TSRA and open carry - Split from NRA and open carry

[HGWC]

More importantly, if open-carry supporters are going to claim that CHLs have been arrested for unintentional failure to conceal but have "beaten the rap," then it is incumbent on those supporters to come forward with specific examples (names, dates, etc.) of such arrests. The truth is they can't.

I agree. That would be a weak argument the way you've put it. However,the argument that we don't have anything to worry about because it's not illegal and you can find only two convictions is a non-sequitur. For example here is a quote from the DPS FAQ on the question:

"Q: What does "concealed" mean?
A: "Concealed" means that the weapon cannot be visible, and that its
presence cannot be discernible through ordinary observation. It is a
criminal offense for a license holder to carry a handgun in plain view,
or to intentionally fail to conceal the weapon."

This is apparently how a large law enforcement agency interprets the law. It's quite a bit different than the way you're insisting the law is written and intended. This says carrying in plain view or intentionally carrying in plain view is a criminal offense. It says to me they don't care about your intentions at all, only that it's easily observable that you're a man with a gun. An expensive attorney might be able to get this interpretation dismissed in court, but I'm not so confident it could keep me out of handcuffs, a ride down to the station, a night in jail, bail, and a great big check to an attorney. I think it's a legitimate concern, regardless of the technicality of the law, and that's why it's resonating so well with so many CHL holders.

Open-carry supporters are largely responsible for some percentage of CHLs worrying about unintentional failure to conceal. OpenCarry.org has a number of posts claiming this is a problem. This issue was very rarely raised prior to the open-carry movement targeting Texas for it's legislation.

They may very well make that argument on their website, but who knows? Maybe it's that DPS FAQ question above that every CHL holder got in their training material? It's not just the open carry supporters or just as a result of them that people are making this point. There is a public stigma that carrying a firearm is a criminal and immoral act. There is a legitimate fear that exposing a concealed handgun in public or private could lead to social and or legal issues. It makes you a man with a gun, and we know how that's dealt with socially and by the police. It is a legitimate concern that our little plastic card isn't enough assurance to protect us against that stigma. Repealing the ban on open carry and the laws on failure to conceal would give us more protection. Would that be enough to eliminate the concern? Probably not. Just ask all the people that have been arrested and harassed for open carrying in states where that is perfectly legal.

Neither person threatened anyone. In the McDermott case, the defendant put his pistol on the dash of his Suburban to scare a woman away from his vehicle. He never said a word to her and he never pointed the gun at her. He was only convicted of intentionally failing to conceal, not assault.

Both cases involve a physical threat. We don't need this law specific to handguns only. If I do the same thing with a shotgun, long rifle, or a knife, it's perfectly legal? What should be illegal here was what these two did to the other people, not that they did it in particular with a handgun. The complaint was that they threatened them with a weapon. This isn't about how they wore the handgun, which is all the legislature can regulate under our state constitution.

The bottom line is that OpenCarry.org and some open-carry supporters have repeatedly claimed that unintentional failure to conceal can "get a CHL in trouble." As long as this claim has been made, I have not seen one single incident documented, not that one or only a few incidents would justify open-carry. The fact is, OpenCarry.org's claim is not true. Why is it acceptable for OpenCarry.org to make false claims about risks, but it is reprehensible when the Brady Campaign does precisely the same thing?

Their claim may very well be untrue, but your non-sequitur argument against it doesn't demonstrate that it's false. That their argument is unsupported by evidence or even that it misconstrues the legal technicality of the law does not make it false. To demonstrate that we have nothing to worry about, you need to provide evidence that no one in fourteen years this law has been in effect has been harassed, arrested, tried, or convicted. You've admitted that you can't even assure us, for a fact, that no one has been convicted for unintentional concealment. It may not be a strong or well supported argument, but it's not a fact that it's false.

Again, people should support open-carry if they feel it is appropriate, but they should leave the boogeyman scare tactics out of the debate.

We're talking about real people that call real cops with real handcuffs, not boogeymen. Anything we can do to better protect our rights should very well be a part of the debate.

[Hos]

If you are openly carrying and a person decides you gave them an evil look, it could be construed you threatened them. If they can't see the weapon, and they never know you have it, they will probably go on about their business; with the weapon displayed, they will be more likely to call the police. These are REAL situations I am familiar with, not theorized 'what if's'.

See link to put further emphasis this quote and some LEO's response.

