TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:@G.A. Heath:

Yes, those of us on THIS forum generally understand what the text of the laws means...and tend to agree with each other...however, tell that to the gentleman from Round Rock who accidentally exposed and then got himself a ride to jail along with an arrest record EVEN THOUGH the judge threw it out...I'm not worried about a CONVICTION if I'm doing things right, but I do worry about a nervous nelly type who calls in MWG, and the cops of course not wanting to lose their lives while "on the job" arrest first and let the courts sort later...but I don't have the kind of cash required just to throw around getting a bull arrest expunged from my record...and I have NEVER been arrested for ANYTHING. In fact, I've only ever had one speeding ticket, and that was one of those "country club" speed zones way outside where the city limits SHOULD have been. THAT is why I would like to see OC, just so that I never have to worry about accidental exposure, not so I can go swaggering around with a hog-leg on.

Taking the number of CHL's each year from 1996 through 2010 (2010 is estimated), there have been 3,770,107 CHL-man-years. I think I can recall hearing of three alleged arrests for unintentional failure to conceal. Let's be overly cautious in our calculation and we'll use ten arrests in our formula: 10/3,770,107 = 2.652444612314717e-6 (I don't even know what that is! I think it's equates to 0.00000265.)

Do OC supporters really want to use the smoke screen of arrests for unintentional failure to conceal as a reason to pass open-carry? If so, credibility is at risk and I can promise that some Senator or Representative on a committee is going to inquire about the number and ratio of arrests for unintentional failure to conceal. Over-selling your case can be costly.

Chas.