TexasCHLforum.com

If by chance open carry doesn't pass it seems to me that deliberate exposure of a concealed holstered gun charge ought to be reduced from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class C. Alone this same line of thought, would campus conceal carry also mean concealed required in the campus parking lots? For example, a girl is walking to her car after class and somebody approaches her. Ifshe were to expose the fact she has a holstered gun as a more forceful deferent why would she have to risk a Class A charge?

You may want to review current statutes, including things that were addressed in the last session. That might take care of most if not all of your questions.

Displaying a handgun during the use of force is covered in the statutes

Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER. (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.
.......
(h) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that the actor, at the time of the commission of the offense, displayed the handgun under circumstances in which the actor would have been justified in the use of force or deadly force under Chapter 9.

So just drawing the handgun to be ready to use in the case of a perceived or actual threat would have a defense to prosecution.

Keith B wrote:Displaying a handgun during the use of force is covered in the statutes

Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER. (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.
.......
(h) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that the actor, at the time of the commission of the offense, displayed the handgun under circumstances in which the actor would have been justified in the use of force or deadly force under Chapter 9.

So just drawing the handgun to be ready to use in the case of a perceived or actual threat would have a defense to prosecution.

And...

PC §9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor’s purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

I know the law but just because someone is approaching it doesn't mean that person has constituted a legal threat. For example, years ago I was in Love Field picking up a friend. He was supposed to have been on the 9pm flight but came in on the 10:30pm flight. I was eerie because for 1 1/2 hours I was the only one in this big terminal hallway. That is, until two guys dress in track warm ups and a girl came down the hall (does their race matter?). They stopped about 25 feet away. At that time (late 70s) Love had a reputation for muggings and it was obvious to me I was being scouted as a potential target. They weren't making eye contact but one of the guys walked in a half circle to within 4 feet of me. I was ready to punch knowing his backup was waiting. The guy then went back to his backup and I heard him quietly say "I don think he's worth it."

Now here's the thing: at what point did the constitute a legal threat? Could I have legally punched this guy out without him ever saying a word to me or making eye contact? They technically didn't do anything illegl. They didn't cross that line.

Yeas later (mid 90s) I studying hand to hand fighting from a police officer. He taught Philippine Arnise martial art. Arnise teaches knife fighting. My instructor (http://www.forcenecessary.com/hock-hoch ... phic-info/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) was teaching reverse grip with the blade concealed behind the forearm. I told him when practice this it reminds me of the time back in Love Field. I could've been standing there ready to go to work if this guy had attacked.

Given a similar scenario (today it'd have to be the baggage claim) I think I should be able to expose the fact I have a holstered firearm if I believe it's a more forceful deterrent. It the main reason I'm in favor of open carry. Short of that reduce the Class A to a C.

Keith B wrote:Displaying a handgun during the use of force is covered in the statutes

Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER. (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.
.......
(h) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that the actor, at the time of the commission of the offense, displayed the handgun under circumstances in which the actor would have been justified in the use of force or deadly force under Chapter 9.

So just drawing the handgun to be ready to use in the case of a perceived or actual threat would have a defense to prosecution.

As I follow what you are saying, someone is justified in showing their firearm because the situation also justifies using the firearm. While I agree with the concept in the law, does it really apply to the scenario given? In the scenario described, someone would be justified in using deadly force because they were approached?

The victim in the following YouTube video should've been paying better attention but when would've the assailant give the victim justifiable reason to expose a firearm?

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

jerry_r60 wrote:

Keith B wrote:Displaying a handgun during the use of force is covered in the statutes

Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER. (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.
.......
(h) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that the actor, at the time of the commission of the offense, displayed the handgun under circumstances in which the actor would have been justified in the use of force or deadly force under Chapter 9.

So just drawing the handgun to be ready to use in the case of a perceived or actual threat would have a defense to prosecution.

As I follow what you are saying, someone is justified in showing their firearm because the situation also justifies using the firearm. While I agree with the concept in the law, does it really apply to the scenario given? In the scenario described, someone would be justified in using deadly force because they were approached?

I don't think you are following. "Using a firearm" (I assume you mean firing it) is only legal if use of deadly force is justified. Producing a firearm is legal if use of force is justified.
Here is how this should play out:
1. Woman sees man approaching and perceives a threat.
2. Woman shouts command for man to stop while moving her hand toward her weapon.
3. Man continues to approach, woman produces weapon and again shouts for man to stop.
4. What happens next depends on the mans actions.
All of this assumes that the woman has time to complete these steps. In the above scenario the woman is well within her rights to produce a weapon. If she does, she should call 911 as soon as she can safely do so and report what happened.

Tracker wrote:The victim in the following YouTube video should've been paying better attention but when would've the assailant give the victim justifiable reason to expose a firearm?