Great points. I wear a t-shirt and shorts in the heat and carry IWB, it's not a problem, feels fine, and doesn't print as long as the t-shirt hasn't shrunk up. Let's focus on expanding our chl rights for now.

I wonder if these other states saw in increase in 30.06 signs after their chl turned into open carry? There's already enough restrictions on chl carry, I could see public pressure make businesses put up more signs as a backlash, who knows.

[anygunanywhere]

I wonder if these other states saw in increase in 30.06 signs after their chl turned into open carry? There's already enough restrictions on chl carry, I could see public pressure make businesses put up more signs as a backlash, who knows.

Most if not all other states that have open carry never made open carry illegal like Texas did. Legalizing OC was not an issue as the citizens of those states had the right to do so.

When those states made CHL must issue and relaxed the requirements OC did not affect the number of barred places.

Texas is the issue and the issue has always been that our state constitution infringes on our rights.

Anygunanywhere

[Charles L. Cotton]

. . . For example here is a quote from the DPS FAQ on the question:

"Q: What does "concealed" mean?
A: "Concealed" means that the weapon cannot be visible, and that its
presence cannot be discernible through ordinary observation. It is a
criminal offense for a license holder to carry a handgun in plain view,
or to intentionally fail to conceal the weapon."

This is apparently how a large law enforcement agency interprets the law. It's quite a bit different than the way you're insisting the law is written and intended.

DPS clearly said failure to conceal has to be intentional. I am a CHL instructor and DPS teaches instructors that only intentional failure to conceal is unlawful. On my last renewal, it was even pointed out that wind blowing your jacket open or a bulge under your shirt does not constitute "intentional failure to conceal."

. . . It makes you a man with a gun, and we know how that's dealt with socially and by the police. It is a legitimate concern that our little plastic card isn't enough assurance to protect us against that stigma.

There's nothing "legitimate" about it. The only two reported cases dealing with TPC §46.035(a) were cases where the CHL intentionally exposed their guns to scare someone. (Yes, the second defendant denied doing that, but the jury believed the witnesses, not the CHL.) I don't know of a single case where a CHL was arrested, much less convicted, because his gun was accidentally exposed when the wind blew up his coat, or when he reached for the top shelf in the grocery store. How can you seriously argue that unintentional exposure is a "legitimate concern" when it hasn't happened in 14 years and currently 300,000 CHLs? That an absurd position to take.

Repealing the ban on open carry and the laws on failure to conceal would give us more protection. Would that be enough to eliminate the concern? Probably not. Just ask all the people that have been arrested and harassed for open carrying in states where that is perfectly legal.

Thank you!!! That's quite an admission and one that I don't recall being made by any other open-carry supporter. On the contrary, the mantra preached by open-carry supporters is that it will be nothing but peace, love and harmony if open-carry passes. Police won't hassle anyone, the public will quickly view people carrying guns openly as fine, upstanding people, so they won't be making those "man with a gun" complaints. It's refreshing to see an open-carry supporter admitting that openly-carrying a handgun isn't going to be a walk in the park.

That their argument is unsupported by evidence or even that it misconstrues the legal technicality of the law does not make it false.

Are you serious!? I hope I never have you on one of my juries.

To demonstrate that we have nothing to worry about, you need to provide evidence that no one in fourteen years this law has been in effect has been harassed, arrested, tried, or convicted. You've admitted that you can't even assure us, for a fact, that no one has been convicted for unintentional concealment.

That's not the way it works. You and your fellow open-carry supporters are arguing that the threat exists, so get out and find cases where people have been arrested for unintentional failure to conceal, then show us if the DA accepted charges, then show us if they were convicted. You can't shift the burden to me by making an unfounded, absurd argument, then sit back and force me to prove a negative by saying, "prove me wrong." Sit back and watch the fireworks if some open-carry supporter testifies this way in a House or Senate hearing.

Again, people should support open-carry if they feel it is appropriate, but they should leave the boogeyman scare tactics out of the debate.

We're talking about real people that call real cops with real handcuffs, not boogeymen.

Then give us some specific examples! Oops, I forgot, you can't. This argument sounds like it came from a 15th century witch hunter.

Chas.

[HGWC]

This was posted by Blinn77 today on Opencarry.org. Not illegal? No convictions? Nothing to worry about? No subjectivity in the word intentional? Let me know Charles when you can assure us that no one has or ever will be harassed, arrested, charged, or convicted for "unintentional" failure to conceal. I also noticed earlier that you said convictions aren't necessarily recorded unless they're appealed. Let me know when you can actually back up your claim that there have only been two convictions. Until then, I will support anyone lobbying our legislature to eliminate these infringements on our rights.


