concealed means concealed?

[Tic Tac]

If you are a 2nd Amendment absolutist because you are a constitutional absolutist (like me), and you believe that the 2nd Amendment absolutely guarantees your right to carry regardless of what the law says, then you cannot deny that a property owner has the absolute right to be the sole determiner of what they will or won't allow from visitors to their property,

Property includes parking lots.

[The Annoyed Man]

If you are a 2nd Amendment absolutist because you are a constitutional absolutist (like me), and you believe that the 2nd Amendment absolutely guarantees your right to carry regardless of what the law says, then you cannot deny that a property owner has the absolute right to be the sole determiner of what they will or won't allow from visitors to their property,

Property includes parking lots.

Yes it does.

Mind you, I am conflicted about this stuff. I just find that if I want to carry, and I do, then I have to admit to myself that I am a hypocrite when it comes to property rights.

[bdickens]

In my mind, a restaurant owner has a complete right to refuse admission to anyone who is shoeless, shirtless, in shorts, or not wearing a tie, etc., etc., etc., including anyone who is carrying a gun. If he posts a sign at the door saying "Nobody carrying a concealed firearm under the authority of a CHL is permitted on these premises," it is not compliant with the law, but the owner's intent is absolutely clear. He or she has clearly communicated that you are not welcome with your gun. Now, would I walk past that sign? Yes, because the law does not assess a penalty for doing so. But that DOES make me a disrespector of the property owner's rights, IF I hold an absolutist view of the Constitution. I am not a legal hypocrite, but I AM a constitutional hypocrite.

I have to disagree with you on this. There was a thread recently viewtopic.php?f=7&t=66766&hilit=cash+america#p819966" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; where someone indicated that he received a communication from a business indicating that they knowingly posted a non-compliant 30.06 sign for the benefit of the unwary.

Texas law explicitly stipulates exactly how a property owner may clearly communicate that law-abiding citizens are not welcome with their lawfully carried sidearms. It's really no secret. The law is there, it is explicitly clear and no effort is made to hide it.

[bdickens]

Almost every topic I read through that asks "can i carry in blah, blah, blah..." someone or multiple people chime in and say those three magic words..."concealed means concealed." Please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm taking this to mean even if the place is posted with the correct sign verbiage, go ahead and carry anyway? The idea being that if your firearm is concealed no one will know that you're carrying anyway and so forth?

Well, what happens if you do get "outed" or worse case scenario you actually need to use your weapon in a defensive scenario? What then?

Please correct me if I'm taking "concealed means concealed" in the wrong way


good day

It's kind of like "don't ask, don't tell." Certainly, no one here would be advocating breaking the law.

What it means is don't overly concern yourself about not seeing a compliant sign or what someone may or may not do if they think you do have a gun and you have not been given effective notice. If no one sees it, no one can complain about it.

[android]

If you are a 2nd Amendment absolutist because you are a constitutional absolutist (like me), and you believe that the 2nd Amendment absolutely guarantees your right to carry regardless of what the law says, then you cannot deny that a property owner has the absolute right to be the sole determiner of what they will or won't allow from visitors to their property,

Property includes parking lots.

Yes it does.

Mind you, I am conflicted about this stuff. I just find that if I want to carry, and I do, then I have to admit to myself that I am a hypocrite when it comes to property rights.

No rights are absolute, but I believe personal rights are greater than property rights when you decide to interact with the public for business purposes. And if you open your property to THE PUBLIC either inviting them onto your property as customers or employees, then THE PUBLIC can regulate how you interact with the public via laws and business regulations.

While the US Constitution denies the government certain powers and all other powers are retained by the individual or the state, neither the US or any state constitution provide for unregulated business.

[Chuck 500]

Here is another take.

While the thread has a lot of good info on where to carry or not and what is "notice" or not, I thought the original topic was going to be degrees of concealment. For example, a police detective will carry his side arm OWB under a sport coat. If the coat flaps open revealing the arm he is OK because "casual concealment" is OK for him. If the same happens to me, I may be in violation. As a civilian I have to take greater care to avoid unintentional display of my gun.

After all, as law abiding citizens, we do wish to unnecessarily alarm innocent passers by.

[iAmSam]

After all, as law abiding citizens, we do wish to unnecessarily alarm innocent passers by.

I agree but a holstered gun doesn't unnecessarily alarm innocents or the police would conceal. It's all driven by anti gun prejudice and it's a sad state of affairs when Texans are less tolerant about citizens guns than some Yankee states.

[bdickens]

Here is another take.

While the thread has a lot of good info on where to carry or not and what is "notice" or not, I thought the original topic was going to be degrees of concealment. For example, a police detective will carry his side arm OWB under a sport coat. If the coat flaps open revealing the arm he is OK because "casual concealment" is OK for him. If the same happens to me, I may be in violation. As a civilian I have to take greater care to avoid unintentional display of my gun.

After all, as law abiding citizens, we do wish to unnecessarily alarm innocent passers by.

In violation of what?

[Jaguar]

Here is another take.

While the thread has a lot of good info on where to carry or not and what is "notice" or not, I thought the original topic was going to be degrees of concealment. For example, a police detective will carry his side arm OWB under a sport coat. If the coat flaps open revealing the arm he is OK because "casual concealment" is OK for him. If the same happens to me, I may be in violation. As a civilian I have to take greater care to avoid unintentional display of my gun.

After all, as law abiding citizens, we do wish to unnecessarily alarm innocent passers by.

In violation of what?

PC §46.035(a)

[Keith B]

Don't you just love these topics that someone ELSE starts, then you get 3 pages of responses and the OP have never once shown back up to participated in the topic that they started.

[bdickens]

Why is "intentionally fails to conceal the handgun" so hard to understand?

[quote]PC §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 fails to conceal the handgun.

[/quohttp://www.txdps.state.tx.us/internetforms/forms/chl-16.pdfte]

[Jaguar]

Why is "intentionally fails to conceal the handgun" so hard to understand?

PC §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 fails to conceal the handgun.

[/quohttp://www.txdps.state.tx.us/internetforms/forms/chl-16.pdfte]

Easy to understand, but a difference of opinions between you and law enforcement could occur.

Say you have a jacket blow open. You say it’s an accident, the officer says it is an intentional act. Who will the court believe? Don't know, but it could cost you a lot of money to find out.

[bdickens]

In the history of CHL in Texas, it has happened one time that I'm aware of and the guy ended up getting off. The story is detailed somewhere on these pages. Someone will find it.

I choose to concerm myself with more likely scenarios, like getting hit on the head by a meteor. That is why I wear a helmet everywhere I go.

[Jaguar]

Did I sound like I'm concerned? I apologize if I did.

I was just pointing out the law, not stating that I believe it is enforced with any enthusiast fanaticism. I concern myself little with concealment - if my shirt is covering it, I'm cool with it.

[cb1000rider]

In the history of CHL in Texas, it has happened one time that I'm aware of and the guy ended up getting off. The story is detailed somewhere on these pages. Someone will find it.

Handdog. I don't consider $25000 in legal costs "getting off". Most likely it would have been much less expensive if he had just paid it or pleaded it down.
Reminder: the officer that arrested him indicated that the failure was intentional.

That's the only case we've got documented on here. I'm sure we've got some attorneys that could provide us Lexus Nexus examples.. and Maybe a few Leos that could look up similar charges.

That's the only one we know of that has gone end to end court...

It's a problem. It's a problem that I hope SB299 will help with.