30.06 sign but no 30.07

[tornado]

Hey, if we're ignoring legislative intent, let me add to it

TPC 46 does not explicitly say that the belt holster must be attached to a belt (much less worn about the waist). What if my handgun is in a belt holster and partially visible sticking out of my Jack Bauer Man Bag™? Legal open carry?

[CleverNickname]

If I was a defense lawyer and my client had been charged with violating a 30.06 sign (where no 30.07 sign was present), then I think my first question of the prosecution's star witness would be "did you see my client's gun?" If yes, then it sounds like it wasn't really concealed in the first place.

That's exactly where I was going.

[Soccerdad1995]

This is a silly post with silly answers but for those serious enough to think about it, it is not enough to show part of your gun to make it legal open carry as the gun must be in a belt holster or shoulder holster. So for those that carry otherwise, women with a purse or ankle holsters, showing part of your gun doesn't qualify as open carry.

Are you basing that opinion solely on the requirement that the gun needs to be carried in a belt or shoulder holster that is on or about the person of the LTC holder? If so. I think I can see the logic, but I'm not sure I fully agree. Specifically, I don't necessarily agree that the holster needs to be visible. By that logic wouldn't I be in trouble if I carried in an IWB holster where the holster was not visible at all, but the grip of the gun was visible?

[LucasMcCain]

As a semi-serious response to the idea that a pro 2A business owner would post a 30.06 because they wanted everyone carrying to do so openly, let me just pose this question:

If you were this theoretical shop owner, would you post a 30.06? Would you not be more likely to post a non-legally-binding sign along the lines of "Management asks that if you carry a gun in our store you do so openly. We just like to know which of our customers we can count on in a pinch."

I would compare it to the way Taco Cabana handles open carry. They just post a sign that politely asks that LTC holders not carry openly in their store. No legal repercussions, but letting people know how they feel about it.

[Soccerdad1995]

As a semi-serious response to the idea that a pro 2A business owner would post a 30.06 because they wanted everyone carrying to do so openly, let me just pose this question:

If you were this theoretical shop owner, would you post a 30.06? Would you not be more likely to post a non-legally-binding sign along the lines of "Management asks that if you carry a gun in our store you do so openly. We just like to know which of our customers we can count on in a pinch."

I would compare it to the way Taco Cabana handles open carry. They just post a sign that politely asks that LTC holders not carry openly in their store. No legal repercussions, but letting people know how they feel about it.

It depends on how much the owner preferred open carry over concealed carry.

[rotor]

This is a silly post with silly answers but for those serious enough to think about it, it is not enough to show part of your gun to make it legal open carry as the gun must be in a belt holster or shoulder holster. So for those that carry otherwise, women with a purse or ankle holsters, showing part of your gun doesn't qualify as open carry.

Are you basing that opinion solely on the requirement that the gun needs to be carried in a belt or shoulder holster that is on or about the person of the LTC holder? If so. I think I can see the logic, but I'm not sure I fully agree. Specifically, I don't necessarily agree that the holster needs to be visible. By that logic wouldn't I be in trouble if I carried in an IWB holster where the holster was not visible at all, but the grip of the gun was visible?

The law says partially or wholly visible but was carried in a shoulder or belt holster. One can not make more out of the law than what it says. I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that a reasonable person would feel that a shoulder holster is worn on the shoulder and a belt holster is worn on the belt. An IWB belt holster that openly displayed a handgun would be legal if no 30.07 or other restriction was placed in my opinion. I would doubt that a woman carrying a handgun in a belt holster in her purse that displayed her handgun would be a legal open carry. Definitely an ankle holster would not be a legal open carry even if one strapped a belt holster to their ankle (in my opinion). One has to assume that there is some logic to legislation ( that may be the dumbest thing I ever said ).

PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER.
Text of subsection effective on Jan. 1, 2016
(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. It is an exception to the application of this subsection that the handgun was partially or wholly visible but was carried in a shoulder or belt holster by the license holder.