"Posted: Fri Feb 13th, 2009 03:01 am

I know this is not a "open carry" story, but it does involve carrying a handgun in Texas with a CHL (concealed handgun license).

As I am sure many of you fellow Texans probably have CHL's, I thought you might find this interesting.

I was arrested for "carrying a prohibited weapon, in a prohibited place" which is a 3rd degree felony in Texas.

I was riding in a crew cab truck with some friends, and they pulled over into a large parking lot off the road to try to find a lighter he had dropped on the floor board of his truck. Well once he stopped we all got out to try to find his lighter since two of the passengers were smokers (cigs not the other stuff) and were having nicotine fits.

While standing here in this dark parking lot around this truck, a Pct. 4 Harris County Constable drove by and took notice of us. He decided to pull into the parking lot and see what we were up to.

He asked what we were doing and we explained and he asked to see ID's from all of us. Well since I was carrying my Glock 23 on me, I gave him my D.L. and my C.H.L. as required by law.

He went to his car to run our ID's and I am sure check for warrants. Well after about 8 to 10 minutes, 2 other police vehicles showed up. He returned to me and asked me to turn around a place my hands on the truck. He then removed my handgun off me, and told me "do you realize this is a school parking lot?". In which I replied "no I did not, but I do not see how that is relevant". He then replied "your carrying a handgun on school grounds". I replied "I understand that, but school premises does not apply to a parking lot for a conceal handgun license holder".

He then laughed at me and told me "I think I know the law better then you". In which I said "well in all respect sir, I am T.C.L.E.O.S.E. (Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education) certified just like you, as I graduated from H.C.C. Police Academy and past my TCLEOSE test. I am also a Criminal Justice major and I am very much aware of my rights and what the law says. Maybe you are mistaken, and we can look it up in your Texas Penal Code book."

He laughed at me again, and hand cuffed me, then placed me in the back of his cruiser. I was taken to Cypresswood Pct. 4 holding cell, and then later transferred by bus to downtown Harris County Jail. I had to post a $5,000 bail and then immediately headed for home where I grabbed my Texas Penal Code book from when I was in the police academy.

After a little research I found Texas Penal Code 46.035, "carrying a prohibited weapon in a prohibited place by a CHL holder". See they were trying to charge me with a separate crime, that did not and COULD NOT be charged to me, because I am in fact a "CHL holder".

Now low and behold at the end of the statue it says in big print and I quote:

3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a
building. The term does not include any public or private driveway,
street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other
parking area.

So armed with this new found knowledge I went into court my first day (with no attorney) and asked to speak to the district attorney who was in charge of prosecuting me in my case. I tried to show her my penal code book and ask her about the statue, in which she replied very much like the officer with "I went to law school. I am quite aware of what the law says", and blew me off.

When the session started she even told the judge "the prosecution is ready to proceed" which in my book means she had read over the case, and felt she had a firm case here.

Well the judge asked me where my attorney was, and when I told him I did not have one, he quickly advised me to be quite and said we would reset the court date until I could find counsel. I tried to explain to him I did not need a attorney and he again warned me of how serious of a matter this is. I ended up having to say "well I know I have a right to represent myself, so if that is what needs to be done for me to be able to speak, then I will take that right". At that point I am assuming he took me more serious and asked me what it was I wanted to show him.

He looked at my penal code book and read the high lighted section I quoted above. Then closed the book and looked at the front cover. It was a 2 yr old edition, so he asked the district attorney to see her copy of the penal code (a newer copy). He checked in her copy to make sure the law had not been revised in the last two years, then asked the D.A., "can you explain this" in which time she was happy to look at the statue for him.

Well after reading it, she kind of stood there dumb founded and quite. The judge called a five minute recess and told the D.A. he wanted to speak to her in his chambers. Five minutes later they returned and he said "having looked at this new found situation, the case is dismissed".

Now since this is already running long, I will skip quite a few steps and say it was not over there. My Glock was taken as "evidence" for my case. I was told I couldn't have it back by Pct. 4 Constables (where it was locked up in their evidence room) because the D.A. had to sign off on something, even though I had paperwork showing the case was dismissed.

