I agree it's safer to make small changes but I think they have to change the 46.035 failure to conceal rule no matter which one is their goal. If they only make the change to 46.02 then someone with a CHL can still be charged for violating 46.035 even though people without a CHL can open carry. It's like the requirement that someone with a CHL has to show ID and their CHL in situations where someone without a CHL doesn't have to show any ID. Or someone without a CHL driving past a 30.06 sign in a parking lot. We don't need more disadvantages to having a CHL.Charles L. Cotton wrote:I recommend not promoting the model bill that OpenCarry.org offers on its website. It goes much further than is necessary to legalize open-carry. I understand that OpenCarry.org wants unlicensed open-carry, but even those who support open-carry are divided on the licensed v. unlicensed issue. Regardless of the approach taken, it would be much easier and safer to approach a bill by making minimal changes to the Penal Code to achieve the goal. For example, to legalize unlicensed open-carry, the only thing that needs to be done is to insert the word "concealed" in front of "handgun" in TPC §46.02(a). If the goal is to legalize licensed open-carry, then leave TPC §46.02 alone and simply repeal TPC §46.035(a) that requires concealment.
Search found 1 match
Return to “Still No Open-Carry Bill”
- Thu Jan 01, 2009 5:23 pm
- Forum: 2009 Texas Legislative Session
- Topic: Still No Open-Carry Bill
- Replies: 16
- Views: 3059