[Soccerdad1995]

This is a silly post with silly answers but for those serious enough to think about it, it is not enough to show part of your gun to make it legal open carry as the gun must be in a belt holster or shoulder holster. So for those that carry otherwise, women with a purse or ankle holsters, showing part of your gun doesn't qualify as open carry.

Are you basing that opinion solely on the requirement that the gun needs to be carried in a belt or shoulder holster that is on or about the person of the LTC holder? If so. I think I can see the logic, but I'm not sure I fully agree. Specifically, I don't necessarily agree that the holster needs to be visible. By that logic wouldn't I be in trouble if I carried in an IWB holster where the holster was not visible at all, but the grip of the gun was visible?

The law says partially or wholly visible but was carried in a shoulder or belt holster. One can not make more out of the law than what it says. I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that a reasonable person would feel that a shoulder holster is worn on the shoulder and a belt holster is worn on the belt. An IWB belt holster that openly displayed a handgun would be legal if no 30.07 or other restriction was placed in my opinion. I would doubt that a woman carrying a handgun in a belt holster in her purse that displayed her handgun would be a legal open carry. Definitely an ankle holster would not be a legal open carry even if one strapped a belt holster to their ankle (in my opinion). One has to assume that there is some logic to legislation ( that may be the dumbest thing I ever said ).

PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER.
Text of subsection effective on Jan. 1, 2016
(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. It is an exception to the application of this subsection that the handgun was partially or wholly visible but was carried in a shoulder or belt holster by the license holder.

I think we are talking at cross purposes a bit (always a danger on internet forums). I also believe that you may be leaving out a word in in the law that you quote above. Doesn't it refer to the "gun" being wholly or partially visible and carried in a shoulder or belt holster that is on or about the person? I thought it specifically referenced the gun being visible and not the holster. I continue to think that it would not be a violation of 30.06 is the gun (and not the holster) was visible, as long as the gun was in fact carried in a belt or shoulder holster.

For the record, I was not advocating visible carry in something other than a belt or shoulder holster. But I do know that at least one DA has publicly stated that as long as the gun is in a belt or shoulder holster it does not need to be worn to be OK under 30.07. Driving with it on the passenger seat would be "on or about" the LTC holder's body in that sense.

[rotor]

This is a silly post with silly answers but for those serious enough to think about it, it is not enough to show part of your gun to make it legal open carry as the gun must be in a belt holster or shoulder holster. So for those that carry otherwise, women with a purse or ankle holsters, showing part of your gun doesn't qualify as open carry.

Are you basing that opinion solely on the requirement that the gun needs to be carried in a belt or shoulder holster that is on or about the person of the LTC holder? If so. I think I can see the logic, but I'm not sure I fully agree. Specifically, I don't necessarily agree that the holster needs to be visible. By that logic wouldn't I be in trouble if I carried in an IWB holster where the holster was not visible at all, but the grip of the gun was visible?

The law says partially or wholly visible but was carried in a shoulder or belt holster. One can not make more out of the law than what it says. I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that a reasonable person would feel that a shoulder holster is worn on the shoulder and a belt holster is worn on the belt. An IWB belt holster that openly displayed a handgun would be legal if no 30.07 or other restriction was placed in my opinion. I would doubt that a woman carrying a handgun in a belt holster in her purse that displayed her handgun would be a legal open carry. Definitely an ankle holster would not be a legal open carry even if one strapped a belt holster to their ankle (in my opinion). One has to assume that there is some logic to legislation ( that may be the dumbest thing I ever said ).

PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER.
Text of subsection effective on Jan. 1, 2016
(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. It is an exception to the application of this subsection that the handgun was partially or wholly visible but was carried in a shoulder or belt holster by the license holder.

I think we are talking at cross purposes a bit (always a danger on internet forums). I also believe that you may be leaving out a word in in the law that you quote above. Doesn't it refer to the "gun" being wholly or partially visible and carried in a shoulder or belt holster that is on or about the person? I thought it specifically referenced the gun being visible and not the holster. I continue to think that it would not be a violation of 30.06 is the gun (and not the holster) was visible, as long as the gun was in fact carried in a belt or shoulder holster.