Later a friend's wife, who works downtown in that same criminal court building spoke with the officer for that court room, who spoke with that D.A., who told him to relay the message back down to me that and I quote "hell will freeze over before he gets that handgun back".

Fast forward a year later, and many, many calls later, and leaving about 50 voice mails on the Corporal who was in charge of the evidence room, he called me back and told me I could have my pistol back if I promised to stop calling him. I went up there, signed some piece of paper saying I got the pistol back, and he brought it out to me. I don't know if he just figured the D.A. would surely have forgot about it since it was a year later, or what, but on that day, hell must have froze over.

Also I thought that was the end of that whole ordeal (this happened in March of 2006), and now that I have finished my degree in Criminal Justice, and am trying to go into law enforcement, I have now found out that most departments won't look at me because I was CHARGED with a felony. Yup, that is correct. I have been told that I will probably have to go spend $1,000 to a attorney to go to court and try to get that event expunged of my record.

So all in all, this "know it all" officer who was obviously not very knowledgeable of the law, cost me thousands of dollars, a couple days in jail, and possibly my future career in law enforcement.""

[Keith B]

Not sure how licensed open carry would have helped him in this case. He was not charged with failure to conceal, he was charged (wrongly) with UCW because he was on school grounds.

He also fell victim to the adage, "A person who represents himself has a fool for a lawyer." I have been there done that personally on a misdemeanor violation in Federal Kangaroo Court. Had he had a lawyer, he might have been able to get the charge dropped prior to going to court and not had it on his record, as well as gotten his pistol back.

And, even though this was posted, do we have a record on the case for this?? A lot of folks can make up stories. If he truly was TCLEOSE he should have been smart enough to know to get a lawyer. There has to be a record. If this was very long ago, it could have been under the Chuck Rosenthal era and who knows what would happen then.

[HGWC]

My point is that just because no one has been convicted does not mean we have nothing to worry about. Getting arrested, having to make bail, and having to hire an attorney is plenty enough of a loss of freedom to be very very worried about, even if there is no conviction. Granted we are always subject to false arrest. Therefore, we have to be vigilant to restrain the government. I support any effort to repeal any or all of these unconstitutional infringements of our rights. Until they're all repealed, and in fact until we amend our constitution back to what we wrote at our independence and our statehood, we all have something to worry about. The Texas legislature should not ever be allowed to infringe our fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

[Keith B]

My point is that just because no one has been convicted does not mean we have nothing to worry about. Getting arrested, having to make bail, and having to hire an attorney is plenty enough of a loss of freedom to be very very worried about, even if there is no conviction. Granted we are always subject to false arrest. Therefore, we have to be vigilant to restrain the government. I support any effort to repeal any or all of these unconstitutional infringements of our rights. Until they're all repealed, and in fact until we amend our constitution back to what we wrote at our independence and our statehood, we all have something to worry about. The Texas legislature should not ever be allowed to infringe our fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

So to your point, how would open carry help that? As I stated before, they can still arrest you for 'displaying a weapon in a threatening manner' or 'brandishing' if someone wants to complain that you were threatening them. If the gun is concealed, then no one knows it is there and they won't be able to tell them you have a gun (unless you expose it to them.)

[HGWC]

So to your point, how would open carry help that? As I stated before, they can still arrest you for 'displaying a weapon in a threatening manner' or 'brandishing' if someone wants to complain that you were threatening them.

It's just one less excuse they have to haul you off to jail just because you possess a gun. It's just one more unconstitutional infringement of our rights that we need to get rid of. Is it the most important one? Is it one that should be addressed in this legislative session? You guys have made some good points there. Should we worry about it at all because Charles assures us there's only two convictions and he assures us he knows how "intentional" is interpreted by the legislature, police, DAs, and the courts? That's still a non-sequitur.

If the gun is concealed, then no one knows it is there and they won't be able to tell them you have a gun (unless you expose it to them.)

That's right, and this guy sure shouldn't have exposed, ie confessed, it to this cop. The law doesn't say a CHL has to reveal he's actually carrying a handgun. Many people have criticized me for worrying about confessing to firearm possession. Surely I shouldn't have to worry about that if it's not against the law right? This is why I'll identify with the CHL license, but when it comes to the question "are you in possession of a firearm," I'll politely refrain from answering until I have that attorney present, despite all the assurances I've gotten that I have nothing to worry about.

[HGWC]

Here's another one I read today.

