handog wrote:I was taking care of some business at a nearby government office. There was no 30.06 sign so I went on in. Even though my hand gun was holstered IWB with a long shirt covering it was somehow identified. The next thing I knew there were eight handguns and a shotgun staring me in the face.
handog wrote: 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.
What am I missing here? These sound like two different stories. I'm confused now.
Last edited by G26ster on Tue Feb 16, 2010 5:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
handog wrote: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.
So you are confirming that you were arrested for 46.035a Unlawful carry by a license holder, ie they accused you of carrying a handgun on your person and intentionally failing to conceal it. It looks like you were targeted for "printing," and you were later accused for having "the wind blow up your shirt" so to speak. You had eight handguns and a shotgun pointed in your face. I assume you were handcuffed and arrested in a very public fashion on a public street like you were some dangerous felon. Your gun and holster were seized, no telling if getting them back will be economically viable. You were hauled off to jail and Incarcerated. You were harassed. Your license has been at least suspended and confiscated with a threat of revocation. You were brought in front of a magistrate. You were up on a Class A misdemeanor. Did you hire an attorney? If not, I suspect you should have, which is another penalty that we can expect goes along with this risk of beating the rap but taking the ride. Now, what have I missed? It's not over yet either.
Is there a risk of being harassed and falsely arrested under 46.035a for printing and shirt blowing up in the wind? Yes, just like I had claimed, there certainly is.
I was told a long time ago that I can be arrested for dang near anything. It all boils down to what the DA wants to pursue. Looks like this falls right in there. And the police will say they thought he was a danger... Best of luck to ya and I don't wanna be in your shoes - even if they should be very wealthy shoes soon enough.
If ya ever make it to San Antonio, lunch on me.
Doug
LaserTex
Air Force Retired ** Life Member VFW ** NRA Member **
** Life Member AmVets ** Patriot Guard Rider **
dubya wrote: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.
This past weekend I left my beloved .45 at home and put a .38 snubby in the pocket of my motorcycle jacket because of this post. I have never had a problem with printing or keeping the .45 concealed while riding, but the jacket is a little on the short side and I don't want to take any chances. I know Handog did nothing wrong and the charges were dropped, but who wants to go through that experience! It is good to know this type of situation can happen though.
“While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.” ― Samuel Adams
03Lightningrocks wrote:You just caused me to think of another possible "issue". I am wondering what would happen if you were stopped and found carrying under Utah non-resident while your Texas was under suspension for a possible criminal reason? Might get tricky when the officer who stops you discovers your CHL is under suspension. I bet the conversation would get a bit squirrely from that point on. I have this visual of trying to esplain myself as he hand cuffs me and puts me in the back of the car.
What would the problem be?
A Texas CHL is not required to secure a Utah license, and the Utah license isn't affected by a Texas suspension.
I will tell the arresting officer that I have it on good information from some poster on the internet that everything is legit.
The cops won't care about your links. The gentleman that started this thread found himself sitting in jail. Your links won't help in this case...but thanks just the same.
The reality is...an officer that sees your CHL is suspended will likely not care what other authority you claim to carry under. He will only see it as black and white. You have a suspended Texas CHL...you are carrying a gun... He won't be looking up links on the internet. He won't be using Google. he will be arresting you.
handog wrote: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.
So you are confirming that you were arrested for 46.035a Unlawful carry by a license holder, ie they accused you of carrying a handgun on your person and intentionally failing to conceal it. It looks like you were targeted for "printing," and you were later accused for having "the wind blow up your shirt" so to speak. You had eight handguns and a shotgun pointed in your face. I assume you were handcuffed and arrested in a very public fashion on a public street like you were some dangerous felon. Your gun and holster were seized, no telling if getting them back will be economically viable. You were hauled off to jail and Incarcerated. You were harassed. Your license has been at least suspended and confiscated with a threat of revocation. You were brought in front of a magistrate. You were up on a Class A misdemeanor. Did you hire an attorney? If not, I suspect you should have, which is another penalty that we can expect goes along with this risk of beating the rap but taking the ride. Now, what have I missed? It's not over yet either.
Is there a risk of being harassed and falsely arrested under 46.035a for printing and shirt blowing up in the wind? Yes, just like I had claimed, there certainly is.
OK, I stand corrected. My original interpretation was that he HAD been made carrying, but they were after him because he was carrying at a government meeting, not that he had exposed his CCW. My bad.
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member
handog wrote: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.
