this subsection that the handgun was partially or wholly visible but was carried in a shoulder or belt holster by the license holder.

I think we are talking at cross purposes a bit (always a danger on internet forums). I also believe that you may be leaving out a word in in the law that you quote above. Doesn't it refer to the "gun" being wholly or partially visible and carried in a shoulder or belt holster that is on or about the person? I thought it specifically referenced the gun being visible and not the holster. I continue to think that it would not be a violation of 30.06 is the gun (and not the holster) was visible, as long as the gun was in fact carried in a belt or shoulder holster.

For the record, I was not advocating visible carry in something other than a belt or shoulder holster. But I do know that at least one DA has publicly stated that as long as the gun is in a belt or shoulder holster it does not need to be worn to be OK under 30.07. Driving with it on the passenger seat would be "on or about" the LTC holder's body in that sense.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

rotor wrote:This is a silly post with silly answers but for those serious enough to think about it, it is not enough to show part of your gun to make it legal open carry as the gun must be in a belt holster or shoulder holster. So for those that carry otherwise, women with a purse or ankle holsters, showing part of your gun doesn't qualify as open carry.

Are you basing that opinion solely on the requirement that the gun needs to be carried in a belt or shoulder holster that is on or about the person of the LTC holder? If so. I think I can see the logic, but I'm not sure I fully agree. Specifically, I don't necessarily agree that the holster needs to be visible. By that logic wouldn't I be in trouble if I carried in an IWB holster where the holster was not visible at all, but the grip of the gun was visible?