Individual brings weapons on campus in violation of state law
http://media.www.westernoregonjournal.c ... 6492.shtml

"There is one small problem. The student has a valid Oregon concealed handgun license. He is statutorily exempt from the prohibitions on gun possession in public buildings."

http://www.oregonconcealedcarry.com/ind ... topic=4606

So, if and when you guys are successful at getting concealed carry on campus passed, looks like we still have a few things to worry about. Looks like until we make it crystal clear to our government that possession of a firearm in public is our fundamental right, we have plenty to worry about. While we allow all of these unconstitutional infringements to remain on the the books, we allow our state constitution to stand with that 1876 caveat, and we allow our rights to continue to be infringed under the US 2nd and 14th amendments, we haven't made it crystal clear.

[KC5AV]

It's just one less excuse they have to haul you off to jail just because you possess a gun.

Not really. If the gun is openly carried, it's still just as easy for someone to say you threatened them with your gun, or for someone to call in "Man with a gun".

It's just one more unconstitutional infringement of our rights that we need to get rid of. Is it the most important one?

I won't argue with that.

[HGWC]

Not really. If the gun is openly carried, it's still just as easy for someone to say you threatened them with your gun, or for someone to call in "Man with a gun".

It's one less excuse even if they have three more ready to go. We need to get rid of all of them, and one thing I forgot to mention. We need to make it crystal clear to our judges that they need to overturn the state decisions that let all these laws stand and enable the legislature to continue on at it's whim to ignore our constitution. Regulation on wearing with a view to prevent crime does not and has never meant prohibition. We need court cases that make it crystal clear to the legislature, executive, and all anti-gun do-gooders in the state that these infringements will be a very costly affair. Until then we all have plenty to worry about.

[KC5AV]

The next question is who will step up to be the test case? I don't have the cash.

[Charles L. Cotton]

This is pathetic. It has nothing to do with "unintentional failure to conceal." It's a story, if true, of a LEO and a prosecutor who didn't know the statutory definition of "premises" as it applies to school grounds. This is no more relevant to "unintentional failure to conceal" than a warrant raid against the wrong house, an unfounded arrest for drug possession, or any other mistake a LEO can make.

I renew my request, show me proof of people being arrested, charged, or convicted for unintentional failure to conceal. With 55,000 "signatures" on the OpenCarry.org petition, radio ads, billboards, TV, radio and newspaper interviews and thousands of posts on Internet forums, not one person claiming to have been wrongfully arrested has come forward or identified. This speaks volumes, whether you are willing to acknowledge it or not.

Chas.

This was posted by Blinn77 today on Opencarry.org. Not illegal? No convictions? Nothing to worry about? No subjectivity in the word intentional? Let me know Charles when you can assure us that no one has or ever will be harassed, arrested, charged, or convicted for "unintentional" failure to conceal. I also noticed earlier that you said convictions aren't necessarily recorded unless they're appealed. Let me know when you can actually back up your claim that there have only been two convictions. Until then, I will support anyone lobbying our legislature to eliminate these infringements on our rights.

"Posted: Fri Feb 13th, 2009 03:01 am

I know this is not a "open carry" story, but it does involve carrying a handgun in Texas with a CHL (concealed handgun license).

As I am sure many of you fellow Texans probably have CHL's, I thought you might find this interesting.

I was arrested for "carrying a prohibited weapon, in a prohibited place" which is a 3rd degree felony in Texas.

I was riding in a crew cab truck with some friends, and they pulled over into a large parking lot off the road to try to find a lighter he had dropped on the floor board of his truck. Well once he stopped we all got out to try to find his lighter since two of the passengers were smokers (cigs not the other stuff) and were having nicotine fits.

While standing here in this dark parking lot around this truck, a Pct. 4 Harris County Constable drove by and took notice of us. He decided to pull into the parking lot and see what we were up to.

He asked what we were doing and we explained and he asked to see ID's from all of us. Well since I was carrying my Glock 23 on me, I gave him my D.L. and my C.H.L. as required by law.

He went to his car to run our ID's and I am sure check for warrants. Well after about 8 to 10 minutes, 2 other police vehicles showed up. He returned to me and asked me to turn around a place my hands on the truck. He then removed my handgun off me, and told me "do you realize this is a school parking lot?". In which I replied "no I did not, but I do not see how that is relevant". He then replied "your carrying a handgun on school grounds". I replied "I understand that, but school premises does not apply to a parking lot for a conceal handgun license holder".

