TexasCHLforum.com

Soccerdad1995

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?

Soccerdad1995

Ike Aramba wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote:If I was a defense lawyer and my client had been charged with violating a 30.06 sign (where no 30.07 sign was present), then I think my first question of the prosecution's star witness would be "did you see my client's gun?" If yes, then it sounds like it wasn't really concealed in the first place.
I think my first question to my client would be if they really want to spend thousands fighting a $200 fine?

I know. But let's imagine a fictional world where your client has been handcuffed, driven to the police station, and booked (aka "taken a ride") because they were suspected of violating a law that has a max penalty of a $200 fine.... In such an alternate reality, your client may be mad enough that they don't mind the attorney's fees.

Soccerdad1995

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

LucasMcCain wrote:As a semi-serious response to the idea that a pro 2A business owner would post a 30.06 because they wanted everyone carrying to do so openly, let me just pose this question:

If you were this theoretical shop owner, would you post a 30.06? Would you not be more likely to post a non-legally-binding sign along the lines of "Management asks that if you carry a gun in our store you do so openly. We just like to know which of our customers we can count on in a pinch."

I would compare it to the way Taco Cabana handles open carry. They just post a sign that politely asks that LTC holders not carry openly in their store. No legal repercussions, but letting people know how they feel about it.

It depends on how much the owner preferred open carry over concealed carry.

Soccerdad1995

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?

Soccerdad1995

CleverNickname wrote:So if CCW is banned in a location but open carry isn't, then what's the opposite of printing? e.g., what's the minimal amount of firearm legally required to be visible? If someone carried in a way which most people would be considered to be concealed, and then somehow his gun was discovered, would any laws have been broken? All that happened was the gun was visible, which isn't illegal.

I think it would be the same standard for violating a 30.07 sign where there is no 30.06 signage. After all, you are either concealing or you are not.

IANAL, and as far as I know this point has not actually been litigated, but I personally feel comfortable walking past a 30.07 sign with a completely visible holster as long as NO part of the gun is visible. So it would stand to reason that if any part of the gun IS visible then you are not concealing and would not be in violation of a 30.06 posting. Of course, you would want to make sure that you are never concealing. So if you were to use an open muzzle holster where the end of the barrel was visible below your shirt, that is one thing. But if it is completely covered when your hands are down at your sides, that is a whole other scenario.

If I was a defense lawyer and my client had been charged with violating a 30.06 sign (where no 30.07 sign was present), then I think my first question of the prosecution's star witness would be "did you see my client's gun?" If yes, then it sounds like it wasn't really concealed in the first place.

Soccerdad1995

TVGuy wrote:How do we know that the owner of the establishment isn't an ardent 2A rights advocate and he/she just doesn't want people hiding their weapons. They want all to wear them proudly and in the open as they enter their place of business?

I'm not a mind reader, this could easily be the situation.

I don't own a business at the moment, but this is my policy in my home. I am fine with people carrying weapons, but would prefer that they stay visible so I am aware of who is and is not armed.

There are several possibilities here. Maybe the owner of the business referenced by the OP feels the same way I do. Maybe he/she would rather just let OC'ers know verbally that openly carried guns are not permitted. Or maybe they are just too ignorant to know that they need a separate 30.07 sign. Which one is most likely? Who knows.

Soccerdad1995

mojo84 wrote:The only people I recall bringing up "taking a ride" in this thread are the ones try to be smartelec.

The OP asked a valid question and most tried to give him a reasonable answer.

"In this thread" being the key words here. I'll make sure to point out the next time that I see someone posting this nonsense in a non-joking way. I am guessing it will be the next time that this question comes up, so give it a day or so.

I agree 100% that we need to just give honest answers to questions about whether something is legal, and not interject personal opinions like "well it might be legal, but do you really want to risk X, Y, and Z".

Soccerdad1995

mojo84 wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
ScottDLS wrote:And if you do enter open carrying and are told "you can't wear that in here", that will mean that you are for eternity banned from carrying on any property owned by that store, or any store with any shareholders in common with that store, even if you are later told that it's OK by the board of directors via a shareholder resolution...and public stockholder vote. You will be placed in FBI and TX DPS "rap back" system and your membership to Costco will be canceled for cause and your picture posted at the Post Office....and you will never be able to get a DoD security clearance or work at a refinery or chemical plant... and your CDL and TWIC will be revoked....