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Shirtless thug with sagging pants and underwear showing carrying a glass bottle automatically means I keep my distance. I will attempt to keep my distance by moving away. If he continues to close the distance he gets a command to stay away. If he refuses he gets to look at the business end of a firearm. If he continues to approach holding a bottle in the manner he was holding it (making it a weapon)...

jmra wrote:Shirtless thug with sagging pants and underwear showing carrying a glass bottle automatically means I keep my distance. I will attempt to keep my distance by moving away. If he continues to close the distance he gets a command to stay away. If he refuses he gets to look at the business end of a firearm. If he continues to approach holding a bottle in the manner he was holding it (making it a weapon)...

I also would never sit down in that scenario. I'd be retreating, one hand up in a stop gesture while commanding he back the .... off, and the other hand moving towards my grip.

jerry_r60 wrote: As I follow what you are saying, someone is justified in showing their firearm because the situation also justifies using the firearm. While I agree with the concept in the law, does it really apply to the scenario given? In the scenario described, someone would be justified in using deadly force because they were approached?

That's what he's saying. It doesn't apply to the situation described (at Love). Allowing OC solves that problem.

cb1000rider wrote:

jerry_r60 wrote: As I follow what you are saying, someone is justified in showing their firearm because the situation also justifies using the firearm. While I agree with the concept in the law, does it really apply to the scenario given? In the scenario described, someone would be justified in using deadly force because they were approached?

That's what he's saying. It doesn't apply to the situation described (at Love). Allowing OC solves that problem.

Exactly my point. If I feel I need to expose a firearm because there's an actor I need to intimidate short of open carry passing, at the very least, the Class A charge ought to be reduced to a Class C.

jmra wrote:

Tracker wrote:The victim in the following YouTube video should've been paying better attention but when would've the assailant give the victim justifiable reason to expose a firearm?

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Shirtless thug with sagging pants and underwear showing carrying a glass bottle automatically means I keep my distance. I will attempt to keep my distance by moving away. If he continues to close the distance he gets a command to stay away. If he refuses he gets to look at the business end of a firearm. If he continues to approach holding a bottle in the manner he was holding it (making it a weapon)...

Monday morning quarterbacking aside, what you would do wasn't the point. I'm picking an actual assault video...as an example...it isn't perfect. Take the bottle away. At what point did the guy committee to a criminal action allowing the victim to have been able to legally expose a concealed firearm? Open carry gets ride of that legal restriction where you can only display the gun if deadly force was necessary. Short of OC passing I'd, personally, like to see the charge for displaying reduced from a Class A to a Class C.

Tracker wrote:
Monday morning quarterbacking aside, what you would do wasn't the point. I'm picking an actual assault video...as an example...it isn't perfect. Take the bottle away. At what point did the guy committee to a criminal action allowing the victim to have been able to legally expose a concealed firearm? Open carry gets ride of that legal restriction where you can only display the gun if deadly force was necessary. Short of OC passing I'd, personally, like to see the charge for displaying reduced from a Class A to a Class C.

While it would not hurt for the charge to be reduced to a Class C, I think you may be missing a point on this.

There is already a defense from prosecution in TPC 9.04 if you display your firearm and you were justified in using force per section 9.22 & 9.31 http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/S ... m/PE.9.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BUT, let's say you display your firearm because you think the other person(s) are a threat. However, they had no intent on harming you and call the police reporting that you threatened them with a firearm, even by just displaying it. You would probably not be charged under 46.035, but under Texas Penal Code 22 for assault http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.22.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

So, just displaying your handgun from concealment, even still in a holster, could be perceived as a threat by the other person(s) and would earn you an assault charge.

It could also be the same even when open carry is legal if the other person(s) tell the police you were displaying your handgun in a threatening manner toward them. I arrested a person for this when I was LEO in an open carry state. The person was involved in an altercation with an individual. The police were called and when we arrived the complainant stated they were threatened by the individual with a firearm. The guy never pulled a gun on them, but did have a handgun clearly visible on the dashboard of his vehicle, so he was arrested for displaying the handgun in an angry or threatening manner.

So just changing the class of charge to a class C on 46.035 is not necessarily going to fix the issue you addressing if the other person(s) are determined to have not actually been a threat and open carry would not necessarily fix it either.

Keith, when I was in Love Field that night there was no justifiable use of force even though I knew I was being scouted as a potential target. If I'd hit this guy simply because he came so close to me, I would've been the one committing the legal assault. I didn't want to draw more attention to myself by saying anything to them to invoke an attack.

Similar situation: If I would've had a concealed gun on me and saw these three coming down the hall acting as if they were minding their own business. They obviously were not. Maybe I would want to legally expose a holstered firearm because I want to draw attention to the fact that should they have decide to mug me I was going to be more than just a physical handful. This is the number one reason I'm for open carry. I wouldn't be break the law by transitioning for conceal carry to open carry.

As the law now stands, if a person deliberately exposes a concealed handgun it's a Class A. Does deliberate exposure also justify committing a threatened assault?