So you are confirming that you were arrested for 46.035a Unlawful carry by a license holder, ie they accused you of carrying a handgun on your person and intentionally failing to conceal it. It looks like you were targeted for "printing," and you were later accused for having "the wind blow up your shirt" so to speak. You had eight handguns and a shotgun pointed in your face. I assume you were handcuffed and arrested in a very public fashion on a public street like you were some dangerous felon. Your gun and holster were seized, no telling if getting them back will be economically viable. You were hauled off to jail and Incarcerated. You were harassed. Your license has been at least suspended and confiscated with a threat of revocation. You were brought in front of a magistrate. You were up on a Class A misdemeanor. Did you hire an attorney? If not, I suspect you should have, which is another penalty that we can expect goes along with this risk of beating the rap but taking the ride. Now, what have I missed? It's not over yet either.
Is there a risk of being harassed and falsely arrested under 46.035a for printing and shirt blowing up in the wind? Yes, just like I had claimed, there certainly is.
OK, I stand corrected. My original interpretation was that he HAD been made carrying, but they were after him because he was carrying at a government meeting, not that he had exposed his CCW. My bad.
I was under the same impression Keith. I don't mind saying that this situation is bugging me out just a little. Maybe I would better describe it by saying my sense of security about carrying without LEO harassment has been reduced.
In Podunk, we don't have these sort of problems. Everybody knows everybody has a gun of some sort and besides that, who wants to shoot their third cousin, twice removed on their mother's side?
Oldgringo wrote:In Podunk, we don't have these sort of problems. Everybody knows everybody has a gun of some sort and besides that, who wants to shoot their third cousin, twice removed on their mother's side?
We have the opposite problem in the DFW area. We have gang bangers here who aren't sure about who their daddy is and will shoot anybody.
03Lightningrocks wrote:I don't mind saying that this situation is bugging me out just a little. Maybe I would better describe it by saying my sense of security about carrying without LEO harassment has been reduced.
I'm right there with you. This definitely makes me glad I swapped my Kahr P9 with my Taurus 24/7 as my carry weapon. That Kahr is a beauty, I almost forget it's there, and feels like a toy compared to the Taurus. But still, this story definitely gets me second guessing myself. For example, twice in the last week I have seen Gunbusters signs at medical buildings (one very old, one very new) which give the usual non-30.06 bull, but followed by "Violators will be subject to arrest." Sure does make me think twice about them places, seeing as the owners / security guards are broadcasting their intent to call the cops first and ask questions later. Especially if the cops that show up are the sort that handog faced.
This all serves to point up what I have been saying on here for some time.
It doesn't matter what YOU think the law says, or what WE think the law says, or what sign is posted, or what the wording is, if a cop wants to give you a ride, based on what HE thinks the law says, you are going to get the ride, and have a hard time getting your gun and CHL back.
SO - I will continue to pass out my little card, and write to store management and corporate, and campaign for changes, MEANINGFUL changes, to the wording of the law. If we must have a law, it should be clearly written that the sign MUST be 2' x 4' AND have this exact wording, AND the letters MUST be bright red on a vibrant blue background (hey, purple stripes are in the laws) AND no "defense to prosecution" type language, make it "Non-compliant signs are not enforceable" period.
And there will still be some cops who will give you a ride, and some store owners and corporations who will see their way as the right way.
I, personally, think that each and every cop who pointed a gun at the OP should be under arrest and tried for ADW, as well as standing for civil suit, and that the Chief of the department that did not return his gun and CHL just outside of the courthouse after the judge rapped his gavel, should also be held criminally and civilly liable.
03Lightningrocks wrote:I don't mind saying that this situation is bugging me out just a little. Maybe I would better describe it by saying my sense of security about carrying without LEO harassment has been reduced.
I'm right there with you. This definitely makes me glad I swapped my Kahr P9 with my Taurus 24/7 as my carry weapon. That Kahr is a beauty, I almost forget it's there, and feels like a toy compared to the Taurus. But still, this story definitely gets me second guessing myself. For example, twice in the last week I have seen Gunbusters signs at medical buildings (one very old, one very new) which give the usual non-30.06 bull, but followed by "Violators will be subject to arrest." Sure does make me think twice about them places, seeing as the owners / security guards are broadcasting their intent to call the cops first and ask questions later. Especially if the cops that show up are the sort that handog faced.
Seriously, even though the sign is a non-compliant 30.06 sign, it is a posted sign, it is there in plain view and it is conveying somebody's intent/statement that handguns are not welcome. Does the sign apply to everybody or just unlicensed folk, do you cross the threshold with your CHL and your CCW or not? It's gut check time.
Uh Oh, this tread is going full circle back to the sign issue. I'm sorry.
It was spotted in the building. When I left the LEO fallowed me one block then stopped me. Sorry for the confusion.
sign issue. I'm sorry.