...or so I've heard.
This is ridiculous and old!
1,000%

I really wish that certain people would stop trying to scare others about doing things that are completely legal. In Scott's defense, I think he was being ironic and doing a bit of a parody about the ridiculous and very old arguments that we should all limit our rights even more than required by the law.

Who's trying to scare who? I think it stands to reason if someone doesn't want concealed carry in their business, they will probably not want open carry and will advise an open carrier accordingly.

There's a difference between parody and someone being a smartelec. Notice how he gave a reasonable answer to the question after he was called on his smartelec comment.

No one is trying to scare anyone into anything. Sometimes, common sense just has to prevail. If one open carries into a place that prohibits concealed carry, one shouldn't be surprised to be informed that they are not allowed to carry there.

One shouldn't be surprised to be informed that they are not allowed to carry anywhere. That is one method of notification, and I would not be surprised to get that notice anywhere. I would be a bit surprised to get that notification on government owned property when it would be illegal (not one of the exempted locations), but given recent events, even that would not surprise me.

Personally, I think it is the warnings about "taking the ride" for things that are explicitly legal that is ridiculous and old. You were not saying that, but there are plenty of people who do say such things repeatedly whenever we start talking about locations where we might be able to guess that the owner is possibly against the carrying of guns. Not against it enough to research the law and put up signage that would legally prevent such behavior, just that they might be against it to some lesser degree.

I agree that an owner who is against concealed carry would be more likely than not to also be against open carry as well. If so, they are likely planning to just politely tell anyone OC'ing of their wishes instead of posting another sign. But it is possible that at least some folks might be OK with people having guns as long as they can clearly see who those people are. The only way to know for sure is to pay them a visit.

Soccerdad1995

mojo84 wrote:
ScottDLS wrote:And if you do enter open carrying and are told "you can't wear that in here", that will mean that you are for eternity banned from carrying on any property owned by that store, or any store with any shareholders in common with that store, even if you are later told that it's OK by the board of directors via a shareholder resolution...and public stockholder vote. You will be placed in FBI and TX DPS "rap back" system and your membership to Costco will be canceled for cause and your picture posted at the Post Office....and you will never be able to get a DoD security clearance or work at a refinery or chemical plant... and your CDL and TWIC will be revoked....

...or so I've heard.
This is ridiculous and old!

1,000%

I really wish that certain people would stop trying to scare others about doing things that are completely legal. In Scott's defense, I think he was being ironic and doing a bit of a parody about the ridiculous and very old arguments that we should all limit our rights even more than required by the law.

Soccerdad1995

KLB wrote:What one can arguably get away with and what is a good idea are seldom the same thing.

You should not try to carry concealed because that would be wrong, even if you could get away with it.

Just make sure that a part of your gun is not concealed when you carry past this sign.

Soccerdad1995

ScottDLS wrote:And if you do enter open carrying and are told "you can't wear that in here", that will mean that you are for eternity banned from carrying on any property owned by that store, or any store with any shareholders in common with that store, even if you are later told that it's OK by the board of directors via a shareholder resolution...and public stockholder vote. You will be placed in FBI and TX DPS "rap back" system and your membership to Costco will be canceled for cause and your picture posted at the Post Office....and you will never be able to get a DoD security clearance or work at a refinery or chemical plant... and your CDL and TWIC will be revoked....

...or so I've heard.

Don't forget that you may also have to TAKE THE RIDE!!!!!! even if you beat the rap.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 12 matches

Re: 30.06 sign but no 30.07

Re: 30.06 sign but no 30.07

Re: 30.06 sign but no 30.07

Re: 30.06 sign but no 30.07

Re: 30.06 sign but no 30.07

Re: 30.06 sign but no 30.07

Re: 30.06 sign but no 30.07

Re: 30.06 sign but no 30.07

Re: 30.06 sign but no 30.07

Re: 30.06 sign but no 30.07

Re: 30.06 sign but no 30.07

Re: 30.06 sign but no 30.07