For the record, I was not advocating visible carry in something other than a belt or shoulder holster. But I do know that at least one DA has publicly stated that as long as the gun is in a belt or shoulder holster it does not need to be worn to be OK under 30.07. Driving with it on the passenger seat would be "on or about" the LTC holder's body in that sense.

All I did was cut and paste CHL-16. If something is left out blame DPS. Also note the law says "but was carried in a shoulder or belt holster by the license holder". I would take that to mean the license holder is carrying it and not just having it on a seat next to him. But, IANAL and may be wrong. Don't take me wrong, I am not critical of your post.

[casp625]

The preceding sentence says on or about your person doesn't mean my interpretation is correct though

[rotor]

The preceding sentence says on or about your person doesn't mean my interpretation is correct though

To me the important sentence is.. "It is an exception to the application of this subsection that the handgun was partially or wholly visible but was carried in a shoulder or belt holster by the license holder." The way I read this the license holder must carry in a shoulder or belt holster. Not have a holstered gun on a chair or seat next to him/her.

[The Annoyed Man]

And if you do enter open carrying and are told "you can't wear that in here", that will mean that you are for eternity banned from carrying on any property owned by that store, or any store with any shareholders in common with that store, even if you are later told that it's OK by the board of directors via a shareholder resolution...and public stockholder vote. You will be placed in FBI and TX DPS "rap back" system and your membership to Costco will be canceled for cause and your picture posted at the Post Office....and you will never be able to get a DoD security clearance or work at a refinery or chemical plant... and your CDL and TWIC will be revoked....

...or so I've heard.

This is ridiculous and old!

Yet we see it repeated....(at least the first line) regularly.

You left out gun free school zones.....

[ScottDLS]

Hey Boss....The ride! The ride!.... -Herve Villechaize (from Fantasy Island)

[Ike Aramba]

If I was a defense lawyer and my client had been charged with violating a 30.06 sign (where no 30.07 sign was present), then I think my first question of the prosecution's star witness would be "did you see my client's gun?" If yes, then it sounds like it wasn't really concealed in the first place.

I think my first question to my client would be if they really want to spend thousands fighting a $200 fine?

[Soccerdad1995]

If I was a defense lawyer and my client had been charged with violating a 30.06 sign (where no 30.07 sign was present), then I think my first question of the prosecution's star witness would be "did you see my client's gun?" If yes, then it sounds like it wasn't really concealed in the first place.

I think my first question to my client would be if they really want to spend thousands fighting a $200 fine?

I know. But let's imagine a fictional world where your client has been handcuffed, driven to the police station, and booked (aka "taken a ride") because they were suspected of violating a law that has a max penalty of a $200 fine.... In such an alternate reality, your client may be mad enough that they don't mind the attorney's fees.

[Soccerdad1995]

The preceding sentence says on or about your person doesn't mean my interpretation is correct though

To me the important sentence is.. "It is an exception to the application of this subsection that the handgun was partially or wholly visible but was carried in a shoulder or belt holster by the license holder." The way I read this the license holder must carry in a shoulder or belt holster. Not have a holstered gun on a chair or seat next to him/her.

So IANAL, but I think the word "carried" has a pretty broad definition here. After all, the title of 46.035 is "unlawful carrying of a firearm...". So if you are not "carrying" a gun that is not in physical contact with a part of your body, then the entire section would not apply and you would have nothing to worry about from a gun that was sitting on your passenger seat. I also draw the same inference by the inclusion of the words "on or about". If they were only talking about carrying a gun in the literal sense of the word, then how could it not be "on" your person.

Does anyone know if it is possible (within the meaning of the law) to lawfully or unlawfully "carry" a gun that is in your car, but you aren't touching it?

This actually has practical implications to me since I just installed an Alien Gear docking mount in my car. It houses a paddle holster that I put into the mount, and the holster and mount are both inches from my right knee / leg. I am planning to put a black cloth over the gun to be safe, but if it were to become visible somehow would that be a problem?