Charles, first let me take this opportunity to thank you for providing us with this forum. It is fantastic.Charles L. Cotton wrote:I promised an update, so here it is. After lengthy discussions with people involved with HB823 on the practical and legal effect of HB823, it remains my opinion and the consensus of the group that it does provide the protection intended by its author. One of the other attorneys disagrees with my evaluation and does not agree with the group's consensus.
Unfortunately, the volume of inaccurate information flooding the Internet on this issue is still mounting. My concern is that it might actually have a negative effect on the effect of HB823, both by unnecessarily alarming the general public and perhaps even tainting some LEO's and ADA's opinions. It should also be noted that, contrary to at least one post on packing.org, TSRA has not taken the position that HB823 failed to meet its intended goal, or that it is a trap for the unweary.
The language of HB823, including the newly created Section 2.05(b) is written in "legalize," but I believe the effect and application are clear. So also does NRA general counsel.
Could a LEO and/or ADA make an honest, or not so honest, mistake? Sure, but that can be said about many provisions in the Penal Code.
Regards,
Chas.
In your discussions referenced above, was there mention of why #5 uses the words "not in plain view" in lieu of the word "concealed?"