He then laughed at me and told me "I think I know the law better then you". In which I said "well in all respect sir, I am T.C.L.E.O.S.E. (Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education) certified just like you, as I graduated from H.C.C. Police Academy and past my TCLEOSE test. I am also a Criminal Justice major and I am very much aware of my rights and what the law says. Maybe you are mistaken, and we can look it up in your Texas Penal Code book."

He laughed at me again, and hand cuffed me, then placed me in the back of his cruiser. I was taken to Cypresswood Pct. 4 holding cell, and then later transferred by bus to downtown Harris County Jail. I had to post a $5,000 bail and then immediately headed for home where I grabbed my Texas Penal Code book from when I was in the police academy.

After a little research I found Texas Penal Code 46.035, "carrying a prohibited weapon in a prohibited place by a CHL holder". See they were trying to charge me with a separate crime, that did not and COULD NOT be charged to me, because I am in fact a "CHL holder".

Now low and behold at the end of the statue it says in big print and I quote:

3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a
building. The term does not include any public or private driveway,
street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other
parking area.

So armed with this new found knowledge I went into court my first day (with no attorney) and asked to speak to the district attorney who was in charge of prosecuting me in my case. I tried to show her my penal code book and ask her about the statue, in which she replied very much like the officer with "I went to law school. I am quite aware of what the law says", and blew me off.

When the session started she even told the judge "the prosecution is ready to proceed" which in my book means she had read over the case, and felt she had a firm case here.

Well the judge asked me where my attorney was, and when I told him I did not have one, he quickly advised me to be quite and said we would reset the court date until I could find counsel. I tried to explain to him I did not need a attorney and he again warned me of how serious of a matter this is. I ended up having to say "well I know I have a right to represent myself, so if that is what needs to be done for me to be able to speak, then I will take that right". At that point I am assuming he took me more serious and asked me what it was I wanted to show him.

He looked at my penal code book and read the high lighted section I quoted above. Then closed the book and looked at the front cover. It was a 2 yr old edition, so he asked the district attorney to see her copy of the penal code (a newer copy). He checked in her copy to make sure the law had not been revised in the last two years, then asked the D.A., "can you explain this" in which time she was happy to look at the statue for him.

Well after reading it, she kind of stood there dumb founded and quite. The judge called a five minute recess and told the D.A. he wanted to speak to her in his chambers. Five minutes later they returned and he said "having looked at this new found situation, the case is dismissed".

Now since this is already running long, I will skip quite a few steps and say it was not over there. My Glock was taken as "evidence" for my case. I was told I couldn't have it back by Pct. 4 Constables (where it was locked up in their evidence room) because the D.A. had to sign off on something, even though I had paperwork showing the case was dismissed.

Later a friend's wife, who works downtown in that same criminal court building spoke with the officer for that court room, who spoke with that D.A., who told him to relay the message back down to me that and I quote "heck will freeze over before he gets that handgun back".

Fast forward a year later, and many, many calls later, and leaving about 50 voice mails on the Corporal who was in charge of the evidence room, he called me back and told me I could have my pistol back if I promised to stop calling him. I went up there, signed some piece of paper saying I got the pistol back, and he brought it out to me. I don't know if he just figured the D.A. would surely have forgot about it since it was a year later, or what, but on that day, heck must have froze over.

Also I thought that was the end of that whole ordeal (this happened in March of 2006), and now that I have finished my degree in Criminal Justice, and am trying to go into law enforcement, I have now found out that most departments won't look at me because I was CHARGED with a felony. Yup, that is correct. I have been told that I will probably have to go spend $1,000 to a attorney to go to court and try to get that event expunged of my record.

So all in all, this "know it all" officer who was obviously not very knowledgeable of the law, cost me thousands of dollars, a couple days in jail, and possibly my future career in law enforcement.""

[Charles L. Cotton]

My point is that just because no one has been convicted does not mean we have nothing to worry about. Getting arrested, having to make bail, and having to hire an attorney is plenty enough of a loss of freedom to be very very worried about, even if there is no conviction.

But you cannot document CHLs being "arrested, having to make bail, and having to hire an attorney." What you have admitted is that people who are carrying openly in states were it is legal are "being arrested and harassed[!]" So you tell us to support open-carry that, by your own admission, has resulted in "arrest[s] and harass[ment]" to avoid the threat of being arrested for "unintentional failure to conceal," a risk you have repeatedly failed to document.

Now there's a plan!

Chas.