Cuffed and Stuffed

[dubya]

Well, this whole thread certainly makes you think twice about pushing the limits (not that I do). A wrong turn can certainly be costly in many ways.

I'm sure the OP would have preferred to have avoided this. Carrying several types and sizes of handguns it makes the most concealable more attactive. Thanks for all the info here.

[HGWC]

Hmm, there must be some mistake! Charles assured me in no uncertain terms, that there is no risk of being harassed or arrested under 46.035, UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER, for an un-intentional failure to conceal. See our discussion over the risk of harassment and false arrest under this law here: http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... al#p249398. You must be mistaken Handog. There is no risk that you could be harassed and arrested under 46.035 for unintentional failure to conceal. It must have been clear to the officers that you were intentionally not concealing your handgun.

[Keith B]

Hmm, there must be some mistake! Charles assured me in no uncertain terms, that there is no risk of being harassed or arrested under 46.035, UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER, for an un-intentional failure to conceal. See our discussion over the risk of harassment and false arrest under this law here: http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... al#p249398. You must be mistaken Handog. There is no risk that you could be harassed and arrested under 46.035 for unintentional failure to conceal. It must have been clear to the officers that you were intentionally not concealing your handgun.

I don't believe the charge was that he failed to conceal and was arrested for that, but they discovered he was carrying in a government building and thought that the building was off limits per the law. So, the UCW arrest was for carrying in the government building, not unintentional failure to conceal (which apparently happened enough to get outed), but that was not the charge.

Please correct this if I am incorrect handog

[HGWC]

Hmm, there must be some mistake! Charles assured me in no uncertain terms, that there is no risk of being harassed or arrested under 46.035, UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER, for an un-intentional failure to conceal. See our discussion over the risk of harassment and false arrest under this law here: http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... al#p249398. You must be mistaken Handog. There is no risk that you could be harassed and arrested under 46.035 for unintentional failure to conceal. It must have been clear to the officers that you were intentionally not concealing your handgun.

I don't believe the charge was that he failed to conceal and was arrested for that, but they discovered he was carrying in a government building and thought that the building was off limits per the law. So, the UCW arrest was for carrying in the government building, not unintentional failure to conceal (which apparently happened enough to get outed), but that was not the charge.

Please correct this if I am incorrect handog

That's not what Handog said:

Postby handog » Sat Feb 13, 2010 8:36 pm
It was not a courthouse or any other mentioned. It was a Gov. Office building. The location wasn't the issue. The issue is that the CHG was somehow identified. As Mr. Cotton has pointed out "it must be "intentional" conduct and that's unique in Texas penal statutes." It was absolutely not exposed intentionally or recklessly therefore the law was NOT BROKEN. I was thrown in jail, had to lissen to the LEOS flipped remarks all day and had my Lic. Suspended and my gun confiscated. It's bull.

[Keith B]

Hmm, there must be some mistake! Charles assured me in no uncertain terms, that there is no risk of being harassed or arrested under 46.035, UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER, for an un-intentional failure to conceal. See our discussion over the risk of harassment and false arrest under this law here: http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... al#p249398. You must be mistaken Handog. There is no risk that you could be harassed and arrested under 46.035 for unintentional failure to conceal. It must have been clear to the officers that you were intentionally not concealing your handgun.

I don't believe the charge was that he failed to conceal and was arrested for that, but they discovered he was carrying in a government building and thought that the building was off limits per the law. So, the UCW arrest was for carrying in the government building, not unintentional failure to conceal (which apparently happened enough to get outed), but that was not the charge.

Please correct this if I am incorrect handog

That's not what Handog said:

Postby handog » Sat Feb 13, 2010 8:36 pm
It was not a courthouse or any other mentioned. It was a Gov. Office building. The location wasn't the issue. The issue is that the CHG was somehow identified. As Mr. Cotton has pointed out "it must be "intentional" conduct and that's unique in Texas penal statutes." It was absolutely not exposed intentionally or recklessly therefore the law was NOT BROKEN. I was thrown in jail, had to lissen to the LEOS flipped remarks all day and had my Lic. Suspended and my gun confiscated. It's bull.

OK, that is different that what I had interpreted the original post to be. I am wondering if they didn't try to change horses (charges) in mid-stream in an attempt to throw something at the wall and make it stick?

[HGWC]

So, you're suggesting that they were really concerned that he was in possession under 46.035c during a meeting of a governmental entity. Except that of course he wasn't in a meeting of a governmental entity, and then they thought they'd be better off charging him under 46.035a for intentionally failing to conceal. No. That's not right. Charles assured me there was no risk of any CHL holder getting charged under 46.035a unless he was intentionally and recklessly carrying unconcealed.

[Keith B]

I will await handog's response on this as I am party to more info than most on this situation due to the original posting that was removed at his request. I don't want to misquote or incorrectly interpret handog's posts.

[HGWC]

I don't want to misquote or incorrectly interpret handog's posts.

I don't want to misquote him either.

The issue is that the CHG was somehow identified

[joe817]

I will await handog's response on this as I am party to more info than most on this situation due to the original posting that was removed at his request. I don't want to misquote or incorrectly interpret handog's posts.

Perhaps we should throttle down on the speculation until we get clarification from hangdog himself.

[Originalist]

So, you're suggesting that they were really concerned that he was in possession under 46.035c during a meeting of a governmental entity. Except that of course he wasn't in a meeting of a governmental entity, and then they thought they'd be better off charging him under 46.035a for intentionally failing to conceal. No. That's not right. Charles assured me there was no risk of any CHL holder getting charged under 46.035a unless he was intentionally and recklessly carrying unconcealed.

~The Gov't meeting has to be posted 30.06 for it to be off limits~

[PUCKER]

Like probably everyone else reading this, I can't wait to be able to get the WHOLE story (you know, play by play if you will)...and justice for handog...and a written/public apology from the officer(s)/department(s) involved in this (I know, probably dreaming on that last one, eh?)!!!!

[shortysboy09]

Like probably everyone else reading this, I can't wait to be able to get the WHOLE story (you know, play by play if you will)...and justice for handog...and a written/public apology from the officer(s)/department(s) involved in this (I know, probably dreaming on that last one, eh?)!!!!

You probably won't see the last one even though it would be courteous to do. I cant say if the officers were justified in arresting him or not because I wasn't there, but I think they should at least have the decency to apologize since the charges were dropped.

[handog]

The charge was that the handgun was exposed. Nothing was said about the about the location while I was under arrest. It all boils down to if it was intentionally, purposefully or recklessly exposed. It must be "intentional" conduct and that's unique in Texas penal statutes. The fact is that it was in a deep concealment holster inside my waist belt so how can it be considered anything but accidental? When I stood in front of the magistrate he said after reading the report "it sounds accidental to me." It was in fact a false arrest.

One other thing. Whenever I get out of my truck I know to pull my shirt down over my handgun. When I was pulled over and ordered out of the vehicle I could not reach down because they would have opened fire on me. The handle of the gun was exposed when I stepped out and they held that against me.

[thankGod]

I think they should have the decency to return his CHL (and pistol, if they still have it).

[mbw]

Hold on a second. I thought that you were arrested in a government building. What does getting out of your truck have to do with a government building?